Abstract
This paper examines employees’ reactions to Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) programs at the attitudinal level. The results presented are drawn from an in-depth study of two Chilean construction firms that have well-established CSR programs. Grounded theory was applied to the data prior to the construction of the conceptual framework. The analysis shows that the implementation of CSR programs generates two types of attitudes in employees: attitudes toward the organization and attitudes toward society. These two broad types of attitudes can then be broken down into four different categories: (1) acceptance of the new role of the organization, (2) identification with the organization, (3) importance attached to the work performed and (4) a sense of social justice. In turn, each of these categories is a grouping of many different concepts, some of which have at first sight little to do with CSR. Finally, the analysis reveals an attitudinal employee typology: the committed worker, the indifferent worker, and the dissident worker.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Adams J. S. 1963, Toward an Understanding of Inequity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 67, 422–436
Branco M. C., Rodrigues L. L. 2006 Corporate Social Responsibility and Resource-Based Perspectives. Journal of Business Ethics 69(2), 111–132
Breckler S. J. 1984 Empirical Validation of Affect, Behavior, and Cognition as Distinct Components of Attitude. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 47, 1191–1205
Cavanagh G. F., McGovern A. F. 1988 Ethical Dilemmas in the Modern Corporation. Prentice Halls, Englewoof Cliffs
Clarkson, M. 1995 A Stakeholder Framework for Analyzing and Evaluating Corporate Social Performance. Academy of Management Review 20(1), 92–117
Crites S. L. Jr., Fabrigar L. R., Petty R. E. 1994 Measuring the Affective and Cognitive Properties of Attitudes: Conceptual and Methodological Issues. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 20(6), 619–634
Drucker, P.: 2001: ‹The Next Society’, The Economist, Nov. 1st, p. 16
Eisenhardt K. M. 1989 Building Theories from Case Study Research. Academy of Management Review 14(4), 532–550
Frederick W. C., Davis K., Post J. E. 1988 Business and Society: Corporate Strategy, Public Policy, Ethics. McGraw Hill, New York
Freeman R. E. 1984 Strategic Management: a Stakeholder Approach. Pittman-Ballinger, Boston
Glaser, B. (with the assistance of Holton, J.): 2004, ‹Remodelling Grounded Theory’, Forum: Qualitative Social Research (On-line Journal) 5(2), Art. 4
Glaser B., Strauss A. 1967 The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies Of Qualitative Research. Wiedenfeld and Nicholson, London
Glaser B. 1978 Theoretical Sensitivity. Sociology Press: Mill Valley, CA
Glaser B. 1992 Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis: Emergence Versus Forcing. Sociology Press: Mill Valley, CA
Goodpaster K. E. 1991 Business Ethics and Stakeholder Theory. Business Ethics Quarterly 1(1), 53–72
Goulding C. 2002, Grounded Theory. A Practical Guide for Management, Business and Market Researchers. Sage Publications Ltd, London
Handy Ch. 2001: The Elephant and the Flea: Looking Backward to the Future. Hutchinson, London
Hemingway C. A. 2005 Personal Values as a Catalyst for Corporate Social Entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Ethics 60(3), 233–249
Herzberg F.: 2003 [original 1968], ‹One more time: how do you motivate your employees’, Harvard Business Review 81(1), 87–96
Lincoln Y. S., Guba E. G. 1985 Naturalistic Inquiry. Sage Publications Inc.: Beverly Hills, CA
Maslow A. H. 1943 A Theory of Human Motivation. Psychological Review 50, 370–396
Miles M. B., Huberman M. 1994 Qualitative Data Analysis: A Sourcebook of New Methods, 2nd Edition. Sage Publications Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA
Mitchell R. K., Agle B. R., Wood D. J. 1997 Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience: Defining the Principle of who and what Really Counts. Academy of Management Review 22(4), 853–886
Mitroff I. I. 1983 Stakeholders of the Organizational Mind. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco
Orlikowski, W. 1993 CASE Tools as Organizational Change: Investigating Incremental and Radical Changes in Systems Development. Management Information System Quarterly 17(3), 309–340
Patton M. Q. 2002 Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods, 3rd Edition. Sage Publications Inc.: Thousand Oaks, CA
Pettigrew A. M. 1990 Longitudinal Field Research on Change: Theory and Practice. Organization & Science 1(3), 267–292
Rodrigo P. 2004 1ª Serie de Casos Académicos de RSE. Adolfo Ibáñez University – Acción RSE, Santiago de Chile
Strauss A., Corbin J. 1990 Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Sage Publications Ltd., London
Strauss A. 1987 Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Suddaby R. 2006 From the Editors: What Grounded Theory is Not. Academy of Management Journal 49(4), 633–642
Wahba M. A., Bridwell L. G. 1976 Maslow Reconsidered: A Review of Research on the Need Hierarchy Theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 15, 212–240
Yin R. 2003 Case Study Research, Design and Methods, 3rd Edition. Sage Publications Inc, Thousands Oaks, CA
Acknowledgements
We want to thank Fundacio´ Jesu´s Serra in Catalonia for their financial support of one of the researchers to continue his research. A preliminary draft of this article was presented (in Spanish) at the conference ``XIV Congreso Nacional de E´tica, Economia y Direccio´n'' (EBEN – Spain), Valencia – Spain, 15 and 16 December 2006. We are grateful to the audience for the interesting feedback we received there. Our gratitude goes as well to our anonymous reviewers because they gave us the opportunity to fix some ambiguities, some omissions and in general to improve the quality of the paper.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Pablo Rodrigo is Associate Professor at Adolfo Iba´ñez University (Chile), where he teaches Organizational Behavior, Organizational Theory, General Management, Human Resources, Business Ethics and CSR. He is PhD candidate in Management Sciences from ESADE Business School-Universitat Ramon Llull, where he collaborates as researcher in the Institute for Social Innovation.
Daniel Arenas is Associate Professor at ESADE Business School-Universitat Ramon Llull, where he teaches Business Ethics, CSR and sociology. He is the Head of Research of the Institute for Social Innovation at ESADE and a member of the management committee of EABIS.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Rodrigo, P., Arenas, D. Do Employees Care About CSR Programs? A Typology of Employees According to their Attitudes. J Bus Ethics 83, 265–283 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9618-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9618-7