INFLUENCE OF CSR ON EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT

1
School of Management
Royal Holloway, University of London
IRP title:
INFLUENCE OF CSR ON EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT
MSc International Management
Student Name: Aysenur Kinoglu
Candidate Number:1508574
Supervisor: Prof. Jos Gamble
Date of Submission: 21.08.2015

2
Declaration
This independent research paper has been prepared on the basis of my own work and
that where other published and unpublished source materials have been used, these
have been acknowledged.
Word Count: 9.998 (Cover page, table of contents, abstract and references are not
included)

3
Abstract
In recent years, Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has become a hot topic for
many companies’ agenda. Most of the researches focus on financial returns of CSR
in terms of profit, sales, customer retention. However, CSR has also become an
important tool to engage employees in organizations. Many young individuals in the
first step of their careers eager to work for organizations contributing the society by
improving welfare in their internal and external environment. CSR strategies of
Human Resources (HR) in companies have various impacts on employee engagement.
Previous researches on CSR and HR relation are mainly based on organizational
commitment. Engagement and commitment are relevant to a certain extent but
different concepts to use in the same context; therefore, CSR effect on these concepts
should be addressed distinctively. This paper aims to discuss the impact of CSR on
employee engagement and on “Organizational Citizenship Behavior” (OCB). The
IRP follows qualitative analysis and uses secondary data to explain the main research
questions. The research uses interpretivism as a research philosophy and deductive
approach as a research methodology. The key findings of this IRP are that firstly,
CSR affects employee engagement through organizational identification and trust.
Secondly, even though CSR is influential on engagement, there can be less engaged
or disengaged employees due to differences in the perceptions of CSR. This research
paper proposes that by increasing awareness about CSR, embedding CSR into
organizational culture and involving employees in CSR programs can enhance the
engagement levels in the organizations. Therefore, it is important for organizations to
incorporate their employees into CSR activities to boost their performance and
motivation. The CSR influence on engagement contributes the overall performance of
companies by decreasing employee turnover and increasing efficiency and also by
bringing in willing and innovative individuals to workforce.

4
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................................5
2. LITERATURE REVIEW..........................................................................................................................6
2.1 THE DEFINITION OFEMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT....................................................................................6
2.2 SOCIAL EXCHANGE THEORY AND EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT ...........................................................13
2.3 HOW EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT CONTRIBUTES TO ORGANIZATIONS?...........................................13
2.4 CSR AND EMPLOYEE PERCEPTION........................................................................................................15
2.5 CSR INFLUENCE ON EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT ..................................................................................18
3. METHODOLOGY....................................................................................................................................20
3.1 RESEARCH QUESTIONS ............................................................................................................................20
3.2 RESEARCH DESIGN....................................................................................................................................21
3.3 DATA EVALUATION...................................................................................................................................24
4. FINDINGS & DISCUSSION................................................................................................................26
4.1 HOW DOES CSR AFFECT THE EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT?.................................................................26
4.2 HOW CSR CONTRIBUTES ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR (OCB) OF EMPLOYEES IN
THE ORGANIZATIONS? .....................................................................................................................................29
4.3 HOW CAN ORGANIZATIONS ENGAGE “LESS ENGAGED EMPLOYEES” THROUGH CSR?..................32
5. CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................................34
6. LIMITATIONS & FURTHER RESEARCH AREAS..............................................................35
7. REFERENCES............................................................................................................................................36

5
1. Introduction
Over the last decades, CSR has been discussed by media and academics that arouse
the interest of the society. Many organizations have started to consider CSR as a
competitive advantage towards their competitors (Slack et.al, 2014). The motivation
behind the competitive advantage is that CSR is influential tool for profit goals,
customer retention and reputation (Choi and Yu, 2014). However, it is insufficient
argument to explain the gains of organizations solely through organizations’ CSR
activities. There is a significant relation between CSR activities and employee
engagement that enhances the profitability and organizational performance (Cooper
and Wagman, 2009). Previous research have examined the relationship of CSR and
organizational commitment but comprised limited information about employee
engagement. This paper aims to contribute this research area by differentiating
engagement from some similar concepts in literature and examining its relationship
with CSR. Commitment, satisfaction, involvement and engagement concepts are used
interchangeably in some contexts; however, they take place in the different scopes of
the literature (Hallberg and Schaufeli, 2006).
Engagement can be defined as an emotional connection to the organization, which
affects employees’ behaviors and performance level in work-related activities (ibid).
Engagement covers the nature of job itself since if employees realize that organization
supports the trust and communication between employees and management,
employees become aware of their contributions to organizational performance (ibid).
They can perceive that organization works for its employees to have better growth
opportunities in the organization (ibid). There are significant contributions of engaged
employees in organizations in terms of social-well being in workplace environment
and achieving the business goals (ibid). High level of employee engagement gives rise
to good quality of service, which results in higher customer satisfaction, sales, profit
and shareholder returns (ibid). Employee engagement is a non-eligible factor for
organizations in order to increase their business outcomes. Therefore, organizations
need to find out drivers of engagement and consider as a part of corporate culture.
Several researches point out particular evidence that CSR activities of organizations
are one of the drivers of employee engagement (Mirvis, 2012). CSR contributes

6
engagement in a way that the feeling of working for a good company attracts
employees, which results in long term loyalty and lower turnover rates (Ferreira and
Real de Oliveira, 2014). CSR enhances employee engagement by display
discretionary and extra-role behaviors, defined as “Organizational Citizenship
Behavior” (OCB) (Newman et.al, 2014). OCB is based on “Social Exchange Theory”,
which explains the effect of organizational practices on employee engagement from a
theoretical perspective based on reciprocity norm (Choi and Yu, 2014).
This paper aims to explore CSR as a driver of employee engagement and contribute
this under-researched topic through qualitative research methodology. The objective
of research is to answer following questions: (a) How does CSR affect the employee
engagement? (b) How CSR contributes organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) of
employees in organizations? (c) How should organizations engage less engaged
employees through CSR? The research is organized as follows: Section II-Literature
review, Section-III Methodology, Section-IV Findings and Discussion, Section-V
Conclusion and Section-VI Limitations and Further Research areas.
2. Literature Review
In this chapter, firstly detailed definition of employee engagement concept and its
evolution will be explained. Then different scholars’ perspectives will be discussed
and the reasons behind the benefits of employee engagement to organizations will be
explained. Then, ever-growing definitions of CSR and employees’ response to CSR
will be discussed. Thereafter as a main discussion topic, CSR and employee
engagement relation will be examined.
2.1 The Definition of Employee Engagement
The employee engagement concept has no single dominant definition in the literature.
During its evolution period, practitioners and academicians have come up with
several distinctive definitions (Shuck, 2011). Practitioners approach employee
engagement from performance perspectives whereas academicians put emphasis
mainly on psychological state of an individual (ibid). It is important to evaluate
employee engagement from both aspects since it can be ill-defined denotation to
address solely on psychological or on performance angles (Macey and Schneider,
2008). Firstly, evolution of the concept will be examined by four different

7
perspectives and more recent conceptualization of employee engagement will be
discussed in the following section.
2.1.1 Evolution of Employee Engagement Concept
In the literature, Kahn, Maslach, Harter and Sacks are seen as pioneers of the
employee engagement concept (Shuck, 2011). Therefore, in this section I will discuss
their different perspectives on engagement.
Kahn (1990):
Kahn has contributed the definition of employee engagement by defining the different
models such as cognitively engaged, physically engaged and emotionally engaged
(Shuck, 2011). He structures these models on psychological domains, which are
meaningfulness, safety and availability (ibid). Meaningfulness is the extra value and
effort put on work performance when employees feel themselves that they are
significant and valuable for the organization (Kular et al., 2008). Safety is the degree
of trust towards organization in terms of clear-cut specification of an employee’s task
at the work (ibid). Each employee needs to feel confident in work environment and to
be aware of what is expected of her/him at the work (ibid). Lastly, availability is the
possessing the necessary sources in full in order to maintain their tasks at the work
(ibid). These resources can be considered as monetary policies, social benefits,
training and workplace environment (ibid). Briefly, according to Kahn, employees ask
whether it is meaningful or not to display this performance and they question that is it
safe to do so? Lastly, asks how they are available to perform the task. Since 1990s,
Kahn’s framework has been one of the most popular frameworks for developing
employee engagement in organizations (Shuck, 2011).
Maslach (2001):
Maslach contributes the definition of engagement by defining opposite of negative
and disintegrated state of an individual (Shuck, 2011). According to Maslach,
engagement is opposite of “burnout”, which implies the one’s disintegration with
his/her job (ibid). He defines three different concepts opposite to engagement such as
exhaustion, cynicism and ineffectiveness (Kular et al., 2008). Exhaustion is the
feeling of both psychologically and physically overextended (ibid). Cynicism is the
discouragement and dispassionate behaviors of an employee towards his/her job
(ibid). Ineffectiveness is that when employees feel ineffective, they have a sense of

8
professional inadequacy (ibid). However, the main criticism for Maslach’s approach
is that it is lack of cognitive perspective projected by Kahn since he predominantly
focuses on emotional and physical parts of burnout (Shuck, 2011).
Harter (2002):
Harter enhances the definition of employee engagement by using the Gallup
organization’s data on different industry fields (Kular et al., 2008). Harter defines
employee engagement as the degree of involvement and satisfaction of an employee
at the work (ibid). Job involvement is defined as degree to which job is central to
employees’ identity (Krishnan et.al, 2009). Whereas job satisfaction is considered as a
positive emotional state due to the appraisal of one’s job experiences (ibid). Harter
also found out a positive relationship between employee engagement and business
outcomes since according to him; engaged employees brings efficiency and
productivity to organizations (ibid).
Sacks (2006):
Sacks is the first academician to differentiate the job engagement and organizational
engagement concepts by developing social exchange model (Shuck, 2011). Sacks
describes employee engagement in three elements as cognitive, emotional and
behavioral that are mainly integrated with the work performance (ibid). He argues that
since the resources and benefits are offered to employees, they are willing to pay back
their organizations to express their satisfaction and engagement with their
organization (Kular et al., 2008). As Kahn (1990) states, employees adjust their
engagement levels by depending on amount of resources dedicated to them since they
look for reciprocal relationships.
In this part, I explained the various important perspectives and evolution about the
definition of employee engagement by different scholars. Each scholar approaches the
engagement concept from similar perspectives but builds arguments by extending the
definitions of previous concepts. In next part, I will focus on the constituent concepts
of engagement in order to have clear understanding of employee engagement.
2.1.2 Understanding of Employee Engagement and Its Main Components
Macey and Schneider (2008) constitute a framework for employee engagement by
depending on antecedent discussions and perspectives about the concept. According

9
to their research, engagement has been used to connote involvement, commitment and
mood as a psychological state or OCB and role expansion as a performance criterion.
In this chapter, the insight of the concept will be discussed and its components will be
examined. The stated conceptualization of engagement will be taken as a basis
throughout the paper.
Engagement consists of three main elements (Macey and Schneider, 2008) as shown
in Figure 2.1.1. State engagement covers satisfaction, involvement, commitment and
empowerment and behavioral engagement includes OCB, role expansion whereas
trait engagement contains personality and conscientiousness (ibid). Psychological
aspects of engagement mostly take place in state engagement (Maslach, 2004).
Behavioral engagement explains mainly extra-role behaviors of individuals and trait
engagement discusses positive perception of employees towards their work (Macey
and Schneider, 2008).
Figure 2.1.1
EMPLOYEE
ENGAGEMENT
TRAIT
ENGAGEMENT
STATE
ENGAGEMENT
BEHAVIORAL
ENGAGEMENT

10
State Engagement
Terms satisfaction, work engagement and commitment in state engagement cause
confusion since they can be used interchangeably. However, these constructs have
different explanations (Shuck, Reio and Rocco, 2011).
Work Engagement:
Work engagement is considered as full dedication and energy of an employee towards
his or her task (Schaufeli, 2006). Utrecht Work Engagement Scale determines three
dimensions for work engagement such as vigor, absorption and dedication (Bakker
et.al, 2011). Vigor is described as high levels of energy while working, one’s
willingness to put effort in his or her task and persistence in case of any difficulty
(ibid). Absorption is the state of full engagement and high concentration about work
that one cannot separate his or herself from work (ibid). Lastly, dedication can be
described as a sense of pride, enthusiasm for being employed by organization and a
belief that each employee’s effort and endeavor is significant for organization (ibid).
Organizational Commitment:
Tiwari and Singh (2014) define organizational commitment as individual’s ability to
identify his/herself with organizational goals and values. Organizational commitment
is based on three-component model as affective commitment, continuance
commitment and normative commitment (Dick et.al, 2007). Affective commitment is
the emotional attachment to the organization (ibid). Employees enjoy the relationship;
therefore, they want to stay in the organization (ibid). Affective commitment is
related with the high level of performance since employees having affective
commitment are more likely to engage in OCB (ibid). Continuance commitment is
that employees prefer to stay in the organization since leaving the organization may
be costly and they may feel that they will lose their social status. Employee’s
perception is shaped that they must not leave their organizations (ibid). Lastly,
normative commitment is that employees feel under an obligation because they
believe that staying in the organization is the right thing (ibid). Therefore, employees
think that they have to stay in the organization (ibid).
For instance; an employee works in one of the top pharmaceutical companies, which
presents decent opportunities and salary. Employee feels happy and important in the
organization. Employee has affective commitment since he or she feels happy and
wants to stay. Employee also has continuance commitment since he or she works in

11
one of the best companies, earning good amount of money and having prestige.
Lastly, employee may have normative commitment since he or she may be the key
person due to the nature of his or her job in the organization. Therefore, he or she
feels obliged to stay in order to contribute particular research for the benefit of
society. Therefore, these three components are considered to be influential on
employee turnover rates and work performance in the organizations (Dick et.al,
2007).
Job Satisfaction:
Weiss (2002) states that job satisfaction is an emotional state. He defines as one’s
valuation of his/her job as an accomplishment for attaining individual goals. It is
positive or negative feeling due to the outcome of overall individual evaluation of
experiences during the work time (Weiss, 2002). However, although satisfaction is
related with engagement, it mainly connotes the feeling of contentment and prosperity
during the action; therefore, measuring satisfaction by itself does not give healthy
results for engagement (Hallberg and Schaufeli, 2006).
Behavioral Engagement
Behavioral engagement is the deliver of performance beyond the expected average
level (Kahn, 1990). Behavioral engagement is not only putting superior physical
performance but also being innovative, efficient (ibid). OCB is one of the main
elements of behavioral engagement, which occupy an important place in literature
(Borman, 2004).
Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB):
Although OCB has not had considerable effect in practice yet, organizations have
started to be interested in (Podsakoff, 2000). Since 1960s, OCB has been defined as
“extra-role behavior”, which expresses the discretionary behavior of an individual
without recognizing any reward system (ibid). Organ (1997) defines discretionary
behavior as follows:
“By discretionary, we mean that the behavior is not an enforceable
requirement of the role or the job description, that is the clearly specifiable
terms of the person's employment contract with the organization; the behavior
is rather a matter of personal choice, such that its omission is not generally
understood as punishable” (Human performance, 10(2), pp.85-97)

12
Organ’s definition of OCB is widely taken as a basis in literature. According to him;
OCB contributes organizational effectiveness not only by boosting innovations and
productivity but also by decent relationships with co-workers at the work (Dicke et.al,
2007). Engaged employees involve more in OCB compare to disengaged employees
(Newman et.al, 2014). Employees can show their OCB in five different ways such as
sportsmanship, altruism, courtesy, conscientiousness and civic virtue (ibid). These
five dimensions are categorized under two main branches as OCB-0 and OCB-I
(Jahangir et.al, 2006). OCB-I behavior is for the benefit of individuals, which
includes courtesy and altruism whereas OCB-0 behavior is for the benefit of
organizations with sportsmanship, civic virtue and conscientiousness (ibid).
Altruism connotes to enthusiasm to assist people in organization with no thought of
personal gain (Dicke et.al, 2007). Conscientiousness is to perform above minimum or
expected level in the organization (ibid). Sportsmanship is the displaying no negative
behavior when he/she experiences with difficult tasks or things that do not go as
planned (ibid). Courtesy is to exhibit polite and thoughtful behaviors towards
colleagues, which enhances the social interactions in workplace environment (ibid).
Lastly, civic virtue is the representation of organization by employees outside of the
organization (ibid). Civic virtue enables employees to feel strongly connected to their
organization, which leads to increased productivity and efficiency in the organization
(Dicke et.al, 2007). Within the scope of this research, organizational dimension of
OCB (OCB-0) will be discussed in line with employee engagement.
Trait Engagement
Trait engagement covers the personality dimension of engagement such as proactive
personality, conscientiousness (Macey and Schneider, 2008). Trait engagement refers
to having positive approach and constructive experience at work (ibid). Trait
engagement has a connection with behavioral and state engagement since it enables
individuals to go beyond their normal tasks and outperform while having job
satisfaction. Proactive personality is defined as the ability of establishing or
influencing work environment in terms of boosting performance and increasing
productivity (ibid).
According to Kahn (1990) and Maslach (2004) these dimensions point out the
necessary elements of engagement, however, they do not give full evidence about
why different individuals have varying levels of engagement. They bring forward that

13
social exchange theory constitutes solid ground and gives the reasoning behind being
less or more engaged. The following chapter will discuss the relation between
engagement and social exchange theory.
2.2 Social Exchange Theory and Employee Engagement
Social exchange theory is a widely used framework to establish theoretical ground for
employee engagement with regards to norm of reciprocity (Settoo et.al, 1996). Social
exchange theory points out that when employees have positive and helpful
relationship, they feel obligated to reciprocate in the same manner (ibid).
Eisenberger et al. (2001) support this argument depending on his research and adds
that employees’ perceptions of organizational support make them contribute the
organizational goals. Perceived organizational support is emphasized in social
exchange theory, which connotes that employees believe that organization values
their well-being and tries to fulfill their needs (ibid).
However, this situation varies from person to person since employees having weak
exchange ideology, who values the reciprocity norm less, do not have the feeling of
obligation as employees having powerful exchange ideology (Eisenberger et al.,
2001).
Konovsky and Pugh (1994) point out that trust is the most important factor for the
first step of social exchange formation. Relational trust enables employees to involve
in tasks, which are not mandatory and to contribute organizations continuously
(Konovsky and Pugh, 1994). Therefore, when trust is established, perceived
organizational support reaches higher level, which motivates employees to go beyond
their expected tasks.
2.3 How Employee Engagement Contributes to Organizations?
In order to understand why employee engagement is an important topic for
organizations, we should understand how it avails to organizations. I discussed the
OCB concept in the explanation of employee engagement definition and its
components. I explained how employee engagement is beneficial through
discretionary efforts and extra role behaviors of employees. In this chapter, the
contribution of engagement to organizations will be examined on the basis of OCB.

14
The concept of organizational effectiveness can be defined as the degree which
organizations achieve their goals (Kataria et.al, 2013). Efficient organizations have
three different characteristics such as productivity, adaptability and flexibility (ibid).
In order to fulfill these dimensions, employees’ contributions are essential for two
reasons (Albrecht et al., 2015). Firstly, engaged employees display innovative and
proactive behavior and affect their environment in this direction (ibid). Since engaged
employees are flexible enough to external changes or difficulties, they make their
organizations flexible as well as a feature of efficient organizations (ibid). Secondly,
engaged employees work with passion, they try to produce high quality goods in
order to take their organizations further (ibid).
Engaged employees are inclined to display OCB such as more brain-power, extra time
and energy for their task (Kataria et.al, 2013). In the frame of OCB, engaged
employees are more positive to use their personal resources and more confident to
perform extra-role behavior (ibid). The research of Kataria et.al (2013) suggests a
relationship between efficient organizations and employee engagement can be
visualized as shown in Figure 2.3.1
Figure 2.3.1
There is a link with between organizational efficiency and engagement that leads
organizations to have high level of productivity, competitive advantage and low level
of turnovers (Slåtten and Mehmetoglu, 2011). It is an important competitive
advantage since it is a unique internal resource of organizations that competitors
cannot imitate or adopt easily (ibid). Therefore, organizations need to improve the
Employee
Engagement
• Behavioral
• Trait
• State
OCB
• Sportsmanship
• Civic Virtue
• Conscientiousness
Organizational
Effectiveness
• Flexibility
• Adaptability
• Productivity

15
level of employee engagement and embed into organizational culture in order to take
an advantage of OCB for their business goals (Albrecht et al., 2015).
2.4 CSR and Employee Perception
2.4.1 Evolution of CSR Definition
CSR has become mainstream in businesses in current years (Baker, 2004).
Organizations and people has started to revise their priorities for next years and most
of them denote that specially the environmental well-being will be the heart of our
future (ibid). On the other hand, there are many debates about how organizations
perceive and represent CSR activities in line with definition of CSR (ibid). Most of
the debates go around financial aspects of CSR that some of the companies are
hopeful about profit return due to the consumer attraction (ibid). In consequence of
many discussions and organizations’ decent and unpleasant experiences, definition of
CSR and its dimensions have been altered since 1950s (Rahman, 2011). In this
chapter, previous conceptualizations and more recent definition of CSR will be
discussed.
1950s:
In 1950s, discussions about CSR began with questioning the responsibilities of
businessmen towards society (Rahman, 2011). According to Bowen (1954), it is a
mandatory task of businessmen to follow CSR practices and take decisions
accordingly, which are beneficial for welfare of the society. In same period, Heald
(1957) constructs an enhanced definition that CSR should be mandatory at the
management level and the overall goals should not only be based on financial returns
but also society well being.
1970s:
During 1970s, Friedman approached CSR from distinctive perspective compare to
previous scholars. According to Friedman (1970), organizations have single objective,
which is to increase profit in order to survive in competition. In 1970s, new
definitions of CSR arose and different dimensions were put forward such as social
accounting, social audit and social indicators (Rahman, 2011). On the other hand,
Sethi (1975) conceptualizes and differentiates CSR from corporate behavior as social
duty, social responsibility and social responsiveness. Preston and Post (1975) defines

16
that organizations do not have unlimited responsibilities as a concept of social
responsibility but it should be placed among the priorities of organizations.
1990s:
In 1990s, there were fewer contributions for development of CSR concept (Rahman,
2011). Elkington (1997) structures CSR on three layers, which are planet, profit and
people. According to him, social responsibility brings economic prosperity, social
equity and environmental care. If environment is protected, it is beneficial for society;
thus beneficial for profitability of business. Other scholars like Hopkins (1998) and
Woodward-Clyde (1999) define CSR as a responsibility both towards internal and
external stakeholders and also think as an agreement between organization and
society. Since society allows a license carry on a business, in return organizations
should follow the norms required by society.
21st Century:
Lantos (2001) suggests three distinctive kinds of CSR such as ethical, altruistic and
strategic. Ethical CSR requires that organizations need to be ethically responsible to
environments when they pursue their organizational goals. Altruistic CSR is the
voluntary activities that may lead to organizational or individual sacrifice. Lastly,
strategic CSR refers to community activities of organizations, which aims to achieve
strategic business goals. CSR have caused conflicts in businesses (Jamali and
Miurshak, 2007). Jamali and Miurshak (2007) explain that the conflict mainly has
arisen from lack of knowledge and experience. Since it has been unclear that which
and why organizations have obligations to follow CSR strategies in developing
countries, they do not feel responsible about being socially responsible.
In 2008, World Business Council construct the definition of CSR as follows:
“the continuing commitment by business to behave ethically and contribute to
economic development while improving the quality of life of the workforce and their
families as well as of the local community and society at large” (World Business
Council for Sustainable Development, 2008).

17
Figure 2.4.1
In this paper, CSR will be categorized in two main branches as internal and external
CSR due to gauge clearly the main hypotheses. External CSR defines CSR activities
for external stakeholder such as customers, social and non-social stakeholders
whereas internal CSR is for internal stakeholders such as employees.
2.4.2 Employee Perception of CSR
There are few studies about how CSR affects employees and their perception. The
recent findings demonstrate that CSR influences work outcomes positively (Farooq
et.al, 2014). It increases job satisfaction, organizational commitment through
organizational identification, which leads to higher job performance, quality of
products and lower turnover rates (ibid). Employees’ responses to CSR are mainly
50s
• Responsibility to society
60s
• Relationship between society and organizations
70s
• Stakeholder involvement
• Economic, ethical and legal responsibility to society
• Increasing quality of life
80s
• Voluntariness
• Financial returns of CSR
90s
• Planet, Profit and People
• Environmental considerations
2000s
• Human rights, labor rights, improving well being of society
• More transparency and accountability

18
based on organizational identification in terms of a theoretical aspect (ibid).
Organizational identification is the recognition of belongingness to organization that
employee names him or herself as a member of an organization (Rodrigo and Arenas,
2007). In this chapter, employee perception of CSR will be mainly discussed through
organizational identification.
CSR and Organizational Identification:
Organizations’ social, consumer-based and environmental external actions are found
to be strongly influential on organizational identification (Farooq et.al, 2014).
Employees feel satisfied and proud when they work for an organization, which has a
powerful reputation because organizational identification is affected from
organization’s image and status (ibid). Employees can be sensitive about what
external audience thinks about their organization since the stakeholders, especially
consumers give feedbacks and rank organizations, which have impact on the image of
organizations (Rodrigo and Arenas, 2007).
Employees’ esteem towards their organization is as important as external image
(Farooq et.al, 2014). Employees’ assessments of their standing in the organization are
a significant determinant to understand the degree of respect to their organizations
(ibid). They need to perceive that they are decent and valuable members of
organizations (ibid). Programs like extensive training, career coaching and
involvement in decision-making process are contributive factors for internal CSR
actions (ibid). In addition to these, internal CSR enhances knowledge sharing among
employees through organizational identification (Farooq, et.al, 2014). Employees
become willing to share knowledge as they identify themselves more with the
organization, which leads organizations to have collaborative workforce and efficient
workflow as a strong competitive advantage (ibid).
2.5 CSR Influence on Employee Engagement
There are few studies on CSR and employee engagement in literature since employee
engagement concept itself is a relatively recent topic and its definition is not clearly
defined in many sources (Mirvis, 2012). The researches about the CSR and employee
engagement suggest that understanding of these concepts can benefit organizations
and their relationship can be contributive for organizations (Tariq, 2015). In this part,
I aim to examine the background of the relationship of these concepts in accordance
with their definitions.

19
According to Tariq (2015), engagement is strongly related with how employees grade
their organization’s CSR actions. His research points out that employees, who are not
satisfied with organization’s commitment to CSR are less engaged in their jobs
compared to satisfied employees. If employees realize organization’s devotion to
CSR, they become more inclined to perform positive behavior, which results in higher
work performance (Tariq, 2015). Other benefits of CSR on employee practices are
reduction in turnover and attraction of prospective employees (ibid).
From theoretical perspective, researches suggest that the relation of employee
engagement and CSR grounds from social exchange theory (Slack et.al, 2014). In the
concept of employee engagement, OCB is the outcome of social exchange since
employees feel obliged to their organization (ibid). Abdullah and Rashid (2012)
support this argument relating to CSR that CSR activities have significant impact on
the reciprocity norm of employees, which enables employees to display more OCB-O.
They elaborate their research by examining influence of internal and external
dimensions of CSR. Abdullah and Rashid (2012) found out that internal and external
CSR actions both enhance OCB-O among employees. Hadad and Fallahi (2015)
contributes this argument explain that the components of OCB-0; civic virtue and
conscientiousness have powerful relationship with CSR implementations in the
organizations. Therefore, even if employees are not expected to perform
extracurricular activities such as learning additional information about work and
informing others defined as a part of civic virtue, they have desire to do voluntarily
(Hadad and Fallahi, 2015).
However, not every employee responds to CSR in a same manner since the level of
engagement with CSR differs among employees (Slack et.al, 2014). Rodrigo and
Arenas (2007) defines different types of classifications based on social exchange
theory, which explain the distinctive employee values towards CSR (ibid).
Rodrigo and Arenas (2007) classify employees as Committed, Indifferent and
Dissident. Committed employees are sensitive about social justice and engaged with
organizational CSR (Rodrigo and Arenas, 2007). Indifferent employees are pragmatic
and work-oriented (ibid). They understand the meaning and importance of CSR but
they do not involve personally (ibid). Dissident employees think that they have only
financial relation with organization without any wider social role (ibid).

20
Social exchange theory is one of the explanations for different levels of engagement
among employees since it is based on reciprocity that explains how employees
perceive value gained from organization (Slack et.al, 2014).
In this part, I examined the influence of CSR on engagement on the basis of social
exchange theory. I focused on OCB and the relation with social exchange theory.
Moreover, I discussed the different levels of engagement among employees due to the
differences in perceptions of employees. In the following chapter, I will explain the
research methodology I used for analyzing the CSR and employee engagement
relation and other research questions. Moreover, I will also discuss the data used
during the research and give critical evaluation of using a particular type of data.
3. Methodology
In this chapter, research design, data used during the analysis and discussion of
adopted research process will be presented. There will be discussion about possible
research approaches for this study and justification of research process will be
explained. This chapter will also present data collection process and critical
discussion on the data used.
3.1 ResearchQuestions
The purpose of this research paper is to examine relationship between CSR and
employee engagement as a descriptive study. The need for the study is based on
detailed view of literature review, which points out that CSR is an important driver of
employee engagement. Although employee engagement has been a recent concept in
practice, its benefits in terms of customer satisfaction, high level of performance,
innovation and cost efficiency has started to be realized by organizations (Slack,
Corlett and Morris, 2014). CSR is also significant concept, which has become
mainstream discussion topic for both literature and practitioners as discussed in the
literature review chapter. Organizations seize opportunity of CSR for both having an
engaged workforce and contributing to society at same time. My literature review
points out that there are only few studies about relationship between CSR and
employee engagement since many researches mainly focus on employee commitment,
job satisfaction and work engagement concepts solely or they only analyze influence

21
of CSR on business outcomes. This paper aims to contribute this research area by
answering following research questions:
 How does CSR affect the employee engagement?
 How does CSR contribute organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) of
employees?
 How should organizations engage less engaged employees through CSR?
3.2 ResearchDesign
3.2.1 Research Philosophy:
Understanding research philosophy is crucial to determine correct research design and
affect research process (Saunders et.al, 2012). There are two main research
philosophies as ontology and epistemology (ibid). Ontology is based on nature of
reality that questions the assumptions and particular views of researches (ibid).
Ontology comprises two approaches, which are objectivism and subjectivism (ibid).
Objectivism mainly presents the existence of social entities in reality disregarding
external social actors and assumes that all social constructs exist as function of
different objectives (ibid). On the other hand, subjectivism states that social structures
are originated from actions of social actors, in other words, the different
interpretations shape interactions and perceptions (ibid).
Epistemology questions the components of acceptable knowledge in a study and
searches for if reality can be studied with same basis as natural sciences (ibid). It has
three subtitles as positivism, realism and interpretivism (ibid). Positivist research
approach adopts philosophical view of natural scientist and has structured
methodology (ibid). Positivist researcher mainly gives importance to quantifiable
observations and statistical outcomes (ibid). Positivist researches are conducted in
value-free environment and researcher is neutral to data collected; therefore, outcome
of research is objective (ibid).
The second type of philosophical view of epistemology is realism, which is based
upon idea of “objects have an existence independent of human mind” (ibid). Realism
is opposite of idealism, which argues for only mind and its components have
existence (ibid). Realism follows similar path with positivism that questions the
development of knowledge scientifically (ibid).

22
Lastly, interpretivism puts emphasis on “social actors” that we construe our social
roles depending on meanings that we assigned to these roles (ibid). Also we
understand others’ roles with regards to our own set of meanings (ibid). Interpretivism
differentiates human and natural sciences from each other and states that researcher
should examine research subjects by following social constructs and understanding
their effects on subjects (ibid).
3.2.2 Research Approach:
The theory of research underlies the design of research project and it is mainly
represented by two approaches as deductive or inductive (ibid). Deductive approach is
used when research starts with theory acquired from literature review and you
conduct the research in order to test the theory (ibid). In deductive research,
researcher explains causal links between concepts and establishes reasons (ibid).
Another characteristic of deductive research is that facts are measured quantitatively
in an operationalized way (ibid). Lastly, deductive research is based on generalization
as well (ibid). Sample data needs to be carefully chosen and in sufficient size in order
to generalize the findings (ibid).
On the other hand, inductive approach is followed when researcher starts with
collecting data to establish a theory or framework (Bryman and Bell, 2011).
Researcher tries to identify new patterns, relations or alter the existing theory (ibid).
Inductive researchers criticize the deductive approach due to its stiff methodology,
which does not allow alternative views and explanations (ibid). Inductive approach
mainly discusses context of events; thus, narrow-scoped subjects are more appropriate
compared to broader scope as with the deductive approach (ibid). Researches using
inductive approach work with qualitative data and follow different practices to collect
these data to cover different point of views about the subject (ibid).
3.2.3 Research Method:
The research philosophy and approach are instructive for establishing a correct
research methodology (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2012). This research paper
follows deductive approach, which explains arguments depending on an established
theory and qualitative method, which is based on more words than numbers. As
Saunders et.al (2012) discuss, qualitative method follows interpretive research
philosophy and this research paper is based on interpretivism. The data is analyzed in
order to describe relationship with CSR and employee engagement with the

23
theoretical support of Social Exchange Theory. There are few studies about this
relationship and few explanations about how they interact each other and also how
CSR contributes less engaged employees. Therefore, interpretive research philosophy
provides basis to use social constructs to define the social position of each concept in
the research. I will have to take interpretive approach since although there are
particular researches about the relationship of engagement and CSR, there is no
specific explanation how they interact each other and how employees experience
through OCB concept. Therefore, interpretive perspective will be suitable for my
research. By using particular research philosophy and approach, data and relevant
materials are evaluated and interpreted in order to draw conclusions.
The secondary data is used for this research paper based upon two main reasons: time
and access. There are several advantages using secondary data (Bryman and Bell,
2011). It requires few resources that help researcher save money and time (ibid). Due
to the time constraint in this research, secondary data is advantageous in order to
come to the conclusion quickly. The data used in current resources are sufficient and
appropriate to support and answer the research questions. Secondary data provides
comparative and contextual data, which researcher can assess the generalizability of
representative data (ibid). It presents wide range of data compare to primary data,
which enables researches to enlarge the discussions and analysis (ibid). Another
advantage of using secondary data is that researches about CSR and employee
engagement up until now are easily accessible to conduct this research and provide
solid basis to fulfill the discussion. Lastly, compare to primary data, secondary data
allows research to evaluate it prior to use; however, it requires same sensitivity and
caution as primary data during the evaluation (ibid).
The primary data like surveys and interviews with employees in international
organizations would have provided valuable information about the research.
However, due to the time constraints and lack of good quality of network in
companies, it is not possible to collect reliable primary data. The objective of this
research is to understand and explain the relation of CSR and employee engagement.
Therefore, I would have needed to contact with employees of companies that follow
CSR strategies actively; however I do not have that kind of an access. Moreover, CSR
and employee engagement have become mainstream for organizations and there are
sufficient amount of surveys and questionnaires about employees’ response to CSR
activities as well as theoretical background. Therefore, I can reach to information

24
about how and why CSR is needed for engagement and why there are variety of
engagement levels with CSR.
3.3 Data Evaluation
3.3.1 Data Used
The secondary data used in this study have descriptive and explanatory purposes.
Since CSR and employee engagement includes variety of discussion points, I
searched through many sources to have a general view and narrow down the scope of
the research. The sources were collected from Royal Holloway Library search page
by using keywords and frameworks such as CSR, employee engagement, social
exchange theory and drivers of employee engagement. The same keywords were used
for google scholar search as well to reach different kinds of resources like government
resources, national statistics office of European Union, research and management
consulting companies’ website about employee engagement, human resources
magazines and journal articles. The data gathered from these resources includes
international aspects that cover samples from different countries.
After going through relevant resources, I mainly narrowed down my research from
journal articles since the magazines, statistics and relevant websites were mostly
supplementary resources for my research area. I started to my research by searching
general perspectives about CSR and employee engagement relation. However, these
resources presented variety of perspectives that widened my research scope. There are
many theories and discussions about their relationship; therefore, I needed to choose
one of the important discussion points and narrow down my research scope. For
instance, many journal articles approach engagement and CSR relation from financial
perspectives or they focus on turnover, job satisfaction, commitment and work
engagement concepts. However, my research aim is to examine the exact effect of
CSR on employees in terms of their behavioral responses in a workday and try to
understand how CSR is influential for engagement that one can realize the difference
in workplace environment. OCB and social exchange theory are one of the prevalent
topics to achieve my research goals since OCB is the direct outcome of employees’
behavior that CSR impact can be distinguishable more easily compared to the other
psychological effects. Therefore, I decided to focus mainly on social exchange theory
and OCB in my research. Moreover, other resources such as consulting companies’

25
researches and business magazines give supportive facts about CSR and discretionary
behaviors of employees based on reciprocity norm. Thus, I was able to put together
my research goals and secondary data by gathering different kinds of relevant
information from various resources.
Since the secondary data were used, some irrelevant and incompetent parts of the data
were excluded. Employee engagement and CSR are the comprehensive topics that
they comprise variety of discussions, which are not exactly related with my research
aim. As Bryman and Bell (2011) define, variables in data should fit with the research
focus and it is an important challenge for a researcher. When I was searching through
literature, some articles gave insight about the direct relationship of CSR and
engagement through OCB and social exchange theory but they also involved the
effect on financial outcomes and employee commitment, loyalty and satisfaction.
Therefore, I focused on OCB and social exchange theory findings of journals and
excluded other variables by ensuring that relevant variables were not affected. I had
opportunity to revise and reanalyze the resources for several times and make
connections among different sources to support my arguments by adding and
removing information. By the deductive approach, I was able to draw conclusions and
answer research questions from the data examined.
3.3.2 Evaluating Secondary Data and Criticism
The use of secondary data in this research makes it easier to assess its reliability
compared to primary data since the collected data have already been publicized.
However, the downside of using secondary data is that it may not be appropriate for
particular research purposes and may not be fulfill the research questions completely.
The precise evaluation of suitability of secondary data depends on validity and
reliability aspects (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2012). With this disadvantage in
mind, I went through selective research and data collection process in order to meet
reliability and validity aspects. I searched relevant articles through google scholar and
RHUL library mainly between the years of 2011 and 2015 by focusing on well-cited
ones, which are mostly experts in related topic and have many publications. I got the
main findings mostly from journal articles and supported them with institutional
researches of consulting companies and business magazine publications. The business
magazine publications give significant examples from practical life; for instance,

26
Forbes magazine and HBR contributed my research by examples of international
organizations. The data gathered in the research fulfill the reliability criteria since
they are published by research institutions or by national organizations. Moreover,
large amount of data were obtained from journal articles, which represent an authentic
source of material that authors are well known and are well cited for enlightening the
many similar research topics in their field.
The data also satisfy validity criteria, which assess the appropriateness of data and
research objective (Saunders et.al, 2012). As discussed before, secondary data can
have incompetent parts that do not fit in research objective. However, the research
institutions’ and national organizations’ resources are straightforward and are not
shaped for special purposes or hypotheses but they are mostly for information
purposes. For journal articles, I went through relevant research selectively and used
the suitable data for research objectives. Therefore, data used have little risk to lead
research to inaccurate conclusions.
4. Findings & Discussion
In this chapter, each research question will be discussed depending on findings from
data examined. The findings for each question were mainly obtained from journal
articles, business magazines and statics provided by private institutions. I analyzed
and interpreted the findings of these sources in the context of my research. The
resources are appropriate to construct my argument since they provide the sufficient
information about the main cases of this IRP. In each research question, firstly, I
described the data I used and then I explained the findings of each source. Thereafter,
I discussed my own findings that I concluded from the sources.
4.1 How does CSR affect the employee engagement?
The data examined for the relationship between CSR and employee engagement are
Sirota Survey (2007), journal articles of Caligiuri et.al (2013), Vinerean et.al (2013),
Farooq et.al (2013), Gross and Holland (2011), Esmaeelinezhad et.al (2015), Gond
et.al (2010), Saul (2012) and Forbes (2012).
According to the research of Forbes (2012), when companies pursue more
environment friendly strategies and put social efforts for their community, employee

27
engagement grows substantially. Employees’ morale increase, business processes
become more efficient and employee loyalty increases.
Saul (2012)’s research with PwC explains that employee turnover costs 40 billion
pound in a year for companies and employee engagement is an important concept to
minimize it through CSR. They suggest that CSR is influential for both inside and
outside stakeholders and creates win-win situation by providing decent corporate
image for customers and by ensuring that employees are proud of their organization.
Thus, they become more loyal to their organizations and decrease the turnover rates.
Sirota Survey data (2007) shows that 71% of employees in the organizations think
that CSR should be top priority among other business strategies. However, 47% of
employees believe that their organization do not use realize the potential of CSR
programs (ibid). It also points out why CSR can be effective on engagement.
According to the survey, 85% of employees feel pride and identify themselves with
their organizations, which result in higher employee engagement.
Farooq et.al (2014)’s research on impact of CSR points out how CSR is influential on
employee engagement through organizational identification and trust. They conducted
their research in large firms employing more than 500 individuals and their data are
based on three types of CSR as CSR to consumers, CSR to employees and CSR to
social and non-social stakeholders (Farooq et.al, 2014). The data show that different
CSR types are effective for enhancing organizational identification and trust, which
results in higher level of engagement (ibid). The responses of employees about
internal CSR actions of organizations show that employees perceive their
organization as a benevolent and fair institution (ibid). Therefore, it improves
organizational trust and triggers the feeling of paying back to organization (ibid). The
employees’ responses to external CSR programs point out that employees feel pride
and prestigious in their community since their organization is well known and
respected by its socially responsible actions (ibid). Most of the employees answer the
research questions as “our success”, “we are socially responsible” that they adopt the
organization’s success as theirs (ibid).
Gond et.al’s (2010) research data bring forward similar results. According to their
research, CSR has mediated effect on organizational identification and trust.
Identification mainly originates from external image of organization and trust
develops when employees realize that their organization is socially responsible for its

28
internal and external environment (Gond et.al, 2010). Both perception of
organizational trust and identification imply the social exchange theory in the research
since employees’ responses are mainly based on exchanges (ibid). For instance, they
respond as “we like to work for our organization and contribute its CSR programs
since we have a fair workplace environment and we have decent image in our
community” (ibid). If the organizations fulfill its commitment to internal and external
CSR actions, employees value their organization and become more engaged with their
organization (ibid).
Esmaeelinezhad et.al (2015)’s findings about engagement and CSR relation point out
that ethical and philanthropical actions enhance the employee engagement. The
findings suggest that employees perceive that their organization is fair and
trustworthy due to their involvement in the socially responsible actions
(Esmaeelinezhad et.al, 2015). As identified from employees’ responses, they adopt
themselves with the organization and they become proud of their organization’s
commitment to CSR (ibid).
Saul (2012), Sirota Survey (2007) and Forbes (2012) provide more general
perspective about engagement and CSR relation whereas the others give more insight
about the relationship by putting forward the particular concepts. As examined, the
identified influence of CSR on engagement is the organizational identification and
trust, which CSR uses as mediatory elements to increase employee engagement. Trust
and organizational identification are the direct outcomes of CSR and explain why
CSR is effective on employee engagement. The supportive evidence is that when
employees perceive that the organization is sensitive about welfare of people in
general, they feel proud of their organization and express as a part of their identity. As
mentioned in research outputs, expressions of employees about the organization as
“we”,”our” give clear evidence about how employees consider their identity as a part
of their organization. On the side of organizational trust perspective, internal CSR
gives an indication that organization cares, respects and values their employees.
Therefore, it increases the level of trust since employees perceive that organization is
fair and benevolent. On the other hand, external CSR such as CSR to consumers and
to society have powerful impact on corporate reputation, which makes employees
think that their organization is benevolent to its community as well. They feel to
reciprocate in order to contribute the social solidarity. This also supports social

29
exchange theory that when strong organizational identification and trust is built,
employees feel to reciprocate, which leads to high level of engagement.
As examined, there are particular evidence that CSR investments have an impact
through corporate reputation, organizational trust and identification. Corporate
reputation forms the important part of CSR influence on organizational trust and
identification. Since CSR enhances the corporate reputation, employees perceive that
organization is well known for its inside and outside ethical actions; therefore, they
involve in higher level of engagement. Engaged employees feel satisfied for working
for a socially responsible company. They pride on their organizations, which make
them work with willingness and satisfaction and also decrease their intention to quit
their job.
The research findings suggest the indirect effect of CSR to employee engagement.
Reputation is the triggering factor that enhances trust and organizational
identification. Employees feel proud of working socially responsible company, which
leads to higher engagement with the organization.
4.2 How CSR contributes organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) of
employees in the organizations?
The data analyzed for OCB and social exchange theory are from journal articles of
Gond et.al’s (2010), Zhang et.al (2013), Jones (2010), Islam et.al (2015), Shen et.al
(2014), Glavas et.al (2014) and Simona et.al (2013).
Gond et.al (2010)’s research points out that employees involve in OCB due to the
feeling of repaying the favor through high levels of satisfaction (Gond et.al, 2010).
Zhang et.al (2013) expand their research on underlying reasons of the CSR and OCB
relationship. The research has 700 respondents with different age, gender and job
titles in a multinational Chinese company (Zhang et.al, 2013). Employees express
their involvement in OCB as “ I collaborate with my colleagues in case of any
difficulty and try to solve the problems” or “ I suggest innovative solutions beyond my
assignments” (ibid). Employees’ responses indicate that they become more satisfied
with their work and have positive attitude towards their environment when they
perceive the organization’s commitment to CSR (ibid). Thus, they are eager to display
high performance and involve in extra-role behaviors in order to return the favor of
the organization (ibid).

30
Jones (2010)’s research participants from publicly traded company, Green Mountain
Coffee Roasters, which requires its employees to spend their 2,5 of their yearly hours
in volunteerism programs like in Fortune 500 and other companies. The research also
provides an insight for having different levels of engagement based on social
exchange ideology since the data compares the employees’ perception of CSR
programs (Jones, 2010). The research findings show that employees, who value the
volunteerism programs, have tendency to display OCB towards their colleagues,
organization and in-role performance due to the satisfaction they gained during the
program (ibid). However, employees who undervalue these social programs do not
display the same level of OCB (ibid).
Islam et.al (2015)’ research findings explain the CSR influence on perception of
employees, which results in job satisfaction and ultimately boosts engagement. The
research includes 22 commercial banks in Pakistan with different age, gender. The
research outputs demonstrate two variables that affect engagement, which are job
satisfaction and perceived organizational support. When employees realize that their
organization values CSR activities, they feel more satisfied with their work; therefore,
they reciprocate by displaying OCB towards their organization and co-workers as
they state in their responses (Islam et.al, 2015).
Shen et.al (2014) conduct the similar research about CSR and OCB in 35
manufacturing companies in China with different education background, age, gender
and positions. Perceived organizational support and job satisfaction are the main
outcomes of the research (Shen et.al, 2014). The perceptions of employees are
acquired from their responses as “ My organization involves in CSR”,” My
organization values the well-being of employees” (ibid). The findings suggest that
perceived organizational support has significant impact on job satisfaction since the
feeling of working for a socially responsible company creates extra motivation for
employees (ibid). Therefore, it results in high-level performance and extra-role
behaviors (ibid).
Glavas et.al (2014) also search for underlying reasons of OCB and CSR relationship
with 827 employees in North America and their research points out the similar
concepts. The findings show that CSR is influential on job satisfaction through
perceived organizational support (Glavas et.al, 2014). When employees realize that
organization values CSR activities, they perceive their organization is benevolent and
they try to retaliate positively through increased job satisfaction (ibid). Therefore, the

31
Social
Exchange
perceived support and job satisfaction trigger employees to involve in OCB in order
to take part in their organization’s commitment towards social solidarity (ibid).
Simona et.al (2013) ‘s research covers in top ten companies in Linkedin. The relation
between CSR and OCB is mediated by job satisfaction (Simona et.al, 2013). The
findings exhibit the significant effect of CSR on job satisfaction that employees
display OCB in their day-to-day activities (ibid). Employees’ responses show that
satisfaction creates motivation for employees to involve in extra-role behaviors and
innovative solutions for the company (ibid).
As examined from sources, there are evidence support that CSR has indirect effect on
OCB through job satisfaction and perceived organizational support. When employees
realize the organization’s involvement in CSR, they become fulfilled with their job
due to the organization’s contribution to its stakeholders and become ready to perform
extra behaviors. They involve in an exchange relationship that they choose to go out
of way only if they perceive that the organization treats them in a same manner. The
findings suggest that CSR has a positive relationship with perceived organizational
support and job satisfaction, which is positively related with work performance and
extra-role behavior. Therefore, interaction between the concepts starts with the
perceived organizational support that leads to job satisfaction and results in OCB-O.
Figure 4.2.1
CSR
Perceived
Organizational
Support
Job Satisfaction
High Performance Extra-Role
Behavior
OCB

32
4.3 How can organizations engage “less engagedemployees” through CSR?
The data analyzed for this research question are Du, et.al (2010), Traiq (2015), Gond
et.al (2010), Farooq et.al (2013), Slack et.al (2014), Rodrigo et.al (2007), Mirvis
(2012), Ferreira et.al (2012) and Forbes (2012).
As mentioned in previous research question, there can be different engagement levels
among employees due to the exchange ideology. However the resources point out that
employee engagement can be improved by particular courses of action through CSR.
Du, et.al (2010), Traiq (2015), Gond et.al (2010) find out the importance of CSR
awareness by being in communication and interaction with employees through blogs,
company sources or outdoor facilities. According to their research, when employees
are informed and shared about how their organization is committed to CSR,
employees acquire information about the organization’s actions. Therefore, they are
able to understand why and how their organization involve in CSR strategies, which
make them forge closer ties with the organization.
Farooq et.al (2013), Slack et.al (2014), Rodrigo et.al (2007) and Mirvis (2012) point
out that CSR should be placed in organizational culture rather than as an add-on.
Their research findings suggest the increased level of engagement can be generated
when employees experience CSR actions in their day-to-day activities and the CSR
notion is implemented into every hierarchical level and process.
Rodrigo et.al (2007), Mirvis (2012), Ferreira et.al (2012) and Forbes (2012) suggest
another important course of action from their research. When employees are involved
in CSR programs rather than following tasks that their manager assign, they can gain
insight and understanding of the task they have and be more willing and innovative
for CSR programs in the organization. Their findings demonstrate that as employees
participate in the CSR programs, they feel pride and enjoy the feeling of building or
helping something beneficial. Therefore, it enhances the engagement levels of
employees.
I will discuss the identified ways of engaging employees respectively by depending
on my research findings.

33
Lack of Awareness about CSR
One of the identified significant courses of action for engaging employees is that
organizations need to increase employees’ proximity to CSR. Communication is the
important mediator for organizations and their employees. Lack of communication
about CSR strategies and shared organizational values towards CSR cannot contribute
the employee engagement. As the researches suggest, organizations need to establish
clear, straightforward and coherent communication platforms for employees to follow
the organization’s position to CSR. These platforms should explain explicitly the
rationale behind the CSR activities, resources allocated to these sources and their
successes. Therefore, employees can gain understanding about CSR goals and feel
like they are part of it. Many organizations are good at sharing their CSR actions to
public and attract many consumers so that same strategy can be applied for internal
audience. The online platforms in organizations such as blogs, online company
communities can increase the communication and awareness of employees about
CSR.
Lack of Involvement
The decent communication solely is not sufficient to engage employees through CSR
since employees need to participate CSR activities and organizations should present
real opportunities for their involvement. Participation to CSR activities can be added
as an integral part of professional responsibilities and employee performance on these
activities can be measured. Managers can give constructive feedbacks about their
performance in CSR activities in a way that encourage employees to contribute
continuously. The involvement in CSR programs increases job satisfaction,
productivity since employees feel pride and have strong morale due to the
organization’s attitude to CSR.
Employees need to involve in creation, development and implementation process of
CSR programs rather than applying the decisions of managers or shareholders.
Employees should be active participants and co-produce CSR programs, which
enables close connection with organizations and employers. Therefore, organizations
need to implement CSR activities as an internal marketing strategy for their
employees and be open to two-way communication by interchanging ideas. By doing

34
so, organizations can enhance the organizational identification of employees and
engagement level in their workforce.
Organizational Culture
In order to engage employees through CSR, organizational values and personal values
about CSR should be able to meet in common platform. CSR practices should be
embedded in hearts and minds of employees during the day-to-day activities rather
than seen as an add-on or obligation. The share of knowledge, personal values and
organizational values are significant to spread the CSR message throughout the
organization. Organizations need to express clearly the importance and benefit of
CSR to organization and make CSR programs official through some policies.
Effective communication, awareness and involvement of employees into CSR
activities help to root CSR into organizational culture. It is important for
organizations to alter the perceptions of employees from “ simply place to work” to
“place to exchange social views”; therefore they can be able to identify themselves
more strongly with the organization.
5. Conclusion
This paper aims to contribute the research area of employee engagement and CSR
relationship. Unlike previous researches, in this paper, I investigated social exchange
theory in order to clarify the engagement through CSR. I examined CSR influence on
OCB and its outcomes as a part of engagement. In addition to this, I searched the
reasons of different engagement levels among employees and possible courses of
action through CSR to attract the less engaged employees.
The research findings demonstrate that CSR has influence on employee engagement
by organizational identification and trust. It can be inferred that CSR has indirect
effect on engagement since it triggers the mediatory concepts, which build a bridge
between CSR and employee engagement. On the other hand, the concepts that
enhance OCB through CSR are the perceived organizational support, reputation and
job satisfaction. As a theoretical ground, social exchange theory constitutes the OCB
of employees depending on reciprocity norm. Employees involve in OCB with the
feeling of paying back their organization and CSR is one of the drivers for employers
to feel obliged towards their organizations.

35
However, not every employee responds CSR programs in a same manner due to the
lack of awareness, lack of involvement into CSR activities and having CSR as an add-
on activity rather than as a culture. It is significant for organizations to communicate
with their employees in a clear and precise way. Organizations need to involve
employees into CSR programs and make them participate besides their professional
responsibilities since employees need to experience in order to realize their
organization’s commitment to CSR. Organizational culture also plays an important
role for effectiveness of CSR. When CSR is embedded into organizational culture,
employees realize that organization’s commitment to CSR is beyond the official
requirements and organization is more than just a place to work but share values.
One can draw a conclusion that CSR contributes the employee engagement, which
leads to achieve business outcomes through a willing workforce. Therefore, the
relationship between CSR and employee engagement needs to be valued by all levels
of organizations.
6. Limitations & Further Research Areas
The scope of this research paper does not cover all areas of employee engagement and
CSR relationship, for this reason the research is subject to particular limitations.
Firstly, the research approaches from general perspective to CSR and employee
engagement relationship; however, the relationship can be affected by culture,
organization’s sector, size and demographic differences of employees. Secondly, I
have chosen to focus on solely the benefits of CSR on employee engagement but
there can be cases, which CSR may be costly, inefficient and may not be needed as a
tool for engagement. This does not mean that CSR is the best remedy or solution for
engagement but contribution of CSR to engagement has been most relevant for this
research. For further research purposes, it can be useful to consider different variables
to gauge their effect on CSR – employee engagement relationship such as
demographic differences of employees, hierarchical levels and line of business such
as service or production based organizations.

36
7. References
1. Abdullah, M. H., & Rashid, N. R. N. A. (2012). The Implementation of
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Programs and its Impact on Employee
Organizational Citizenship Behavior. International Journal of Business and
Commerce, 2(1), 67-75.
2. Albrecht, S., Bakker, A., Gruman, J., Macey, W. and Saks, A. (2015). Employee
engagement, human resource management practices and competitive
advantage. Jrnl of Org Effectiveness, 2(1), pp.7-35.
3. Ali, I. and Ali, J. (2011). Corporate social responsibility, corporate reputation and
employee engagement. COMSATS Institute of Information Technology.
4. Andersson, L. (1996). Employee Cynicism: An Examination Using a Contract
Violation Framework. Human Relations, 49(11), pp.1395-1418.
Available: http://www.mallenbaker.net/csr/definition.php , (Accessed:04.01.2015)
5. Bakker, A., Albrecht, S. and Leiter, M. (2011). Key questions regarding work
engagement.European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20(1),
pp.4-28.
6. Beck, R. and Harter, J. (2014). Why Good Managers Are So Rare. [online]
Harvard Business Review. Available at: https://hbr.org/2014/03/why-good-
managers-are-so-rare [Accessed 11 Jul. 2015].
7. Borman, W. C. (2004). The concept of organizational citizenship. Current
directions in psychological science, 13(6), 238-241.
8. Brayfield, A. and Rothe, H. (1951). An index of job satisfaction. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 35(5), pp.307-311.
9. Bryman, A. and Bell, E. (2011). Business research methods. Oxford: Oxford
Univ. Press.
10. Caligiuri, P., Mencin, A. and Jiang, K. (2013). Win-Win-Win: The Influence of
Company-Sponsored Volunteerism Programs on Employees, NGOs, and Business
Units. Personnel Psychology, 66(4), pp.825-860.
11. Carroll, A. (1999). Corporate Social Responsibility: Evolution of a Definitional
Construct.Business & Society, 38(3), pp.268-295.
12. Choi, Y. and Yu, Y. (2014). The Influence of Perceived Corporate Sustainability
Practices on Employees and Organizational Performance. Sustainability, 6(1),
pp.348-364.
13. Cooper, S. and Wagman, G. (2009). Corporate Social Responsibility: A Study Of
Progression to the Next Level. Journal of Business & Economics Research.
14. David A. Coldwell, Jon Billsberry, Nathalie van Meurs, Philip J. G. Marsh,
(2007), “The Effects of Person–Organization Ethical Fit on Employee Attraction
and Retention: Towards a Testable Explanatory Model”, Journal of Business
Ethics (2008) 78:611–622.
15. Dicke, C., Holwerda, J. and Kontakos, A. (2007). Employee Engagement: What
Do We Really Know? What Do We Need to Know to Take Action?. CAHRS.
16. Du, S., Bhattacharya, C. and Sen, S. (2010). Maximizing Business Returns to
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): The Role of CSR
Communication. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), pp.8-19.
17. Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Rexwinkel, B., Lynch, P. and Rhoades, L. (2001).
Reciprocation of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 86(1), pp.42-51.
18. Elkington, J 1997, Cannibals with Forks: Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century
Business, Capstone Publishing Limited, Oxford.

37
19. Esmaeelinezhad, O., Boerhannoeddin, A. and Singaravelloo, K. (2015). The
Effects of Corporate Social Responsibility Dimensions on Employee Engagement
in Iran. IJARBSS, 5(3).
20. Epstein, EM 1987, „The corporate social policy process: Beyond business ethics,
corporate social responsibility, and corporate social responsiveness‟, California
Management Review, vol. 29, pp. 99-114.
21. Farooq, M., Farooq, O. and Jasimuddin, S. (2014). ‘Employees response to
corporate social responsibility: Exploring the role of employees’ collectivist
orientation’. European Management Journal, 32(6), pp.916-927.
22. Farooq, O., Payaud, M., Merunka, D. and Valette-Florence, P. (2013). The Impact
of Corporate Social Responsibility on Organizational Commitment: Exploring
Multiple Mediation Mechanisms. J Bus Ethics, 125(4), pp.563-580.
23. Ferreira, P. and Real de Oliveira, E. (2014). Does corporate social responsibility
impact on employee engagement?. Journal of Workplace Learning, 26(3/4),
pp.232-247.
24. Forbes, (2012). The Top 10 Trends in CSR for 2012. [online] Available at:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesleadershipforum/2012/01/18/the-top-10-trends-
in-csr-for-2012/ [Accessed 12 Jul. 2015].
25. Frederick, W. (1960). The Growing Concern Over Business
Responsibility. California Management Review, 2(4), pp.54-61.
26. Freeman, RE 1984, Strategic management: A stakeholder approach, Pitman,
Boston
27. Friedman, M 1970, „The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its
Profits‟, New York Times Magazine, September 13th, pp. 32–33, 122, 126.
28. Gill, S. (2009). Employee Engagement Is Not Employee Commitment - The
Performance Improvement Blog. [online] Stephenjgill.typepad.com. Available at:
http://stephenjgill.typepad.com/performance_improvement_b/2009/06/employee-
engagement-is-not-employee-commitment-.html [Accessed 6 Jul. 2015].
29. Glavas, A. and Kelley, K. (2014). The Effects of Perceived Corporate Social
Responsibility on Employee Attitudes. Bus. Ethics Q., 24(02), pp.165-202.
30. Gond, J. P., El-Akremi, A., Igalens, J., & Swaen, V. (2010). Corporate social
responsibility influence on employees. Research Paper Series. International
Centre for Corporate Social Responsibility. Nottingham University.
31. Gross, R., & Holland, B. (2011). Corporate social responsibility and employee
engagement: Making the connection. White Paper, pg, 2.
32. Hadad, H. A., & Fallahi, K. (2015). Investigation the relationship between social
responsibility and organizational citizenship behavior (Case study: Tehran
Municipality Organization).
33. Hallberg, U. and Schaufeli, W. (2006). “Same Same” But Different?. European
Psychologist, 11(2), pp.119-127.
34. Heald, M. (1957). Management's Responsibility to Society: The Growth of an
Idea. Business History Review, 31(04), pp.375-384.
35. Hopkins, M 1998 The Planetary Bargain: Corporate Social Responsibility Comes
of Age, Macmillan, London.
36. Isa, S. (2012). Corporate Social Responsibility: What can we Learn from the
Stakeholders?.Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 65, pp.327-337.
37. Islam, T., Ali, F. H., Aamir, M., Khalifah, Z., Ahmad, R., & Ahmad, U. N. U. B.
(2015) EMPLOYEES’PERCEPTION OF CSR AND ORGANIZATIONAL
CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR.

38
38. Jahangir, N., Akbar, M. and Haq, M. (2006). Organizational Citizenship
Behavior: Its Nature, Antecedents, and Consequences. Personnel Psychology,
59(2), pp.484-487.
39. Jamali & Mirshak 2007, „Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): Theory and
Practice in a Developing Country Context‟, Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 72,
no. 3, pp. 243-262.
40. Jones, D. (2010). Does serving the community also serve the company? Using
organizational identification and social exchange theories to understand employee
responses to a volunteerism programme. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 83(4), pp.857-878.
41. Jones, TM 1980 (Spring), „Corporate social responsibility revisited‟, redefined.
California Management Review, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 59-67.
42. Kahn, W. (1990). PSYCHOLOGICAL CONDITIONS OF PERSONAL
ENGAGEMENT AND DISENGAGEMENT AT WORK. Academy of
Management Journal, 33(4), pp.692-724.
43. Kataria, A., Garg, P. and Rastogi, R. (2013). Employee Engagement and
Organizational Effectiveness: The Role of Organizational Citizenship
Behavior. IJBIT, 6(1).
44. Khan, A., Latif, F., Jalal, W., Anjum, R. and Rizwan, M. (2014). The Impact of
Rewards & Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) On Employee
Motivation. ijhrs, 4(3), p.70.
45. Konovsky, M. and Pugh, S. (1994). CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL
EXCHANGE. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), pp.656-669.
46. Kruse, K. (2012). What Is Employee Engagement. [online] Forbes. Available at:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kevinkruse/2012/06/22/employee-engagement-what-
and-why/ [Accessed 7 Jul. 2015].
47. Kular, S., Gatenby, M., Rees, C., Soane, E. and Truss, K. (2008). Employee
Engagement: A Literature Review. Kingston Business School, 19.
48. Lantos, GP 2001, „The boundaries of strategic corporate social responsibility‟.
Journal of Consumer Marketing, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 595–630. Lantos, GP 2002,
„The ethicality of altruistic corporate social responsibility‟, Journal of Consumer
Marketing, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 205–230.
49. Macey, W. and Schneider, B. (2008). The Meaning of Employee
Engagement. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1(1), pp.3-30.
50. Mallen Baker, (2004), “Corporate social responsibility - What does it mean?
51. Mark Saunders, Philip Lewis, and Adrian Thornhill, (2012) “Research Methods
for Business Students”, 6th ed, FT/Prentice Hall.
52. Maslach, C. (2004). Different Perspectives on Job Burnout. Psyccritiques, 49(2).
53. McShane, L., & Cunningham, P. (2012). To thine own self be true? Employees’
judgments of the authenticity of their organization’s corporate social
responsibility program. Journal of business ethics, 108(1), 81-100.
54. Mirvis, P. (2012). Employee Engagement and CSR. California Management
Review, 54(4), pp.93-117.
55. Newman, A., Miao, Q., Hofman, P. and Zhu, C. (2015). The impact of socially
responsible human resource management on employees' organizational citizenship
behaviour: the mediating role of organizational identification. The International
Journal of Human Resource Management, pp.1-16.
56. Newman, A., Nielsen, I. and Miao, Q. (2014). The impact of employee
perceptions of organizational corporate social responsibility practices on job
performance and organizational citizenship behavior: evidence from the Chinese

39
private sector. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 26(9),
pp.1226-1242.
57. Organ, D. (1997). Organizational Citizenship Behavior: It's Construct Clean-Up
Time. Human Performance, 10(2), pp.85-97.
58. Podsakoff, P. (2000). Organizational Citizenship Behaviors: A Critical Review of
the Theoretical and Empirical Literature and Suggestions for Future
Research. Journal of Management, 26(3), pp.513-563.
59. Preston, LE & Post, JE 1975, Private management and public policy: The
principle of public responsibility, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
60. Rahman, S. (2011). Evaluation of definitions: ten dimensions of corporate social
responsibility. World Review of Business Research, 1(1), 166-176.
61. Rodrigo, P. and Arenas, D. (2007). Do Employees Care About CSR Programs? A
Typology of Employees According to their Attitudes. J Bus Ethics, 83(2), pp.265-
283.
62. Saul, D. (2012). HR Magazine - CSR and its impact on employee engagement.
[online] Hrmagazine.co.uk. Available at:
http://www.hrmagazine.co.uk/hro/features/1074972/csr-impact-employee-
engagement [Accessed 20 Jul. 2015].
63. Schaufeli, W. (2006). The Measurement of Work Engagement With a Short
Questionnaire: A Cross-National Study. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 66(4), pp.701-716.
64. Schnepp, G. and Bowen, H. (1954). Social Responsibilities of the
Businessman. The American Catholic Sociological Review, 15(1), p.42.
65. Sethi, SP 1975 (Spring), „Dimensions of corporate social performance: An
analytic framework‟, California Management Review, vol. 17, pp. 58-64.
66. Settoon, R., Bennett, N. and Liden, R. (1996). Social Exchange in Organizations:
Perceived Organizational Support, Leader-Member Exchange, and Employee
Reciprocity. SSRN Journal.
67. Shen, J. and Benson, J. (2014). When CSR Is a Social Norm: How Socially
Responsible Human Resource Management Affects Employee Work
Behavior. Journal of Management.
68. Shuck, B. (2011). Integrative Literature Review: Four Emerging Perspectives of
Employee Engagement: An Integrative Literature Review. Human Resource
Development Review, 10(3), pp.304-328.
69. Shuck, B. and Wollard, K. (2009). Employee Engagement and HRD: A Seminal
Review of the Foundations. Human Resource Development Review, 9(1), pp.89-
110.
70. Shuck, B., Reio, T. and Rocco, T. (2011). Employee engagement: an examination
of antecedent and outcome variables. Human Resource Development
International, 14(4), pp.427-445.
71. Simona, V. I. N. E. R. E. A. N., Iuliana, C. E. T. I. N. A., Luigi, D. U. M. I. T. R.
E. S. C. U., & Mihai, T. I. C. H. I. N. D. E. L. E. A. N. (2013). Modelling
Employee Engagement In Relation To Csr Practices And Employee
Satisfaction. Revista Economica, 65(1), 21-37.
72. Slack, R., Corlett, S. and Morris, R. (2014). Exploring Employee Engagement
with (Corporate) Social Responsibility: A Social Exchange Perspective on
Organisational Participation. Journal of Business Ethics, 127(3), pp.537-548.
73. Slåtten, T. and Mehmetoglu, M. (2011). Antecedents and effects of engaged
frontline employees. Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, 21(1),
pp.88-107.

40
74. Tariq, M. (2015). Effect of CSR on Employee Engagement. Indian Journal of
Science and Technology, 8(S4), p.301.
75. Tiwari, V. and Singh, S. (2014). Moderation Effect of Job Involvement on the
Relationship Between Organizational Commitment and Job Satisfaction. SAGE
Open, 4(2).
76. Tsai, H., Tsang, N. and Cheng, S. (2012). Hotel employees’ perceptions on
corporate social responsibility: The case of Hong Kong. International Journal of
Hospitality Management, 31(4), pp.1143-1154.
77. Turker, D. (2008). How Corporate Social Responsibility Influences
Organizational Commitment.J Bus Ethics, 89(2), pp.189-204.
78. Tuzzolino, F & Armandi, BR 1981, „A need-hierarchy framework for assessing
corporate social responsibility‟, Academy of Management Review, vol. 6, pp. 21-
28.
79. Vinerean, S., Cetina, I., Dumitrescu, L., & Tichindelean, M. (2013).
MODELLING EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT IN RELATION TO CSR
PRACTICES AND EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION. Revista Economica, 65(1),
21-37.
80. Walton, C. C. (1967). Corporate social responsibilities. Wadsworth Publishing
Company.
81. Weiss, H. (2002). Deconstructing job satisfaction. Human Resource Management
Review, 12(2), pp.173-194.
82. Woodward-Clyde (1999), „Key Opportunities and Risks to New Zealand‟s Export
Trade from Green Market Signals‟, final paper, Sustainable Management Fund
Project 6117, New Zealand Trade and Development Board, Auckland.
83. Zhang, M., Di Fan, D. and Zhu, C. (2013). High-Performance Work Systems,
Corporate Social Performance and Employee Outcomes: Exploring the Missing
Links. J Bus Ethics, 120(3), pp.423-435.

INFLUENCE OF CSR ON EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to INFLUENCE OF CSR ON EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT

Similar to INFLUENCE OF CSR ON EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT (20)

INFLUENCE OF CSR ON EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT