Congruence in Corporate Social Responsibility: Connecting the Identity and Behavior of Employers and Employees

Abstract

The multi-disciplinary interest in social responsibility on the part of individuals and organizations over the past 30 years has generated several descriptors of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and employee social responsibility (ESR). These descriptors focus largely on socially responsible behavior and, in some cases, on socially responsible identity. Very few authors have combined the two concepts in researching social responsibility. This situation can lead to an oversimplification of the concept of CSR, thereby impeding the examination of congruence between employees and organizations with regard to social responsibility. In this article, we connect two dimensions of social responsibility-identity and behavior-to build a Social Responsibility Matrix consisting of four patterns for classifying the social responsibility of employees and employers: Low Social Responsibility, Identity-based Social Responsibility, Behavior-based Social Responsibility, and Entwined Social Responsibility. The positioning of employers and employees on the same matrix (as determined by internal, relational, and/or external factors) is vital for assessing the level of congruence between employers and employees with regard to social responsibility and for discussing the possible outcomes for both parties. These identity and behavior-based patterns, determinants, and levels of congruence connecting employees and employers form the foundation for the multi-dimensional, dynamic ESR-CSR Congruence Model, as exemplified in a case study. This contribution enhances the existing literature and models of CSR, in addition to improving the understanding of employee-employer congruence, thereby broadening the array of possibilities for achieving positive organizational outcomes based on CSR.

Do employees value strategic CSR? A tale of affective organizational commitment and its underlying mechanisms

“…Also in Phase 2 (Figure ), we find that organizational identification is a key path in rising employees’ AOC. We hence coincide with Haski‐Leventhal et al’s () notion of “entwined social responsibility,” in which individual and company’s identities overlap to form a positive sensation of identification. Consistent cues from strategic CSR convey a convincing message not only for workers, but also for third parties that value these type of activities (Bartels et al, ; Carmeli, ), causing employees to feel “as one” with the organization.…”

“…In this sense, work meaningfulness should lead to not only more involvement with the organization, but as individuals’ perception of significant work overlaps with their own personal values regarding their views on society, then positive attitudes and particularly affective organizational commitment should arise (Rodrigo & Arenas, ). As established before, strategic CSR has the particularity that it echoes closer to associates’ views on companies’ socio‐environmental responsibilities (e.g., Haski‐Leventhal et al, ; Mirvis, ). In this sense, as long as their meaningful work can help make a better world, and in turn this is a reflection of individuals’ principles and expectations, employees begin sensing an affective bond with the organization.…”

“…Second, for employees this compelling information entails that the entity has deeply embedded CSR efforts to address the demands of priority stakeholders. As aforementioned, incipient qualitative evidence indicates that this type of CSR makes more sense to workers because it resonates closer with their personal standards and views regarding firms’ responsibilities (e.g., Collier & Esteban, ; Haski‐Leventhal et al, ; Mason & Simmons, ).…”

“…If a socially valued characteristic (i.e., due to strategy‐CSR fit) affects their self‐image and self‐esteem, it is likely that these positive feelings will affect how strongly they identify with the organization (De Roeck & Delobbe, ; Kim et al, ). This occurs for two reasons: first, because the positive sentiments that arise when working for a socially reputed entity are deemed rewarding (De Roeck et al, ; Haski‐Leventhal et al, ). Second, because in this process employees may experience an overlap between the company’s and their own social identity, thus feeling “as one” (Farooq et al, ; Rodrigo & Arenas, ; Vough, ).…”

“…This is because micro‐CSR works have highlighted that not every type of socio‐environmental initiative necessarily influences employees. Qualitative evidence suggests that employee engagement is more effective when an alignment between CSR and firm attributes (e.g., strategy, processes) is sensed (e.g., Haski‐Leventhal et al, ; Mason & Simmons, ; Mirvis, ; Slack, Corlett, & Morris, ). Despite these findings, no solid conceptual framework or evidence upholds that strategic CSR affects organizational commitment.…”