Giving as Good as They Get? Organization and Employee Expectations of Ethical Business Practice

Abstract

Corporate malpractice and malfeasance on an unprecedented scale have brought ethical issues to the fore and accentuated demands from activists, governments, and the public for greater corporate social responsibility (CSR). The predominant response of researchers and policymakers has been to focus on the external impact of business operations and the merits of regulation or persuasion in achieving more responsible practice in these areas. In this article, we focus on a less well explored aspect of CSR, namely the evaluation of an organization's CSR activities by its internal stakeholders (i.e., employees). Salient CSR literature is reviewed to differentiate between CSR and ethical business practice (EBP), conceptualizing the latter as the internal manifestation of CSR as represented by an organization's values and vision, strategy and policy, systems and procedures, and people management practices. This article assesses organizational espousal of EBP in three ways: how successfully it is communicated to employees, how closely espousal aligns with employee expectation, and how this evaluation impacts on employee commitment. Our research approach aligns with and extends previous work in this area that identifies the likelihood of a “false consensus bias” by managers in assuming congruence between organization espousal of EBP and employee expectation. A conceptual model is offered to explain possible employee responses to an organization's EBP. This relates organization espousal of EBP to employee assessment of its salience to identify three positions on commitment that employees can adopt—abrogated, continuance, and affective commitment—together with their likely behavioral implications. The analysis generates a series of research questions and related areas of exploration to empirically test the conceptual model.

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

“…Contrarily, our results tend to support the qualitative works by Mason and Simmons () and Slack et al (). The former hints that workers develop attitudinal changes when they experience a match between CSR and a firm’s vision, strategy, and practices.…”

“…As long as CSR initiatives are strategic, and therefore are deeply embedded into the company’s mission, goals, and overall business model so they address priority stakeholders’ demands, in employees’ eyes the work performed can become an extension of the firm’s contribution to society (Aguinis & Glavas, in press; Bauman & Skitka, ; Glavas & Kelley, ). As we asserted before through cue consistency theory, congruent signals derived from strategic CSR make more sense to individuals, and thus are perceived as meaningful (e.g., Mason & Simmons, ; McShane & Cunningham, ). Concretely, we posit that if employees observe a high level of strategy‐CSR fit, and hence their organization is improving the general well‐being through these activities, for them this could constitute a convincing and rightful message that might lead them to sense that their labor is contributing to this end.…”

“…As long as CSR initiatives are strategic, and therefore are deeply embedded into the company's mission, goals, and overall business model so they address priority stakeholders' demands, in employees' eyes the work performed can become an extension of the firm's contribution to society (Aguinis & Glavas, in press;Bauman & Skitka, 2012;Glavas & Kelley, 2014). As we asserted before through cue consistency theory, congruent signals derived from strategic CSR make more sense to individuals, and thus are perceived as meaningful (e.g., Mason & Simmons, 2013;McShane & Cunningham, 2012).…”

“…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, ).…”

“…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.…”