Corporation Social Responsibility (Definitions)

From “The Effect of CSR on EE” by Hongyue Ma (Thesis),

 Corporate social responsibility (CSR) also known as corporate responsibility, corporate
citizenship, responsible business, sustainable business and corporate sustainability — “is
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 (Holme & Watts, 2000).”
The aim of CSR is to give back a portion of a corporation’s profit to society (Reputation
Institution, 2010). (Page – 1, Chapter One: Introduction)

From Effect of CSR on Employee Engagement (Indian Journal of Science and

Technology, by Maryam Hanzala Tariq),
 Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is a management concept whereby companies
integrate social and environmental concerns in their business operations and
interactions with their stakeholders. CSR is generally understood as being the way
through which a company achieves a balance of economic, environmental and social
imperatives (“Triple-Bottom-Line-Approach”), while at the same time addressing the
expectations of shareholders and stakeholders.

From WHITE PAPER: CSR and EE (Making the Connection)

 DEF of CSR: While it does not have a single definition, most understand CSR to be the
efforts of organizations to integrate the imperatives of their economic, social, and
environmental activities

From “Influence of CSR on Employee Engagement” by Aysenur Kinoglu (Thesis)

 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).

From International Journal of HR Studies (Linkage between perceived CSR & EE:
Mediation effect of OI)

1
 Short Abstract Definition of CSR: The present research adopts the

“Social Perspective”, describing CSR based on the company's efforts and position
associated with its perceived societal as well as stakeholder responsibilities (Brown &
Dacin, 1997; Sen & Bhattacharya, 2001).

According to this definition, an organization should act in a way to “protect and

advance the well-being of the community as a whole along with the benefit of
the organization” (Davis & Blomstrom, 1975, p. 5)

FROM HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (2nd Canadian edition) BOOK

(Author: Steen L. Sandra, Noe A. Raymond, Hollenbeck R. John, Gerhart Barry,
Wright M. Patrick) (2006) (Published by McGraw-Hill Ryerson) (Page 92 to 95)

 DEF of CSR: An evolving concept integrating “social, environmental and economic

concerns” into “an organization’s values, culture, decision making, strategy, and
operations” in a way that creates wealth and improves society. (CSR: An Implementation
Guide for Canadian Business, 2006, p. 5)

Employee Engagement (Definitions)

From “The Effect of CSR on EE” by Hongyue Ma (Thesis),
 Employee engagement(EE) is employees’ positive emotional and intellectual
attachment and employees’ commitment to an organization’s success, which in turns
influences him/her to apply additional discretionary effort to work(“discretionary
effort” is also mentioned at Indian Journal of CSR & EE connection) (Kore Access, 2008;
Gibbons, J. 2006; Towers Perrin, 2005 as cited in Endres & Mancheno-Smoak, 2008).
(Page – 2, Chapter One: Introduction)

From Effect of CSR on Employee Engagement (Indian Journal of Science and

Technology, by Maryam Hanzala Tariq),
 According to Scarlet Surveys, “Employee Engagement is a measurable degree of an
employee’s positive or negative emotional attachment to their job, colleagues and
organization which profoundly influences their willingness to learn and perform at

2
 work”. (from page – 304, Operational Definition of Variables) In engagement, people
employ and express themselves physically, cognitively, and emotionally during role
performance.

 Conceptualized by Khan (1990): Engagement at work as the harnessing of

organizational members to their work roles.

 By Csikzentmihalyi (1975, 1990): construct to engagement in organizational behavior is

the notion of flow and defines flow as the holistic sensation that people feel when
they act with total involvement. Flow is the state in which there is little distinction
between the self and environment.

From WHITE PAPER: CSR & EE (Making the connection)

 Define “Work Engagement”:
William Kahn of the Boston University School of Management (1990)
The concept of work engagement is “the harnessing of organizational members’ selves
to their work roles.” (Page – 3: Defining Employee Engagement) (Words)/ (Argument) (Kahn,
William. Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of
Management Journal. 33, 1990)

From “Influence of CSR on Employee Engagement” by Aysenur Kinoglu (Thesis)

 Engagement can be defined as an emotional connection to the organization, which

affects “employees’ behaviors” and “performance level” in work-related
activities (ibid).

 “Two perspectives” that defines EE

Performance
Definition Perspective
of EE

Psychological
Perspective

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).

3
 LINK & Theme of and between CSR & EE
Employee Engagement includes -
From Indian Journal & From White Paper: CSR & EE (Making Connection)

 Common themes found in most definitions of Employee Engagement include

(1)Commitment to and belief in the organization and its values and

(2) Willingness and ability to contribute “discretionary effort” to help the organization succeed.
(Abstract from INDIAN JOURNAL) / (Page – 3) (Employee Engagement from WHITE PAPER)

 EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT is the thus

1. the level of commitment and
2. The level of involvement
An employee has towards their organization and its values. (Literature Review)

From Philip H. Mirvis’s EE & CSR

 Gallup Organization defines those (engaged, not engaged & actively disengaged):
Engaged employees
 Work with passion.
 Because they feel a strong connection to the organization,
 They work hard to innovate and improve.

 Gallup says: (Satisfaction = Engagement)

 Macey & Schneider (2008) say: Engagement involve –

 Satisfaction
 Activation
 Involvement
 Empowerment
 Commitment

From White Paper: CSR & EE (Making the connection)

 Many EE definitions also emphasize:

1. An emotional connection to the organization,
2. A passion for work and
3. Feelings of hope about the future within the organization (Argument)

4
  Professor Riccardo Peccei has developed an engagement matrix, which includes two core
elements of employee engagement:
a. Work engagement and
b. Organizational engagement.

 Employee cannot be fully engaged in the absence of work engagement & organizational
engagement: According to Professor Peccei, in the absence of either of work engagement or
organization engagement an employee cannot be fully engaged.

 Measurement tools for engagement (Three dimensional concepts of engagement)

 Physical engagement or Vigor

“At my work, I am bursting with energy”
 Emotional engagement or Dedication
“I am enthusiastic about my job”
 Cognitive engagement or Absorption
“I am immersed in my work”

 The ongoing economic uncertainty and the changing environment within which
companies and their employees operate also have significant implications for employee
engagement.

Ongoing
Economic
Uncertainty
Employee
Changing Engagement
environment

From “Influence of CSR on Employee Engagement” by Aysenur Kinoglu (Thesis)

 “Nature of Engagement” & “Its Positive Business Outcomes”

Positive Business Outcomes

Nature of Employee Engagement
Since if employees realize that organization
supports the trust and communication between
employees and management,
 Employees become aware of their
contributions to organizational
(contributions of engaged employees)
Significant contributions of engaged employees in
organizations
 In terms of Social-wellbeing in workplace
environment
 Achieving the business goals (ibid)

5
 performance (ibid).
 They can perceive that organization
works for its employees to have better
growth opportunities in the organization
(ibid).
 Engagement covers the nature of job itself
 “Rise” to good quality of service
 Result in -
1. Higher customer satisfaction,
2. Sales,
3. Profit & shareholder returns (ibid)

Literature Review
The Definition of Employee Engagement
 “Two perspectives” that defines EE

Performance
Definition Perspective
of EE

Psychological
Perspective

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).

Evolution of EE Definition

1. Kahn (1990)
 Definition of employee engagement by defining the different models such as
o Cognitively engaged,
o Physically engaged
o Emotionally engaged (Shuck, 2011) (also mentioned at WHITE PAPER)

 Structure of these models: Psychological Domains,

 Meaningfulness (Employees feel they are significant and valuable for the
organization (Kular et al., 2008)
 Safety (the degree of trust towards organization)
 Availability (ibid) (the possessing the necessary sources)

6
2. Maslach (2001)

 Definition of engagement by defining “Opposite of negative and

Disintegrated state” of an individual (Shuck, 2011).

 Engagement is opposite of “BURNOUT”.

 THREE different concepts opposite to engagement such as (Kular et al., 2008)

 Exhaustion (feeling of both psychologically and physically overextended)
 Cynicism (discouragement and dispassionate behaviors to jobs)
 Ineffectiveness (a sense of professional inadequacy)

 REMARK: It is lack of cognitive perspective projected by Kahn since he

predominantly focuses on emotional and physical parts of burnout (Shuck, 2011).

3. Harter (2002)

 Enhances the definition of employee engagement by using the “Gallup

organization’s data on different industry fields”. (Kular et al., 2008)

 Defines employee engagement as

 Degree of “involvement” (job is central to employees’ identity) (Krishnan et.al,
2009)
 Degree of “satisfaction of an employee at the work” (positive emotional
state due to the appraisal of one’s job experiences) (ibid)

 REMARK (found out by Harter):

“A positive relationship between Employee Engagement and business

outcomes”
“Engaged employees brings efficiency and productivity to organizations”.
(ibid)

7
 4. Sacks (2006)

 Sacks is the first academician to

- Differentiate the “ JOB ENGAGEMENT” and “ORGANIZATIONAL
ENGAGEMENT”
- By developing “Social Exchange Model”. (Shuck, 2011)

 Describes employee engagement in three elements as

 Cognitive,
 Emotional
 Behavioral that are mainly integrated with the work performance (ibid)

5. “Social Exchange Model”:

OFFERED (resources/benefits) & PAYBACK (satisfactions & engagement) by employees

 “Social Exchange Model” as Kahn (1990) states:

Employees adjust their engagement levels by depending on amount of resources
dedicated to them since they look for reciprocal relationships.

Understanding of Employee Engagement and Its Main Components

 Macey and Schneider (2008)

Engagement has been used to connote involvement, commitment and mood as a
PSYCHOLOGICAL STATE or OCB and role expansion as a PERFORMANCE
CRITERION

PSYCHOLOGICAL STATE
 Involvement
 Commitment
Engagement  Mood

PERFORMANCE STATE
 OCB
 Role Expansion
8
  Engagement consists of three main elements (Macey and Schneider, 2008)

Psychological aspects of engagement (Maslach, 2004)

State Engagement satisfaction, involvement, commitment and empowerment

mainly extra-role behaviors of individuals

Behavior Engagement OCB, role expansion

positive perception of employees towards their work

Trait Engagement (Macey and Schneider, 2008)
personality and conscientiousness

(1) STATE ENGAGEMENT

WORK ENGAGEMENT
- DEF: Full dedication and energy of an employee towards his or her
task (Schaufeli, 2006)
- Utrecht Work Engagement Scale determines three dimensions
for work engagement (Bakker et.al, 2011)
 Vigor (high levels of ENERGY, willingness to put EFFORT, PERSIST in
case of difficulty)
 Absorption (Full Engagement, High concentration about work,
cannot separate employees from work)
 Dedication (sense of Pride, Enthusiasm for being employed, a Belief
that each employee’s effort & endeavor is significant for org)
ORG COMMITMENT

- DEF: Individual’s ability to identify his/herself with

organizational goals and values (Tiwari and Singh (2014))

- Three-component model (Dick et.al, 2007)as

 Affective commitment, (Emotional Attachment, Enjoy RS ->
WANT TO STAY, Engage in OCB, High Performance)
 Continuance commitment (Prefer to stay becoz costly leave
& lost social status, MUST NOT LEAVE)
 Normative commitment (HAVE TO STAY, feel like obligation)

9
 JOB SATISFACTION
- Job satisfaction is an emotional state. (Weiss, 2002)
- DEF: as one’s valuation of his/her job as an accomplishment for
attaining individual goals.

- Positive or Negative feeling <--due to-- Outcome of overall

individual evaluation of experiences during the work time (Weiss,
2002)

- Measuring satisfaction by itself does not give healthy results for

engagement (Hallberg and Schaufeli, 2006)

(2) BEHAVIORAL ENGAGEMENT

- DEF: Delivery of “Performance” beyond the expected average

level (Kahn, 1990) (Putting superior physical performance + innovative,
efficient) (ibid).

ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR

- One of the main elements of behavioral engagement (Borman, 2004)

- 1960s DEFINITATION, “Extra-Role Behavior”

- 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)

10
 - Engaged employees involve more in OCB (compare to disengaged
employees) (Newman et.al, 2014).

- Employees can show their OCB in five different ways (ibid) & Two
Main Categories (Jahangir et.al, 2006)

OCB - I

 Courtesy
 Altruism

OCB- O

 Sportsmanship,
 Conscientiousness
 Civic virtue

(3) TRAIT ENGAGEMENT

- the personality dimension of engagement (Macey and Schneider,
2008)
 proactive personality,
 conscientiousness

- DEF: having “positive approach” and “constructive experience” at

work (ibid).

From International Journal of HR Studies (Linkage between perceived CSR & EE:
Mediation effect of OI)

 Def of WORK ENGAGEMENT by Schaufeli et al. (2002b)

Work engagement is “a positive fulfilling”, “work-related state of mind” that is
characterized by Vigor,
Dedication,
Absorption
(1) VIGOR is characterized by
11
  “High levels of energy” and “mental resilience” while working,
 Willingness to “invest effort” in one’s work, and
 Willingness to “persistence” even in the face of difficulties.

(2) DEDICATION refers

 To being “strongly involved” in one's work
 Experiencing “a sense of significance”, “enthusiasm”, “inspiration”,
“pride”, and “challenge”.

(3) ABSORPTION is characterized by

 being “fully concentrated” and “happily engrossed”
(In one’s work, whereby time passes quickly and one have difficulties with
detaching oneself from work)

Benefits or Business Outcomes due to Engaged Employees

From Hongyue Ma’s Thesis (The Effect of CSR on EE)

 Business Outcomes: An increasing number of corporations began to realize the

authenticity of the notion that higher employee engagement was associated with a
wide range of “Business Outcomes”, such as improved customer service, increased
productivity, retention and increased profits. (Page – 2, Chapter One: Introduction)

 Companies want employee engagement ----because it is- “connected to business

performance”. (Page – 2, Chapter One: Introduction)


From Indian Journal

 Writing about the benefit of Engaged workforce(Introduction):

Engaged workforce reflects
1. Decreased absenteeism,
2. Decreased turnover,
3. Decreased production costs, and
4. Counterproductive behavior.
It also indicates (BUSINESS OUTCOMES)
5. Increased customer satisfaction and loyalty,

12
 6. Revenue growth,
7. Flexibility and
8. Productivity

From White Paper: CSR & EE (Making the connection)

 Business outcomes lead by Employee Engagement:

DECREASED • Absenteeism and turnover • counterproductive behavior (e.g. theft and
misconduct) • production costs
INCREASED • Customer satisfaction and loyalty • revenue growth • ability to adapt to
change • productivity

 Employee Engagement  Positive Business outcomes (reduced employee turnover & greater
customer satisfaction, employee productivity & company profitability) (Page- 4) (Gallup)

From “Influence of CSR on Employee Engagement” by Aysenur Kinoglu (Thesis)

 “Nature of Engagement” & “Its Positive Business Outcomes”

Positive Business Outcomes

Nature of Employee Engagement
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).
 Engagement covers the nature of job itself
(contributions of engaged employees)
Significant contributions of engaged employees in
organizations
 In terms of Social-wellbeing in workplace
environment
 Achieving the “business goals” (ibid)
 “Rise” to “good quality of service”
 Result in -
1. Higher customer satisfaction,
2. Sales,
3. Profit & shareholder returns (ibid)

 Engaged Employees BENEFITS

 Org Effectiveness
(Productivity,
Adaptability, Flexibility)
(Albrecht et al., 2015)
 OCB (Kataria et.al, 2013)

13
From International Journal of HR Studies (Linkage between perceived CSR & EE:
Mediation effect of OI)

 Employee engagement has become “an influential factor” for organizational

success in a competitive business world (Saks, 2006).

How Employees response to commitment of companies to CSR / the link

between CSR & EE –

From Hongyue Ma’s Thesis (The Effect of CSR on EE)

 A good reputation for CSR can invigorate employees’ level of engagement;

 A bad reputation for CSR can harm employees’ level of engagement.

 Two ways bolstering the level of employee engagement by CSR (Page – 22, Chapter Three:
Hypothesis):
 Communicating CSR information with employees
 Engaging employees in CSR

 CSR can have a positive impact when all the other top drivers of employee
engagement are satisfied and remain unchanged.

 If corporations meet the threshold of employee workplace safety and human rights,
CSR’s effects on employee engagement can be summarized in four models/scenarios.
(a) When other top drivers of employee engagement remain satisfied and
unchanged,
Model One: Good CSR can invigorate an organization’s level of employee
engagement.
(b) Model Two: Bad CSR efforts might make employees question the company, but
not necessarily affect employee engagement. (The company did the good job satisfying
other drivers of employee engagement did not need to worry if CSR performance was poor.)
(c) Model Three: When other top drivers of employee engagement change, the
level of employee engagement changes accordingly, no matter how good a CSR
reputation is. This model suggested that investing in CSR might not necessarily
affect employee engagement in a positive way when other top drivers come
into play.
(d) Model Four: When one or more other top drivers change, the level of
employee engagement changes accordingly, no matter how bad a
14
 corporation’s CSR reputation is. Compared to other top drivers, CSR is not a
good starting point for companies looking to increase employee engagement.

 A bad CSR reputation would not affect “Employee Engagement” significantly when
other top factors come into play. (Page – 77, Chapter Six: Outcome)

 Compared to other top drivers, CSR is not a good starting point for companies looking
to increase employee engagement. (Page – 77, Chapter Six: Outcome)

From Indian Journal

 Because of CSR, employees want to be –

 Prefer to work (Reference: Interviews, 17 leaders in sustainability & CSR/ Cone Millennial Cause group,
detailed in “The 2020 Workplace” finding that Millennial Gen want to work company with CSR activities)
 High Satisfaction (Reference: Talent Report)
 More positive attitude (better performance) (Reference: Interviews, 17 leaders in sustainability &
CSR)

 Giving the employees a say in the way the organization’s CSR program ---- A powerful way to
encourage Employee Engagement
BENEFIT: is, which in turn leads to
Improved retention and
Ultimately, positive results
(Page – 302: Literature Review)

 Several studies (aimed directly on the link between CSR and EE) have found
The strong correlation between
Employee’s commitment to organization and how they rate its social responsibility

EXAMPLE:
 Sirota Survey Intelligence
(Employees who approved of company’s commitment to social responsibility
were far more engaged on their job) (Downloaded and saved under the folder of “Reference”),
 Capgemini (an IT consulting firm)
(Attracting talents with CSR reputation),
 Novo Nordisk (a Denmark-based pharmaceutical company)
(Has documented evidence that CSR can have significant impact in motivating,
developing and retaining staff))

From Philip H. Mirvis’s EE & CSR

 Cone Inc. (2006) found-

15
  Three of four of the millennial generation (born 1978 to 1998) want to work for a
company that “cares about how it impacts and contributes to society.” And
 The seven in ten employees aware of their employer’s commitment to
social/environmental causes and their employer’s social/environmental activities make
them feel loyal to their company. (Page – 275 (2), Employee Engagement and CSR) (ARGUMENT)

 Corporate social responsibility (CSR) has been heralded as a new “tool” to

 Recruit and
 Retain employees. (Page – 275 (2), Employee Engagement and CSR) (WORDS/ ARGUMENT)

 Findings show that employees involved in philanthropic initiatives showed

1. A statistically significant increase in their sense of identification with their respective
companies
2. Improved job performance
3. Willing to work(Bartel, 2001, Jones, 2007)(Page – 277)

 Other studies show there is correlation between both attitudinal and work behavior changes of
employees and their participation in company’s philanthropy programs

 CSR “humanizes the company in ways that other facets of the job cannot,” (adding, a paycheck
may keep a person on the job physically, but it alone will not keep a person on the job
emotionally.) (Bhattacharya, Sen, and Korschun (2008))

 CSR can help-

1. To enrich & expand people’s sense-of-self in the workplace and
2. To enrich & expand their identification with the organization. (Page – 278) (ARGUMENT)

 Add CSR to Employee Engagement –

CSR initiatives for internal customer Employee’s commitment to organization

(employees) in HR
Seek to activate people’s identities as
“citizens” of a corporation, community,
society, and planet
Regard employees as important stakeholders
by allowing providing input in employment
(Benefit)
 More commitment to work,
 A deeper connection to a company,
 A broader sense of meaning associated
with one’s job and employment
 Reputation of company (employees take
info of citizenship of company into society & market)

policies and practices, social issues related to  Words-of-mouth by employees

employment.
Make employees to feel free to bring their
whole selves of “multiple identities” (interest,
(effective brand ambassador)
 Social Capital (a web of positive relationship that
connect companies to other stakeholders & public at
large)
 Employees as “Microcosm” of market
& societies

16
 aspiration, personal desire)  Can apply “diverse employees’ ideas”
about social trend & factor (into
corporate social investment, business
innovations & overall socio-commercial agenda)

 Benefit of linking CSR activities & EE: Links “corporate citizenship and leadership
development” into an integrated “employee engagement package “helps both the
business and society. (Reference: Engaging employees through CSR, (Page – 282))(ARGUMENT)

Corporate
Benefits for
Citizenship & Employee both Business &
Leadership Engagement Package Society
Development
 Business Benefits from linking “Corporate citizenship and Leadership development” +
into an integrated “Employee Engagement package”
o From Timberland volunteerism (Call to Social Action)
1. Positive human resources “Team-building skill”
2. Explode “productivity” and “effectiveness”
(Volunteerism can turn the employees’ attitude)
o From Studies by Mirvis (2008)
3. Enhance “employee’s self-awareness”, “interpersonal skills, “project
management abilities”
4. Raise “employees’ consciousness” about social issues and
“understanding about how business can “creatively contribute” to
equitable economic development
o From Chris Marquis of the Harvard Business
5. Increase in “cultural intelligence” & “emotional resilience”
o From Kate Ahern of CDC Development Solutions
6. Partners with expertise in emerging markets and placing volunteers can
accelerate “cross-cultural socialization” & provide a “soft landing” for a
company in a region where it has a limited business presence

 Sirota (n.d.) study found link between CSR & EE: On the broader front of linking
employee engagement with CSR, a study by Sirota (n.d.) found that 75 percent of
employees who approve of their company’s commitments to social responsibility are
engaged by their jobs, versus 37 percent of those who do not approve. (Ref: Bottom
Line Benefit) (Argument)

17
  Bottom Line Benefits
Benefit for Young Volunteers:
1. Social service enriched their own
identities as next-generation leaders
2. Enhanced their connections to their
companies
3. Often volunteers stay in touch with
their clients by continue offer counsel via
email and Skype chats can be real profits
from these programs
4. Reputational gains
5. Prospects of better future leadership
From WHITE PAPER: CSR & EE (Making the Connection)
 Studies show that CSR is an emerging and increasingly important driver of employee
engagement. (Page – 2) (Key Findings)
 Surveys and Academic Findings that CSR is an emerging & increasingly important driver of
employee engagement
Employee Engagement (Impact)
 Prefer to work
 Pride
 Satisfaction (Job Satisfaction)
CSR  Willingness to recommend
 Positive Attitude or Behavior
 Better Performance
 Having high integrity
 Engagement & Retention
 Improved productivity
Benefit for Company with social service
program:
1. Kevin Thompson, who designed IBM’s
program, tells of how relationships with a
host government, developed over the
course of a local service project, led to a
million-dollar business contract (Mirvis,
Thompson, & Marquis, 2010)
2. 75 percent of employees who approve
of their company’s commitments to social
responsibility are engaged by their jobs.
(Sirota (n.d.))
3. Employees rate their senior managers
more highly
4. Employees see their company as more
competitive.
5. Employee turnover (at Patagonia) is
lower than at competing firms.
6. Companies that have the highest
employee retention also have the greatest
customer retention (Highest employee
retention  Greatest customer retention)
(finding of Fred Reichheld (2001), the CEO of
Bain & Co.,)
Benefit (Positive work outcomes)
 Positive business
outcomes
 Reduced cost
 Reduce Turnover rate
 Greatest customer
retention
 More competitive
 Attractive employer
18
 Employee engagement on CSR initiatives can be a powerful recruitment and retention
tool. (Survey Finds of IBM Institute for Business Value: Attaining Sustainable Growth through Corporate Social
Responsibility [2008]) (Ref 3: IBM Global Business Services. Attaining sustainable growth through corporate social
responsibility. Somers: IBM Corporation, 2008.)
 44% of young professionals said they would discount an employer with a
bad reputation
 Nearly half said corporate social responsibility policies should be
compulsory.

 Strong positive correlation between “Environmentally Responsible” & “Commitment

& Satisfaction” (Survey Findings of Insync Surveys: How green are we anyway? [2008]) (Ref 27: Insync Surveys.
How green are we anyway? Melbourne : Insync Surveys Pty Ltd, 2008.)

 Promoting environmental efforts will become increasingly important to attract and

retain employees and customers. (Survey Findings of Insync Surveys: How green are we anyway? [2008])
(Ref 27: Insync Surveys. How green are we anyway? Melbourne : Insync Surveys Pty Ltd, 2008.)

 Kenexa Research Institute (2007) & Sirota Survey Intelligence (2007):

Correlation between “Participating CSR” & “Employee Engagement” & “Employees’
favorable views of Senior Management”: Actively participating in CSR efforts is related
to higher employee engagement levels and more favorable views of senior
management.

Positively related
High Employee
Engagement
Participating
in CSR Employees’
favorable views
Positively related to senior
management

 Positive Outcomes or Employees’ positive commitment or engagement because

employees’ favorable view on org’s CSR commitment: The survey showed that working
for an organization whose employees positively view corporate responsibility efforts has
a significant, favorable impact on
o how they rate their pride in the organization, Employee’s view on
o their overall satisfaction, CSR commitment
o their willingness to recommend it as a place to work and
o their intention to stay
19
 Sirota Survey Intelligence [2007]:
Employees who have a favorable view of their organization’s CSR commitment are also
positive about other factors important to its success, including:

• senior management’s integrity,

Attitude towards SENIOR
• senior management’s sense of direction, MANAGEMENT

• the company’s competitiveness in the marketplace,

New emerging from
• the company’s interest in employees’ well-being, and Researches: CSR effect to
attitude towards SENIOR
• their engagement or pride in their organization. MANAGEMENT

 New emerging from Sirota & Kenexa Research (Positive attitude towards SENIOR
MANAGEMENT): Emerge from the survey is the difference in attitude towards senior
management in organizations that are seen as having a strong CSR commitment. (Rate
Senior Management (1) in having High Integrity and (2) having a strong sense of
direction)

 Study Findings of Tower Perrin (Tower Watson) (2007-2008):

o CSR is the third most important driver of employee engagement.

o
Organization’s An important driver Engagement
Reputation for social
responsibility
Retention

(Among all age groups except 18-24 years of age)

o Company’s reputation An attractive

as a good employer employer

More Positive
o
Employees’ favorably Attitudes
view to organization’s
Better Performance
commitment to
(customer service &
socially responsible
leadership)
20
Rate Organization’s
senior management
higher
(Ref: Towers Perrin. Towers Perrin Global Workforce Study. s.l.:

Towers Perrin, 2007-2008.)

 Study Findings of Hewitt Associates / Canadian Business for Social

Responsibility (CBSR)

1. Employee Engagement --------Strong Correlation-------- Employee views of

their employers’ record on corporate social responsibility (Argument)
(Survey for above argument: 86% of employees at organizations with high engagement
agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that they worked for an employer that
was socially and environmentally responsible, compared to 71% at employers with
moderate engagement and only 60% at those with low engagement) (Good to use at thesis for
example of above argument)
2. The potential benefits viewed by executives (of investing in or pursuing socially and
environmentally responsible practices)
a. A positive organizational reputation
b. Higher or sustained employee engagement and
c. Eliminating waste/reducing their impact on the environment

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Collection of Survey Results of CSR’s influence on Employee Engagement

 CSR tend to describe in terms of philanthropy. (Ref 3: IBM Global Business Services. Attaining
sustainable growth through corporate social responsibility. Somers: IBM Corporation, 2008.)

 Only 31% of businesses surveyed engaged their employees on the company’s CSR
objectives and initiatives. (Ref 3: IBM Global Business Services. Attaining sustainable growth through
corporate social responsibility. Somers: IBM Corporation, 2008.)

 Employee engagement on CSR initiatives can be a powerful recruitment and retention

tool (Proof: 44% of young professionals said they would discount an employer with a bad reputation.
Nearly half said corporate social responsibility policies should be compulsory.) (Ref 3: IBM Global Business
Services. Attaining sustainable growth through corporate social responsibility. Somers: IBM Corporation, 2008.) +
(Ref: Tandberg/ Ipsos MORI (2007))

 Increased likelihood of applying for a job was not solely related to the environmental
ethics of the applicant. Being an environmentally responsible company will not stack a
candidate pool with ‘environmentalists,’ but will serve to attract all types of people.
(Ref 27: Insync Surveys. How green are we anyway? Melbourne : Insync Surveys Pty Ltd, 2008.)

21
 Promoting environmental efforts will become increasingly important to attract and
retain employees and customers. (Ref 27: Insync Surveys. How green are we anyway? Melbourne :
Insync Surveys Pty Ltd, 2008.)

 Environmentally Responsible --- Strong positive correlation -- Commitment &

Satisfaction (Ref 27: Insync Surveys. How green are we anyway? Melbourne : Insync Surveys Pty Ltd, 2008.)

 Employees positively view corporate responsibility efforts ----favorable impact--- on

1. They also tend to have more positive attitudes in other areas (Ref: Towers Perrin.
Towers Perrin Global Workforce Study. s.l.: Towers Perrin, 2007-2008.)
2. Better performance, such as customer service and leadership from management
(Ref: Towers Perrin. Towers Perrin Global Workforce Study. s.l.: Towers Perrin, 2007-2008.)
3. Positively rate their pride in the organization (Ref 5: Kenexa Research Institute. Corporate
Social Responsibility Efforts Are Recognised By Employees. s.l.: Kenexa Research Institute, 2007) + (Ref:
Sirota Survey Intelligence (2008))
4. Their overall satisfaction, (Ref 5: Kenexa Research Institute. Corporate Social Responsibility
Efforts Are Recognised By Employees. s.l.: Kenexa Research Institute, 2007)
5. Their willingness to recommend it as a place to work (Ref 5: Kenexa Research Institute.
Corporate Social Responsibility Efforts Are Recognised By Employees. s.l.: Kenexa Research Institute,
2007)
6. Their intention to stay (Ref 5: Kenexa Research Institute. Corporate Social Responsibility Efforts
Are Recognised By Employees. s.l.: Kenexa Research Institute, 2007)
7. High competitiveness in the marketplace, (Ref: Sirota Survey Intelligence (2008))
8. View the company will interest in employees’ well-being (Ref: Sirota Survey
Intelligence (2008))
9. Engagement in their organization (Ref: Sirota Survey Intelligence (2008))++ ( Ref: Hewitt
Associates / Canadian Business for Social Responsibility (CBSR): CSR as a driver of EE (2009))
10. Rate high in senior management’s integrity and sense of direction (Ref: Sirota Survey
Intelligence (2008))
11. Employees say their organization’s senior management supports new ideas and
new ways of doing things (Ref: Towers Perrin. Towers Perrin Global Workforce Study. s.l.: Towers
Perrin, 2007-2008.)
(Survey for above argument: Of those who are satisfied with their employer’s CSR
commitment:
• 86% have high levels of engagement, • 82% feel their organization is highly
competitive in the marketplace, • 75% feel their employer is interested in their well-
being, • 71% rate senior management as having high integrity, and • 67% feel that
senior management has a strong sense of direction.) (Survey for above argument about
Employees’ view on “Senior Management”: Seven out of 10 employees in these
organizations rated senior management as having high integrity compared with just one
in five employees who were negative about their employer’s CSR record. Similarly, two-

22
 thirds of employees who are satisfied with their employer’s CSR commitment feel that
senior management has a strong sense of direction compared to just 18% in less
favorably viewed organizations.
(Survey about link between EE & employees’ view : 86% of employees at organizations with
high engagement agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that they worked for an
employer that was socially and environmentally responsible, compared to 71% at employers
with moderate engagement and only 60% at those with low engagement) (Good to use at thesis for
example of above argument)

 Actively participating in CSR efforts ----is related to- higher employee engagement
levels and more favorable views of senior management. (Ref 5: Kenexa Research Institute.
Corporate Social Responsibility Efforts Are Recognised By Employees. s.l.: Kenexa Research Institute, 2007)

 CSR is the third most important driver of employee engagement. (Ref: Towers Perrin. Towers
Perrin Global Workforce Study. s.l.: Towers Perrin, 2007-2008.)

 Org’s culture ----- driving Engagement (Ref: Right Management (2009))

 An organization’s reputation for social responsibility ---was an important driver for

both engagement and retention (among all age groups except 18-24 years of age) and
an attractive employer (Ref: Towers Perrin. Towers Perrin Global Workforce Study. s.l.: Towers Perrin,
2007-2008.), more prefer to work (Ref: Tandberg/ Ipsos MORI (2007)) ++ (Ref: Cone (2007)), decision to
employment/investment/purchase (Ref: Cone (2007))

 Youngest worker (24 years or younger) has low preference to work for an
environmentally responsible company. (Ref: Tandberg/ Ipsos MORI (2007))

 The positive benefits of investing in or pursuing socially and environmentally responsible

practices viewed by executives (Ref: Towers Perrin. Towers Perrin Global Workforce Study. s.l.: Towers
Perrin, 2007-2008.)
a. A positive organizational reputation
b. Higher or sustained employee engagement and
c. Eliminating waste/reducing their impact on the environment

 Good corporate citizens companies ---- Loyal to job (Ref: Cone (2007))

 Almost half of candidates of survey believe org’s CSR initiatives commitment is

important. (Ref: Hudson (2007))

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

23
  CSR’s influence on employee attraction, retention and engagement have impact on
 “Attitude” of employees
 “Performance” of employees
 “An Attitudinal dimension” to CSR’s influence on employee attraction, retention
and engagement.
 CSR perceptions shape the employees’ subsequent attitudes and behaviors
towards their firm. (Ref: University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana - Putting the S Back In
Corporate Social Responsibility: A Multi-Level Theory of Social Change in Organizations [2004])
 Job applicant and employee perceptions of a firm’s CSR affects how attractive
these individuals perceive the firm to be,
 Employee satisfaction with CSR leads to
(a) enhanced job satisfaction , BENEFITS by
(b) organizational commitment and Employee
(c) organizational citizenship satisfaction with
CSR
 “A Performance dimension” to CSR’s influence on employee attraction, retention
and engagement.
 CSR practices
(a) enhanced job performance ,
(b) reduced costs due to increased employee retention and improved
productivity

*(1)* Putting the S Back In Corporate Social Responsibility: A Multi-Level Theory of Social
Change in Organizations [2004] (by University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana)

External CSR Commitment

Employees’ Performance
CSR perceptions Attitudes & Turnover
of employees Behaviors Well-being
towards firms Loyalty
Increased productivity

*(2) * Corporate Social Responsibility Programmes and their Impact on Business Decision-
Making(2005) (Cranfield University, U.K)

Key findings related to employee engagement:

1.
CSR EE

24
 (Through reduced costs due to increased employee retention as well as improved reputation
in the eyes of employees)
Corporate Influence Employee
Performance
2. CSR programs ---enhance behaviors
Reputation

3.

Drivers of Employee
Engagement (e.g. employee
behavior and motivation)

CSR
Stakeholder attitudes &
Programs
behaviors (e.g. potential
employees)

Business Outcomes (e.g.

employee productivity and
retention)
*(3) * Employee Reactions to CSR: An Org Justice Framework (2006) (by University of Illinois
at Champaign – Urbana)

- Key Studies Findings:

1. Employee contributes & reacts to org’s social consciousness.

2. Judgment & Perceptions ---affect Employees’ Attitude & Behavior
3. Org Justice -Norm (add CSR in Norm)  Treat individual & group of
the org
4. Firm CSR - Attractive Employer (from employees’ perception)
5. Perception of Justice (CSR) -- Positive outcomes

*(4) * CSR as an Internal Marketing Strategy (2007) (by Boston University’s School of
Management & Baruch College, City University of New York, U.S.)

Key Studies Findings:

1. CSR  Highly component of Internal Marketing

2. Internal Marketing (CSR) is fulfilling employees’ needs & drawing them.

25
 3. Internal Marketing (CSR) - Retain & Attract Talent Employees
4. To maximize their return on investment in CSR initiatives in the employee
domain:
a. bring their employees closer to the company’s CSR initiatives,
b. use a contingent input-output approach to formulate, evaluate and
manage CSR-related outcomes,
c. understand and fulfill employee needs related to CSR,
d. focus on strengthening employee identification with the company, and
e. engage employees in co-creating CSR value

*(5) * CSR: A Study of Progression to the Next Level (2009) (Texas A & M University

Key Studies Findings:

 Employee Retention is based on the company’s CSR efforts & performance.

 Employees have more requirements for an employer than the standard set of
benefits.
a. Employees are looking to be inspired and led.
b. The individual wants to feel good about their employment choice.
c. Employees will join the organization that is culturally and personally congruent
with their values.

 A 2009 report by the Massachusetts Business Roundtable and the UMass Boston
Emerging Leaders Program Team,
a. Researchers are now finding that CSR is valued by employees of all
experience levels and generations. (Ref: Massachusetts Business Roundtable
and the UMass Boston Emerging Leaders Program Team. Corporate Social
Responsibility and Employee Recruitment and Retention: A Primer. Boston :
Massachusetts Business Roundtable and the UMass Boston Emerging Leaders
Program Team, 2009.)+ (Ref: Philip H. Mirvis Book)

From “Influence of CSR on Employee Engagement” by Aysenur Kinoglu (Thesis)

 To enhance the engagement levels in the organizations

o Increasing awareness about CSR,
o Embedding CSR into organizational culture
o Involving employees in CSR programs can

26
 Even though CSR is influential on engagement, there can be
o less engaged or disengaged employees (due to differences in the
perceptions of CSR)

 There is a significant relation between “CSR activities” and “employee

engagement” that enhances the profitability and organizational performance

(Cooper and Wagman, 2009).

 Effect of Satisfaction of Employees to Org’s CSR Commitment: Employees, who are

“not satisfied” with organization’s commitment to CSR are less engaged in their
jobs compared to “satisfied” employees.

 From theoretical perspective, researchers suggest that the relation of employee

engagement and CSR grounds from “Social Exchange Theory” (Slack et.al, 2014).

 This Research FINDING: 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.

 Not every employee responds CSR programs in a same manner due to

o Lack of awareness, (Communication to employees)
o Lack of involvement into CSR activities (Participation)
o Having CSR as an add-on activity rather than as a culture (Org Culture)

From International Journal of HR Studies (Linkage between perceived CSR & EE:
Mediation effect of OI)

FINDINGS

Perceived External
CSR
ENGAGEMENT
Perceived Internal
CSR OI 27
 Perceived external and internal CSR have a positive effect on employee
engagement as well as confirms the mediating role of organizational
identification in these relationships.

 ENGAGEMENT
Employee’s
Perception of CSR
activities IDENTIFICATION
Employee’s perception of CSR activities in organizations is crucial for
enhancing both engagement and identification.

 According to the result External CSR has a greater effect on employee

engagement than internal CSR (which is in inconsistent with previous studies that
indicated internal CSR has a greater effect on employee positive behavior such as job
satisfaction (De Roeck et al., 2014).)
o Because, this research is doing in DEVELOPING COUNTRY
o Although Internal CSR have been expected to be a greater effect on
EE (Expected because Internal CSR directly address  Employees’ needs & well-
being (Cornelinus et al., 2008))

 WORKING CONDITION at “Developing Country” has impact on CSR & EE

connection: In developing countries based on the high unemployment rate, job
security is a vital factor in employees’ point of views.

 Employees’ INTANGIBLE
CSR ATTITUDES & RESOURCES
BEHAVIORS

FROM HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (2nd Canadian edition) BOOK (Author:

Steen L. Sandra, Noe A. Raymond, Hollenbeck R. John, Gerhart Barry, Wright M. Patrick) (2006) (Published by
McGraw-Hill Ryerson) (Page 92 to 95)

- Example & One Proof “about CSR generate EE”: Deloitte Company generates “Employee
Engagement and Commitment” by supporting people through their community activities
(Volunteerism).

28
 - MEANINGFURL WORK by matching On-the-job with project can forest “Pride and
Engagement”.
-
CSR includes –

From Hongyue Ma’s Thesis (The Effect of CSR on EE)

 Companies need CSR
o To stand out from their competitors
o To shape their public images and reputations (Page – 2, Chapter One: Introduction)

 Corporations need to meet the threshold of

1. Employee workplace safety
2. Human rights

From Philip H. Mirvis’s EE & CSR

 Treat and Value the employees fairly and well more so than their corporate philanthropy,
community involvement, and environmental performance. (Reference: GolinHarris (2006–2010)
surveys of the U.S. public says)

 Respond to the needs of working parents (Work/Family support) has implications for children
and elders they might care for and broad ramifications throughout society. (Reference: Pitt-
Catsouphes and Googins (2005))

 CSR issues to consider-

 Job stress,
 work hours,
 compensation,
 health care coverage, and
 job satisfaction (Pfeffer, 2010).

 CSR in HR: Engaging employees as citizens is recognizing, validating, and enriching people in
their multiple identities - as employees and also, as parents, community members, consumers,
investors, & co- habitants in the planet (Identity Theory – people view themselves as gender, race,
culture and life role e.g. parents, teachers, daughters) that can lead the benefits (as a source of fresh
ideas, as a means of mirroring and serving the multicultural marketplace, and as source of learning and
effectiveness –> Ref: David Thomas and Robin Ely (1996)) from engaging “fuller selves” of employees in the
company.

 Engaging Employees through CSR in two ways: “Volunteerism” and “On-the-Job”.

29
  On-the-Job: Green Team and Social Service are formed in the organization.

From WHITE PAPER: CSR & EE (Making the Connection)

 CSR is a concept that has been around for some time, and its importance is rapidly
growing in organizations around the world. The term is often used interchangeably with
related concepts:
 corporate responsibility
 corporate citizenship
 corporate sustainability
 corporate sustainable development

 The report’s authors found that when companies talk about CSR they tend to describe it
in terms of philanthropy. (Survey Finds of IBM Institute for Business Value: Attaining Sustainable Growth
through Corporate Social Responsibility [2008]) (Ref 3: IBM Global Business Services. Attaining sustainable growth
through corporate social responsibility. Somers: IBM Corporation, 2008.)

 CSR & its business benefits (according to At a the 2007 human resources and corporate
social responsibility conference, a spokesperson for Accenture reported that its two staff
volunteering programs)
o Recruit Talented
o Retain Talented
o Skill Development
o Improved brand and image
(Ref 43: Cumming, Jane Fiona. HR & Corporate Social Responsibility: Using CSR to Enhance
Employee Engagement and Deliver HR Object. ClickPress. [Online] July 28, 2007.
http://www. clickpress.com/releases/Detailed/41444005cp.shtml)
o ( Improved Productivity ) Employees’ Pride about company
(This section is described with examples of findings of research on Page 14)

From “Influence of CSR on Employee Engagement” by Aysenur Kinoglu (Thesis)

 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 (1) Profit goals,

30
 (2) Customer retention
(3) Reputation (Choi and Yu, 2014)

 Elkington (1997) structures CSR on three layers, which are

 planet,
 profit
 people
o Social Responsibility –brings Economic prosperity, Social equity
Environmental care
o If environment is protected,
 it is beneficial for society;
 thus beneficial for profitability of business

From International Journal of HR Studies (Linkage between perceived CSR & EE:
Mediation effect of OI)

 Stakeholder Theory (Freeman, 1984),

CSR initiatives provide “beneficial consequences” for organizations
By “fulfilling stakeholders’ interests of the company”,
(Stakeholders include employees, government, customer and
shareholders)

 CSR toward employees (INTERNAL CSR) consists of activities that

o Guarantee the welfare and support of employees
o Good working conditions

 CSR towards employees is related to employee’s organizational identification

(the employees’ perception of “self-respect and status” in the company).

Internal/ Organizational
External CSR Identification
 Employees perceive that external and internal CSR has a positive impact on
organizational identification. (Bhattacharya & Korschun, 2008)
31
 Evolution of CSR Definition

Responsibility to society
50s

Relationship between society and organizations

60s

Stakeholder involvement
Economic, ethical and legal responsibility to society
70s Increasing quality of life

Voluntariness
Financial returns of CSR
80s

Planet, Profit and People

Environmental considerations
90s

Human rights, labor rights, improving well being of society

More transparency and accountability
2000s

1950s

 Rahman, 2011 - CSR began with questioning the responsibilities of

businessmen towards society in 1950s.
 Bowen (1954) - mandatory task of businessmen to follow CSR practices and
take decisions accordingly, which are beneficial for welfare of the society.

32
  Heald (1957) - CSR should be mandatory at the management level and the
overall goals should not only be based on financial returns but also society
wellbeing.

1970s

 Friedman (1970) - CSR from distinctive perspective. New definitions of CSR put
social accounting, social audit and social indicators (Rahman, 2011)
 Sethi (1975) - conceptualizes and differentiates CSR from corporate behavior
as social duty, social responsibility and social responsiveness
 Preston and Post (1975) - organizations do not have unlimited responsibilities
as a concept of social responsibility but it should be placed among the priorities
of organizations.

1990s
 fewer contributions for development of CSR concept (Rahman, 2011)
 Elkington (1997) structures CSR on three layers, which are
 Planet,
 Profit
 People
a. Social Responsibility –brings”BENEFITS”

Beneficial for
Environment Beneficial for
"profitability
is protected "Society"
of business"

* Economic prosperity
* Social equity
* Environmental care
b.

33
  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.

21st Century

 Lantos (2001) suggests Three distinctive kinds of CSR

 Ethical (organizations need to be ethically responsible to
environments when they pursue their organizational goals)
 Altruistic (the voluntary activities that may lead to
organizational or individual sacrifice)
 Strategic (community activities of organizations, which aims
to achieve strategic business goals)

 Jamali and Miurshak (2007) - CSR have caused conflicts in businesses 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 this THESIS, CSR will be categorized in two main branches as INTERNAL &
EXTERNAL CSR.

Internal CSR
(CSR activities for
internal stakeholders
such as employees)
CSR
External CSR
(CSR activities for external
stakeholder such as
customers, social and
non-social stakeholders)

34
  INTERNAL CSR ACTIONS: Programs like extensive training, career coaching and
involvement in decision-making process are contributive factors for internal CSR
actions (ibid).

 BENEFIT of Internal CSR ”enhances knowledge sharing” among employees

through organizational identification (Farooq, et.al, 2014) which leads organizations
to have collaborative workforce and efficient workflow as a strong competitive
advantage.

FROM HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (2nd Canadian edition) BOOK (Author:

Steen L. Sandra, Noe A. Raymond, Hollenbeck R. John, Gerhart Barry, Wright M. Patrick) (2006) (Published by
McGraw-Hill Ryerson) (Page 92 to 95)

- Demonstrating CSR
o Sustainability – Going Green Important factors
o Promoting Volunteerism to retain & engage
o Providing Meaningful Work employees
o Having High Ethical Standards

- Those factors are important among “YOUNG PEOPLE”

- CSR as for “Political Benefits”: Firms can use social responsibility activities for political
environment adjustment
 To put forth their own political purposes
 CSR as an instrument to keep their special political benefits in (political
bargaining, adjusting political equations and conclusion of economic agreements)
(Milne, 2002).

35
36