Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

How Co-creation Increases Employee Corporate Social Responsibility and Organizational Engagement: The Moderating Role of Self-Construal

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abele, A. E., & Wojciszke, B. (2007). Agency and communion from the perspective of self versus others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(5), 751–763.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Aguinis, H., & Glavas, A. (2012). What we know and don’t know about corporate social responsibility: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 38(4), 932–968.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44(9), 1175–1184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baruch, Y., & Holtom, B. C. (2008). Survey response rate levels and trends in organizational research. Human Relations, 61, 1139–1160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bendapudi, N., & Leone, R. P. (2003). Psychological implications of customer participation in co-production. Journal of Marketing, 67(1), 14–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhattacharya, C. B., Korschun, D., & Sen, S. (2009). Strengthening stakeholder–company relationships through mutually beneficial corporate social responsibility initiatives. Journal of Business Ethics, 85, 257–272.

    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.

  • Black, I., & Veloutsou, C. (2017). Working consumers: Co-creation of brand identity, consumer identity and brand community identity. Journal of Business Research, 70, 416–429.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bolton, S. C., Kim, R. C. H., & O’Gorman, K. D. (2011). Corporate social responsibility as a dynamic internal organizational process: A case study. Journal of Business Ethics, 101, 61–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brammer, S., Millington, A., & Rayton, B. (2007). The contribution of corporate social responsibility to organizational commitment. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18, 1701–1719.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. (1996). Who is this ‘we’? Levels of collective identity and self-representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(1), 83–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burbano, V. C. (2016). Social responsibility messages and worker wage requirements: Field experimental evidence from online labor marketplaces. Organization Science, 27(4), 1010–1028.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caligiuri, P., Mencin, A., & Jiang, K. (2013). Win-win-win: The influence of company-sponsored volunteerism programs on employees, NGOs, and business units. Personnel Psychology, 66, 825–860.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carmeli, A., Gilat, G., & Waldman, D. A. (2007). The role of perceived organizational performance in organizational identification, adjustment and job performance. Journal of Management Studies, 44(6), 972–992.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chan, K. W., Yim, C. K., & Lam, S. (2010). Is customer participation in value creation a double-edged sword? Evidence from professional financial services across cultures. Journal of Marketing, 74(3), 48–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang, W., & Taylor, S. A. (2016). The effectiveness of customer participation in new product development: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marketing, 80(1), 47–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, C. C., Chen, X. P., & Meindl, J. R. (1998). How can cooperation be fostered? The cultural effects of individualism–collectivism. Academy of Management Review, 23, 285–304.

    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 

  • Ciocirlan, C. E. (2017). Environmental workplace behaviors: Definition matters. Organization & Environment, 30, 51–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Connelly, B. L., Certo, S. T., Ireland, R. D., & Reutzel, C. R. (2011). Signaling theory: A review and assessment. Journal of Management, 37, 39–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cossio-Silva, F. J., Revilla-Camacho, M. A., Vega-Vazquez, M., & Palacios-Florencio, B. (2016). Value co-creation and customer loyalty. Journal of Business Research, 69, 1621–1625.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Roeck, K., El Akremi, A., & Swaen, V. (2016). Consistency matters! How and when does corporate social responsibility affect employees’ organizational identification? Journal of Management Studies, 53, 1141–1168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delmas, M. A., & Aragón-Correa, J. A. (2016). Field experiments in corporate sustainability research: Testing strategies for behavior changes in markets and organizations. Organization & Environment, 29, 391–400.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dögl, C., & Holtbrügge, D. (2014). Corporate environmental responsibility, employer reputation and employee commitment: An empirical study in developed and emerging economies. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25, 1739–1762.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duclos, R., & Barasch, A. (2014). Donor self-construal and recipient group-membership shape generosity. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(1), 93–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • El Akremi, A., Gond, J. P., Swaen, V., De Roeck, K., & Igalens, J. (2018). How do employees perceive corporate responsibility? Development and validation of a multidimensional corporate stakeholder responsibility scale. Journal of Management, 44(2), 619–657.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellen, P. S., Webb, D. J., & Mohr, L. A. (2006). Building corporate associations: Consumer attributions for corporate socially responsible programs. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34, 147–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ennew, C. T., & Binks, M. R. (1999). Impacting of participative service relationships on quality, satisfaction, and retention: An exploratory study. Journal of Business Research, 46(2), 121–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Etgar, M. (2008). A descriptive model of the consumer co-production process. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 97–108.

    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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franke, N., Keinz, P., & Steger, C. J. (2009). Testing the value of customization: When do customers really prefer products tailored to their preferences? Journal of Marketing, 73, 103–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franke, N., von Hippel, E., & Schreier, M. (2006). Finding commercially attractive user innovations: A test of lead-user theory. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23, 301–315.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, W. L., Gabriel, S., & Lee, A. L. (1999). “I” value freedom but “we” value relationships: Self-construal priming mirrors cultural differences in judgment. Psychological Science, 10, 321–326.

    Google 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 

  • Glavas, A., & Godwin, L. N. (2013). Is the perception of ‘goodness’ good enough? Exploring the relationship between perceived corporate social responsibility and employee organizational identification. Journal of Business Ethics, 114, 15–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glavas, A., & Piderit, S. K. (2009). How does doing good matter? Effects of corporate citizenship in employees. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 36, 51–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gond, J. P., Akremi, E., Swaen, A., V., & Babu, N. (2017). The psychological microfoundations of corporate social responsibility: A person-centric systematic review. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38, 225–246.

    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 

  • Hansen, S. D., Dunford, B. B., Boss, A. D., Boss, R. W., & Angermeier, I. (2011). Corporate social responsibility and the benefits of employee trust: A cross-disciplinary perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 102, 29–45.

    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 

  • Horton, J. J., Rand, D. G., & Zeckhauser, R. J. (2011). The online laboratory: Conducting experiments in a real labor market. Experimental Economics, 14(3), 399–425.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howie, K. M., Yang, L., Vitell, S. J., Bush, V., & Vorhies, D. (2018). Consumer participation in cause-related marketing: An examination of effort demands and defensive denial. Journal of Business Ethics, 147(3), 679–692.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoyer, W. D., Chandy, R., Dorotic, M., Krafft, M., & Singh, S. S. (2010). Consumer cocreation in new product development. Journal of Service Research, 13, 283–296.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, D. A. (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), 857–878.

    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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, D. A., Willness, C. R., & Madey, S. (2014). Why are job seekers attracted by corporate social performance? Experimental and field tests of three signal-based mechanisms. Academy of Management Journal, 57(2), 383–404.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jurietti, E., Mandelli, A., & Fudurić, M. (2017). How do virtual corporate social responsibility dialogs generate value? A case study of The Unilever Sustainable Living Lab. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 24, 357–367.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, H. R., Lee, M., Lee, H. T., & Kim, N. M. (2010). Corporate social responsibility and employee–company identification. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(4), 557–569.

    Google 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 

  • Korschun, D., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Swain, S. D. (2014). Corporate social responsibility, customer orientation, and the job performance of frontline employees. Journal of Marketing, 78(3), 20–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Korschun, D., & Du, S. (2013). How virtual corporate social responsibility dialogs generate value: A framework and propositions. Journal of Business Research, 66(9), 1494–1504.

    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 

  • Lin, C. P. (2010). Modeling corporate citizenship, organizational trust, and work engagement based on attachment theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 94, 517–531.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, C. P., Tsai, Y. H., Joe, S. W., & Chiu, C. K. (2012). Modeling the relationship among perceived corporate citizenship, firms’ attractiveness, and career success expectation. Journal of Business Ethics, 105, 83–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 103–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224–253.

    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 

  • Morgeson, F. P., Aguinis, H., Waldman, D. A., & Siegel, D. S. (2013). Extending corporate social responsibility research to human resource management and organizational behavior domains: A look to the future. Personnel Psychology, 66, 805–824.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muller, A., & Kolk, A. (2010). Extrinsic and intrinsic drivers of corporate social performance: Evidence from foreign and domestic firms in Mexico. Journal of Management Studies, 47, 1–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norton, T. A., Zacher, H., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2014). Organisational sustainability policies and employee green behaviour: The mediating role of work climate perceptions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 38, 49–54.

    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 

  • Opoku-Dakwa, A., Chen, C. C., & Rupp, D. E. (2018). CSR initiative characteristics and employee engagement: An impact-based perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39, 580–593.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oyserman, D., Sakamoto, I., & Lauffer, A. (1998). Cultural accommodation: Hybridity and the framing of social obligation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1606–1618.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pongsakornrungsilp, S., & Schroeder, J. E. (2011). Understanding value co-creation in a co-consuming brand community. Marketing Theory, 11(3), 303–324.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2000). Co-opting customer competence. Harvard Business Review, 78, 79–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004). Co-creation experiences: The next practice in value creation. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18, 5–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramaswamy, V., & Ozcan, K. (2018). What is co-creation? An interactional creation framework and its implications for value creation. Journal of Business Research, 84, 196–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodell, J. (2013). Finding meaning through volunteering: Why do employees volunteer and what does it mean for their jobs? Academy of Management Journal, 56, 1274–1294.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogelberg, S. G., & Stanton, J. M. (2007). Introduction: Understanding and dealing with organizational survey nonresponse. Organizational Research Methods, 10, 195–209.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rucker, D. D., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008). Desire to acquire: Powerlessness and compensatory consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(2), 257–267.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rupp, D. E., & Mallory, D. B. (2015). Corporate social responsibility: Psychological, person-centric, and progressing. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2, 211–236.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rupp, D. E., Shao, R., Skarlicki, D. P., Paddock, E. L., Kim, T. Y., & Nadisic, T. (2018). Corporate social responsibility and employee engagement: The moderating role of CSR-specific relative autonomy and individualism. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(5), 559–579.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rupp, D. E., Shao, R., Thornton, M. A., & Skarlicki, D. P. (2013). Applicants’ and employees’ reactions to corporate social responsibility: The moderating effects of first-party justice perceptions and moral identity. Personnel Psychology, 66(4), 895–933.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21, 600–619.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saks, A. M. (2017). Translating employee engagement research into practice. Organizational Dynamics, 46, 76–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saks, A. M., & Gruman, J. A. (2014). What do we really know about employee engagement? Human Resource Development Quarterly, 25, 155–182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schaufeli, W., & Salanova, M. (2011). Work engagement: On how to better catch a slippery concept. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20, 39–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schaufeli, W., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., & Bakker, A. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two-sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3(1), 71–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, B., White, K., & Laran, J. (2018). When public recognition for charitable giving backfires: The role of independent self-construal. Journal of Consumer Research, 44(6), 1257–1273.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singelis, T. M. (1994). The measurement of independent and interdependent self-construals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(5), 580–591.

    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 

  • Stumpf, S. A., Tymon, W. G. Jr., & van Dam, N. H. M. (2013). Felt and behavioral engagement in workgroups of professionals. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 83(3), 255–264.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, D. V., & Malaviya, P. (2013). Consumer-generated ads: Does awareness of advertising co-creation help or hurt persuasion? Journal of Marketing, 77(3), 33–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tian, Q., & Robertson, J. L. (2017).). How and when does perceived CSR affect employees’ engagement in voluntary pro-environmental behavior? Journal of Business Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3497-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turker, D. (2009). Measuring corporate social responsibility: A scale development study. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(4), 411–427.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valentine, S., & Fleischman, G. (2008). Ethics programs, perceived corporate social responsibility and job satisfaction. Journal of Business Ethics, 77(2), 159–172.

    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 

  • Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verleye, K. (2015). The co-creation experience from the customer perspective: Its measurement and determinants. Journal of Service Management, 26(2), 321–342.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vlachos, P. A., Panagopoulos, N. G., & Rapp, A. A. (2014). Employee judgments of and behaviors toward corporate social responsibility: A multi-study investigation of direct, cascading, and moderating effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(7), 990–1017.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voyer, B. G., Kastanakis, M. N., & Rhode, A. K. (2017). Co-creating stakeholder and brand identities: A cross-cultural consumer perspective. Journal of Business Research, 70, 399–410.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, T., Lutz, R. J., & Weitz, B. A. (2009). Corporate hypocrisy: Overcoming the threat of inconsistent corporate social responsibility perceptions. Journal of Marketing, 73, 77–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, K., & Argo, J. (2011). When imitation doesn’t flatter: The role of consumer distinctiveness in responses to mimicry. Journal of Consumer Research, 38, 667–680.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, K., Argo, J. J., & Sengupta, J. (2012). Dissociative versus associative responses to social identity threat: The role of consumer self-construal. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(4), 704–719.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, K., & Peloza, J. (2009). Self-benefit versus other-benefit marketing appeals: Their effectiveness in generating charitable support. Journal of Marketing, 73, 109–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, K., & Simpson, B. (2013). When do (and don’t) normative appeals influence sustainable consumer behaviors? Journal of Marketing, 77(2), 78–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, B. E., & Kim, S. (2004). Participation’s influence on job satisfaction: The importance of job characteristics. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 24, 18–40.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful for funding from the Dancap Private Equity Research Award in the DAN Department of Management and Organizational Studies, Western University.

Funding

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.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Bonnie Simpson and Jennifer L. Robertson contributed equally, and authorship was determined by coin toss.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. DAN Department of Management and Organizational Studies, Western University, London, ON, N6A 5C2, Canada

    Bonnie Simpson & Jennifer L. Robertson

  2. Marketing and Behavioural Science, Sauder School of Business, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z2, Canada

    Katherine White

Authors
  1. Bonnie Simpson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jennifer L. Robertson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Katherine White
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bonnie Simpson.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

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

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.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Study 1, Co-creation Manipulation

Green Office Information (given to all conditions):

figure a

Study 1 Control task:

  • In this task, we would like you to take a few moments and think about an item you bought while grocery shopping this past week. We would then specifically like you to write about why you like your item.

Study 1 Co-creation task:

  • In this task, we would like you to take a few moments and brainstorm a new idea for the Green Office Program. We would then specifically like you to write about how your idea expresses what [organization] means to you and why you like your idea.

Appendix 2: Study 2 Materials

figure b

Study 2 Control task:

  • No further information provided; participants moved directly to measures.

Study 2 Co-creation task:

  • In this task, we would like your help to brainstorm ways to encourage and incentivize transportation options for the Green Office Program ‘Smart Commute’ initiative. We would specifically like you to write about how your idea expresses what Transcription Inc. might mean to employees and why you like your idea.

Appendix 3: Self-construal Manipulation

(Independent Condition)

(Interdependent Condition was Identical with Plural Pronouns)

figure c

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Simpson, B., Robertson, J.L. & White, K. How Co-creation Increases Employee Corporate Social Responsibility and Organizational Engagement: The Moderating Role of Self-Construal. J Bus Ethics 166, 331–350 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04138-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04138-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation