How Co-creation Increases Employee Corporate Social Responsibility and Organizational Engagement: The Moderating Role of Self-Construal
This research merges literature from organizational behavior and marketing to garner insight into how organizations can maximize the benefits of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) for enhanced CSR and organizational engagement of employees. Across two field experiments, the authors demonstrate that the effectiveness of employee co-creation activities in increasing employees’ positive CSR perceptions is moderated by self-construal (i.e., whether an individual views the self as relatively independent from or interdependent with others). In particular, the positive effect of co-creation on CSR perceptions emerges only for employees with a salient interdependent self-construal (either measured as an individual difference or experimentally manipulated). Moreover, the results demonstrate that increased positive CSR perceptions then predict increased CSR engagement and organizational engagement. The research thus highlights the need to consider self-construal when trying to utilize co-creation to predict CSR engagement and organizational engagement, via CSR perceptions.
KeywordsCorporate social responsibility (CSR) Co-creation Sustainability Engagement Self-construal
The authors are grateful for funding from the Dancap Private Equity Research Award in the DAN Department of Management and Organizational Studies, Western University.
The research was funded by an internal departmental faculty research grant from the institution of the first and second authors for which no grant number is provided.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committees and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in Study 1. Informed consent was waived with institutional ethics approval for Study 2 on the basis that participants were not asked to participate in tasks that were unusual compared to their daily workplace activity on MTurk, and no identifiable or demographic data were collected. All participants were debriefed following the data collection and offered the opportunity to withdraw their participation.
- Aguinis, H. (2011). Organizational responsibility: Doing good and doing well. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 855–879). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
- Bhattacharya, C. B., Sen, S., & Korschun, D. (2008). Using corporate social responsibility to win the war for talent. MIT Sloan Management Review, Winter, 37–44.Google Scholar
- Chiu, C., & Hong, Y. (2007). Cultural processes: Basic principles. In W. Arie, Kruglanski & E. Tory Higgins (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 785–806). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
- Farooq, O., Rupp, D. E., & Farooq, M. (2017). The multiple pathways through which internal and external corporate social responsibility influence organizational identification and multifoci outcomes: The moderating role of cultural and social orientations. Academy of Management Journal, 60, 954–985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Glavas, A. (2016a). Corporate social responsibility and organizational psychology: An integrative review. Frontiers in Psychology, Organizational Specialty Section, 7(144), 1–13.Google Scholar
- Glavas, A. (2016b). Corporate social responsibility and employee engagement: Enabling employees to employ more of their whole selves at work. Frontiers in Psychology, 7(796), 1–10.Google Scholar
- Hameed, I., Riaz, Z., Arain, G. A., & Farooq, O. (2018). How do internal and external CSR affect employees’ organizational identification? A perspective from the group engagement model. Frontiers in Psychology, 7(788), 1–13.Google Scholar
- Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and time. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
- Hirschman, A. O. (1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms, organizations, and states. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Jones, D. A., Newman, A., Shao, R., & Cooke, F. L. (2018). Advances in employee-focused micro-level research on corporate social responsibility: Situating new contributions within the current state of the literature. Journal of Business Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3792-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Kirmani, A., & Dretsch, H. J. (2014). Why are some brand co-creation activities more effective than others? The effects of brand knowledge potential and self–brand connection on brand engagement intentions. In J. Cotte & S. Wood (Eds.), Advances in consumer research. Duluth, MN: Association for Consumer Research.Google Scholar
- Koopman, P. L., & Wierdsma, A. F. M. (1998). Participative management. In P. J. D. Doentu, H. Thierry & C. J. de-Wolf (Eds.), Personnel psychology: Handbook of work and organizational psychology. Hove: Psychology Press/Erlb.Google Scholar
- Lam, S. S. K., Chen, X. P., & Schaubroeck, J. (2002). Participative decision making and employee performance in different cultures: The moderating effects of allocentrism/idiocentrism and efficacy. Academy of Management Journal, 45(5), 905–914.Google Scholar
- Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics. Human Relations, 1, 2–38.Google Scholar
- Miller, K. I., & Monge, P. R. (1986). Participation, satisfaction, and productivity: A meta-analytic review. Academy of Management Journal, 29(4), 727–753.Google Scholar
- Oliver, R. L. (2006). Co-producers and co-participants in the satisfaction process. In R. F. Lusch & S. L. Vargo (Eds.), The service-dominant logic of marketing: Dialog, debate, and directions. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2000). Co-opting customer competence. Harvard Business Review, 78, 79–87.Google Scholar
- Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
- Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., Abel, T., Guagnano, G. A., & Kalof, L. (1999). A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: The case of environmentalism. Human Ecology Review, 6(2), 81–97.Google Scholar
- Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. (1998). Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 108–119.Google Scholar