Understanding employee responses to COVID-19: a behavioral corporate social responsibility perspective

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this study is to critically synthesize and integrate conceptual and empirical research on the behavioral perspective on corporate social responsibility (CSR) and explain why it is useful and necessary, especially in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. The authors explain why CSR can result in both positive and negative outcomes and provide future research directions and recommendations for practice and policymaking. Design/methodology/approach This study focuses on critical literature review and synthesis. Findings CSR policies in response to COVID-19 are created by organizations but are implemented by individual employees. The way employees perceive and react to CSR actions are key determinants of CSR’s implementation and success. CSR can be embedded within or peripheral to a firm’s core functioning. While embedded CSR is linked to several positive outcomes if correctly implemented together with employees, peripheral CSR is linked to “the dark side” of CSR and can result in negative employee outcomes. Practical implications Using the backdrop of the COVID-19 pandemic, the authors detail types of CSR actions that governments and organizations can implement and their relative effectiveness; why “one size fits all” top-down CSR does not work; how firms can use human resource management practices to re-engage employees through finding meaning in work; and the “dark side” of CSR. Social implications Using the backdrop of the COVID-19 pandemic, the authors detail types of CSR actions that governments and organizations can implement and their relative effectiveness; why “one size fits all” top-down CSR does not work; how firms can use human resource management practices to re-engage employees through finding meaning in work; and the “dark side” of CSR. Originality/value CSR research has focused mostly on why and when firms choose to engage in CSR. A behavioral perspective on CSR facilitates, through an employee-centric conceptual framework, a deeper understanding of when and why employee reactions lead to positive and unintended negative outcomes, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Socioeconomic determinants of mobility responses during the first wave of COVID-19 in Italy: from provinces to neighbourhoods

“…Horizontal restrictions might work in theory but will induce different local responses in practice because of the underlying social differences. Besides mobility limitations, adequate economic incentives [29, 30] and behavioral nudging [31, 32] should be implemented to maintain high levels of compliance, while additional strategies should be devised and implemented locally to protect individuals who can not afford to comply with mobility restrictions [33, 34, 35].…”

The Performance Implication of Corporate Social Responsibility: The Moderating Role of Employee’s Prosocial Motivation

“…Fifth, this paper only investigated the mediating role of OC in explaining the CSR–OP link. However, it is important to consider that various important micro-level variables (e.g., meaningfulness of work, work engagement, motivation, thriving, vigor, and psychological well-being) are likely to function as a critical intermediating channel to translate the positive influence of CSR activities into organizational performance [ 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 ]. In future studies, this issue should be fully dealt with.…”

“…These inconclusive results call for more work on the CSR–performance link. Against this backdrop, some previous studies [ 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 ] have suggested that future work on CSR needs to elaborate on the underlying processes (e.g., mediators and moderators) of the relationship to resolve the inconclusiveness.…”

Employee Volunteerism—Conceptual Study and the Current Situation

“…Aguinis et al [40] provided a theoretical work about CSR and employee volunteerism regarding the COVID-19 pandemic. Unfortunately, some companies began facing reduced commitment from workers as they questioned unsafe working conditions, for example, lack of adequate protective equipment or working with positively tested colleagues.…”

“…When an employee is not involved or aware of CSR strategy (does not believe in it or handles it ineffectively) then his or her personal social action will also be rare. Aguinis et al [40] argued that the so-called peripheral CSR could cause many troubles when the employees do not find meaningfulness through their work (i.e., lack of sensemaking and integration of the CSR strategy into a firm's routine and activities). The opposite of this and a kind of solution is embedded CSR, which relies on the company's core competencies, and in this way results in positive outcomes for employees, as well.…”