Hsieh 2022

The International Journal of Human Resource
Management
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rijh20
What drives employees to participate in corporate

social responsibility? A personal characteristics -
CSR capacity - organizational reinforcing model of
employees’ motivation for voluntary CSR activities
Ying-Che Hsieh, Jingjing Weng, Nhan Thanh Pham & Li-Hsiang Yi
To cite this article: Ying-Che Hsieh, Jingjing Weng, Nhan Thanh Pham & Li-Hsiang Yi
(2022) What drives employees to participate in corporate social responsibility? A personal
characteristics - CSR capacity - organizational reinforcing model of employees’ motivation for
voluntary CSR activities, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 33:18,
3703-3735, DOI: 10.1080/09585192.2021.1967422
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2021.1967422
Published online: 30 Sep 2021. Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 1704 View related articles
View Crossmark data Citing articles: 1 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rijh20
The International Journal of Human Resource Management
2022, VOL. 33, NO. 18, 3703–3735
https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2021.1967422
What drives employees to participate in corporate

social responsibility? A personal characteristics -
CSR capacity - organizational reinforcing model of
employees’ motivation for voluntary CSR activities
Ying-Che Hsieha, Jingjing Wengb, Nhan Thanh Phamc and Li-Hsiang Yia
a
Institute of Technology Management, National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu, Taiwan; bGraduate
Institute of Technology Management, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology,
Taipei, Taiwan; cInternational Master of Business Administration, National Tsing Hua University,
Hsinchu, Taiwan
ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Employees’ participation in corporate social responsibility Corporate social
(CSR) is a channel that not only helps corporations convey responsibility; voluntary
their social responsibility messages but also, in the long run, CSR activities; employee
motivation; extrinsic;
enhances stakeholder-organization relationships and builds intrinsic; CSR capacity
corporate image. Given the important role employees play
in CSR, inadequate attention is paid to their motivation to
engage in voluntary CSR activities, and there is a research
gap in the literature in terms of a lack of a systematic view
of that motivation. Therefore, this study seeks to narrow this
gap by exploring the factors influencing individual employ-
ees’ motivation to take part in voluntary CSR activities, using
a qualitative approach, with empirical data collected from
employees of leading CSR companies in Vietnam. Through
grounded theory analysis, our findings lead to the proposal
of a personal characteristics – CSR capacity – organizational
reinforcing model, revealing different intrinsic and extrinsic
elements, categorized into personal characteristics, CSR capac-
ities and organizational reinforcement, that motivate employ-
ees to participate and engage in voluntary CSR activities. Our
findings and the proposed model offer a significant contri-
bution to the CSR literature and organization management
theories, and also provide insights and practical implications
for those involved in CSR endeavors, including human
resource (HR) managers in organizations.
Introduction
Employees are considered an important element of organizations, not
only because their contentedness is directly related to organizational
identification (Glavas & Kelley, 2014; Hansen et al., 2011; Slack et al.,
CONTACT Jingjing Weng jingjingweng@mail.ntust.edu.tw Graduate Institute of Technology

Management, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taipei, Taiwan.
Supplemental data for this article is available online at https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2021.1967422.
© 2021 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
3704 Y.-C. HSIEH ET AL.
2015) but also because they are a crucial element of internal marketing
endeavors (Hoeffler et al., 2010; Singhapakdi et al., 2015), especially
when it comes to corporate social responsibility (CSR). By using the
employee channel, corporations can not only more effectively convey
how they are meeting their social responsibilities through these initia-
tives, but also, in the long run, achieve win-win outcomes in terms of
relationships with their internal stakeholders and their corporate social
image in the community (Carroll & Shabana, 2010; Du et al., 2010;
Slack et al., 2015). Thus, building a powerful relationship between the
employees and organizational CSR, through employee participation, can
create numerous benefits for companies in terms of their reputations
and finances. The key to achieving this lies in understanding what
motivates employees to engage in CSR when the choice to do so is
voluntary.
Scholars have reported the importance of employees to the sustainable
development of organizations. However, little research has tried to inves-
tigate the underlying mechanisms from the individual perspective, espe-
cially in regards employees’ motivation to engage in organizational CSR
activities. Employees might be attracted to CSR for various reasons, and
to different levels, due to their different personal values, priorities, and
attitudes towards and thus behavior at work (Rodell et al., 2016;
Singhapakdi et al., 2015; Slack et al., 2015). On the other hand, people
usually think they are paid for work, not for social activities, so CSR
may feel less like something they have to do and more like something
they want to do. Therefore, employees’ responses to voluntary CSR
activities are certainly likely to differ because of dissimilar orientations
towards their work (Grant, 2012).
There are some noteworthy gaps in the previous studies, as the fol-
lowing describes. First, a lot of the research is focused on organizational
aspects of CSR (Gatignon-Turnau & Mignonac, 2015; Grant, 2012;
Newman et al., 2016). However, since the employees are the represen-
tatives who are directly engaged in the activity, it is not entirely con-
vincing to argue about or analyze employee motivation from the company
viewpoint. Second, from the employee perspective, CSR-related research
focuses more on employees’ perceptions of their organization (Glavas
& Kelley, 2014; Lee et al., 2013), or consequences such as job satisfac-
tion, organizational commitment, turnover intentions and the attractive-
ness of the firm to prospective workers (Singhapakdi et al., 2015; Vlachos
et al., 2014), than on their motivation. Also, the studies that do exist
take somewhat partial approaches to the topic (Farooq et al., 2014;
Vlachos et al., 2013), while research providing a systematic view of
employees’ motivation for engaging in CSR is still missing. Third, the
motivation theories that many authors use to explain employee
The International Journal of Human Resource Management 3705
motivation, such as social exchange theory (Mirvis, 2012; Slack et al.,
2015), are not completely satisfactory since they lack clarity in terms
of employees’ intrinsic and extrinsic motivation for engaging in CSR.
Fourth, intrinsic and extrinsic motivation have been examined for a
long time, but very few studies mention the two types when looking at
employees’ motivation for engaging in CSR activities (Glavas, 2012; Story
& Neves, 2015; Vlachos et al., 2013, 2014).
In order to narrow these gaps in the literature, this research explores
the motivation behind the engagement of individual employees in vol-
untary CSR activities, and constructs a theoretical model of this moti-
vation, which makes an important contribution to the CSR literature
and also has important implications for managers in practice.
Literature review
CSR has drawn much attention over the last several decades, in academic
journals and social media (Lin-Hi & Müller, 2013; Singhapakdi et al.,
2015), with corporations continually being encouraged to behave in a
socially responsible manner on a wide range of issues (Dahlsrud, 2008).
As the literature has demonstrated, the concept of CSR is an umbrella
term that comprises a variety of ways businesses interact with society
and the environment (Frynas & Yamahaki, 2016). Generally, CSR is
referred to as a business practice aimed at promoting long-term con-
tributions towards social, environmental and stakeholder well-being (Du
et al., 2010; Porter & Kramer, 2011; Surroca et al., 2010). However, the
concept of CSR has been used to include issues such as the environment,
social welfare, human behavior, organizational behavior and ethical prac-
tices, leading to a divergence of developments in theory and practice.
It is stated that more than 37 definitions have been applied, with diverse
perspectives on CSR (Dahlsrud, 2008), while several dimensions of CSR
theories have been adopted with different perspectives (Frynas &
Yamahaki, 2016).
Ever since Carroll (1991) proposed a pyramid framework to reveal
the nature of CSR, further research has gradually addressed the land-
scape of CSR, discussing the variety of CSR activities, industry differ-
ences and influential firm features. It is clear that firms choose to
conduct CSR activities in various ways. Some take environmental pro-
tection seriously by using an adaptive approach to business practice;
some choose to conduct philanthropy by working with their preferred
charities and non-profit cooperators; others focus on an internal ethical
culture and making contributions towards both internal and external
stakeholders (El Akremi et al., 2018; Peloza & Shang, 2011). Research
on CSR varies depending on the theoretical lens adopted, in terms of
whether it takes a business, ethical, stakeholder or institutional approach

(Bice, 2017). Each of these approaches provides different arguments and
insights into cross-organizational collaboration, the definition of CSR
and the relationship between CSR and individuals or organizations
(Houghton et al., 2009), leading to diverse understandings of the pur-
poses and practices of CSR.
As CSR research has developed, different views and analytical per-
spectives have been generated. Some research has recognized that CSR
is a highly contextual and contingent concept, and has emphasized the
need to study the context in which it is practiced (Davidson, 2016). To
address this, scholars have adopted institutional theory to investigate
how contextual factors influence the construction of CSR activities
(Jamali & Karam, 2016). On the other hand, some research has adopted
a social constructivism view of CSR, claiming that the social interaction
among individuals plays an important role in facilitating CSR activities
(Hacking, 2003). Moreover, European scholars take a different perspective
on CSR to American scholars. The former have demonstrated that CSR
is a responsibility embedded in a business unit, which is regulated as
a requirement for companies, whereas the latter have suggested that
CSR is more of a philanthropic responsibility, with an emphasis on the
voluntary intentions involved in CSR construction (Lock & Seele, 2016).
Within the business approach, most research investigates how orga-
nizational competitive advantage and reputation are enhanced (Porter
& Kramer, 2011) and socially concerned investors reached (Kurtz, 2008)
through CSR adoption. From the business viewpoint, organizations treat
CSR activities as a means of creating value, within the business and the
stock price (Bilbao-Terol et al., 2013). According to the ethical approach,
meanwhile, organizations are assumed to undertake CSR activities
through a sense of obligation to pay back what they have gained from
the society and environment (Bird & Velasquez, 2006), with CSR deemed
to emerge from a moral imperative for ethical behavior. The stakeholder
approach emphasizes firms’ responsibility to benefit their stakeholders
(Cooper, 2004). The institutional approach is concerned with how an
institution that will undertake CSR activities might be built, involving
a complex web of techniques, management approaches, laws and regu-
lations (Bice, 2017). Under these different approaches, scholars have a
variety of research aims. For example, the business view is suitable for
financial management and strategy management, when analyzing how
CSR might benefit an organization (Carroll & Shabana, 2010; Frynas &
Yamahaki, 2016). The stakeholder approach suits the issue of
cross-organizational relationships within CSR activities (Cooper, 2004).
The institutional approach might be used to investigate the internal
influence of CSR activities on an organization (Bice, 2017). Most of the
research that investigates individual and CSR relations has taken a stake-
holder approach as the analytical lens (Coldwell et al., 2008; DeTienne
et al., 2012).
In some companies, CSR could be implemented as a “formal, con-
tractual, integrated part of on-going employment activities”, while in
other companies, CSR tends to be a more voluntary choice, where
“volunteerism remains the guiding principle”, with employees having
more flexibility in engaging in related activities (Mirvis, 2012, p. 93).
In this study, we adopt a broad definition of CSR, which in general
refers to both CSR and sustainability as “company activities – voluntary
by definition – demonstrating the inclusion of social and environmental
concerns in business operations and in interactions with business stake-
holders” (Van Marrewijk, 2003, p. 9). Based on such a broad definition
of CSR, which consists of the concepts of voluntariness, stakeholders,
the economy, society and the environment (Dahlsrud, 2008), we perceive
employee engagement in CSR as a voluntary choice, which tends to be
driven by employees’ personal willingness, rather than as a job obligation
to be fulfilled.
Recent reviews of the CSR literature have concluded that the majority
of CSR research is constructed through a macro-level perspective, and
scholars have been calling for more empirical research seeking to
further explore the micro-foundations of CSR, with the understanding
of employees’ perceptions of CSR highlighted as one of the most
important issues (e.g. Aguinis & Glavas, 2012; Morgeson et al., 2013;
Slack et al., 2015; Tian & Robertson, 2019). However, as key stake-
holders with a significant role in relation to CSR, employees have been
paid relatively inadequate attention, especially regarding their motiva-
tion for and engagement with CSR (Aguilera et al., 2007; Slack
et al., 2015).
Employee motivation for CSR engagement
The existing literature has highlighted the importance of employees’

participation and engagement in CSR, as “employees carry the main
burden of responsibility for implementing ethical corporate behavior, …
and the achievement of those outcomes will largely depend on employee
willingness to collaborate” (Collier & Esteban, 2007, p. 20). This implies
the importance of employees’ commitment to effective CSR, demon-
strating that employees’ engagement in CSR activities is decisive for
success (Bhattacharya et al., 2008; Slack et al., 2015).
Some research has adopted a human resource (HR) lens and claimed
that CSR could enhance business value and act as a signal that a firm
is socially responsible, have a positive influence on employee recruitment,
retention and job satisfaction, and decrease employee turnover (Kim &
Park, 2011; Stewart et al., 2011). A good reputation for CSR can generate
a positive attitude among both current and potential employees (Turban
& Greening, 1996). Some HR-related research has demonstrated that an
ethical working environment provides incentives for employees to work
hard, be more productive and contribute more (Valentine & Fleischman,
2007), and that employees will judge whether an organization is ethical
through its CSR activities (Houghton et al., 2009). In other words,
employees and CSR activities have significant relevance for each other,
as a well-motivated employee could benefit all dimensions of CSR, while
effective CSR is likely to motivate employees (Collier & Esteban, 2007;
Mirvis, 2012).
As employees play a complicated role in CSR activities, their moti-
vation for involvement will differ from that related to normal organi-
zational or business activities (Brunton et al., 2017). It is stated that
employees’ motivation to support social welfare activities is highly related
to their justice perceptions, loyalty and identification (Lee et al., 2013;
Rupp et al., 2006; Valentine & Fleischman, 2007). When employees agree
with and support the moral climate, they will receive higher identifica-
tion and loyalty by participating in CSR activities (Haski-Leventhal et al.,
2017). Most employees prefer to work for companies that are known
for their social responsibility, while they themselves will tend to try to
act responsibly and ethically (Mirvis, 2012). Some research has suggested
that employees will be motivated by the ethical climate, and be subject
to peer pressure if they do not participate in CSR activities (Onkila,
2015). Collier and Esteban (2007) demonstrate that employees’ percep-
tions of justice influence their motivation to engage in CSR. Other
research has adopted an ethical lens in investigating how employees join
in with social welfare activities (Kim & Park, 2011; Mirvis, 2012).
In the current CSR literature, when exploring employees’ engagement
in CSR activities, internal market theory and social exchange theory are
two of the most common theories adopted by scholars (Du et al., 2015).
The former is concerned with "attracting, developing, motivating, and
retaining qualified employees through job-products that satisfy their
needs” (Berry & Parasuraman, 1992; Bhattacharya et al., 2008), and
implies that CSR activities could effectively sustain employees’ investment
of their time, knowledge, skills and techniques if they expect to have
their own needs met in return. On the other hand, social exchange
theory puts forward that there are two streams of exchange in an orga-
nization: economic exchange and social exchange (Settoon et al., 1996).
In the field of CSR, research has claimed that employees earn an extra
social exchange from participation in CSR activities, referred to as social
or emotional comfort and the self-satisfaction of interest (Slack et al.,
2015). However, it should be noticed that employees are a heterogeneous

group (Du et al., 2015), and not all will be equally motivated to spend
effort and time participating in CSR (Rodrigo & Arenas, 2008; Slack
et al., 2015) as individuals will have different perceptions of the benefits
and appropriate levels of participation (Koch et al., 2019). For example,
employees who are actively engaged in CSR usually recognize both the
social returns for their personal engagement and the social and economic
benefits to the organization, but there might also be some dissident
employees (Rodrigo & Arenas, 2008) with a low-exchange orientation
who feel indifferent about CSR (Slack et al., 2015).
Moreover, there are some further theories that have been adopted in
the CSR literature to explain employee engagement in CSR, such as
psychological contract theory and self-determination theory. The former
assumes that a two-way expectation prompts employees to get involved
in certain activities (Van Buren, 2000), while the latter argues that the
internal requirements of the employees themselves have a stronger influ-
ence than the external environment on their decision to take part in
CSR (Rupp et al., 2006). However, the impact of the complex mix of
both organizational and personal factors on employees’ motivation and
decision to engage in CSR cannot be fully explained by any single the-
oretical perspective, as none of them is able to conclusively specify all
of the factors that motivate employees to do so (Frynas & Yamahaki,
2016; Slack et al., 2015).
Besides, the paradigm of social constructionism argues that the nature
of CSR is not merely the result of institutional stress but has been
socially constructed (Hacking, 2003), and CSR issues tend to “vary in
nature and importance from [one] country to another because of [being]
sensitive to prevailing religious, historical and cultural contexts” (Al
Kerdawy, 2019, p. 2). When companies are promoting CSR, some ethical
rules or principles are compulsory for employees, while some CSR
activities are voluntary and employees have flexibility to choose whether
to engage in them (Collier & Esteban, 2007). It is observed that, when
an employee is given a choice over CSR engagement, different intrinsic,
extrinsic as well as contextual drivers will facilitate their willingness to
engage (Grant, 2012).
Although CSR activities are widely developed in practice, it should
not be taken for granted that employees are motivated for CSR engage-
ment simply on the assumption that they are willing to do something
good (Vlachos et al., 2013). Studies in CSR have emphasized that employ-
ees’ perspectives, motivations and the way they perceive CSR’s value are
complex (Koch et al., 2019; Peloza & Shang, 2011; Slack et al., 2015).
Research has proposed that employee engagement in activities may consist
of complicated factors, such as institutional, individual, organizational
and cultural, and it is necessary to construct an overall view when inves-

tigating the topic (Farooq et al., 2014; Vlachos et al., 2013). Despite the
growing attention paid to employees’ responses to CSR activities, limited
discussion has been conducted to expose their motivation for CSR engage-
ment (Aguilera et al., 2007; Du et al., 2015; Koch et al., 2019). Given
the important role employees play in CSR, a systematic view that com-
prises managerial, ethical, individual and contextual insights is missing,
revealing a significant research gap in the current CSR literature.
Therefore, this study seeks to narrow this gap by exploring the factors
influencing individual employees’ motivation to take part in voluntary
organizational CSR activities, using a qualitative approach, with empirical
data collected from employees of leading CSR companies in Vietnam.
Research methodology
This research aims to enrich the CSR literature through a greater under-
standing of employees’ motivation for CSR engagement, by generating
a systematic view of their motivation for participating in organizational
CSR activities. We conduct a qualitative study in order to get an in-depth
insight into the diverse factors that may influence this, contrasting with
much of the CSR-related research that tends to be quantitative and
focused on the macro level (Aguinis & Glavas, 2012), potentially restrict-
ing “our understanding of CSR’s on-ground operations and implications”
(Bice, 2017, p. 18). Bansal and Roth (2000) provide an excellent illus-
tration of how qualitative approaches can inform the field of CSR, which
could be particularly fruitful in terms of our research perspective
(Aguinis & Glavas, 2012).
Before choosing the research targets, we first reviewed the list of the
100 most sustainable businesses in Vietnam in 2016, which was the
“first programme on benchmarking and ranking the most sustainable
companies in Vietnam” (Wbcsd.org, 2016), and consulted industrial
experts who had extensive knowledge of CSR development in Vietnam.
In previous research, scholars have revealed that, in Vietnam, small and
medium-sized enterprises are trained and updated on CSR knowledge,
and have increasingly integrated CSR into their business strategies
(Nguyen et al., 2018). Therefore, besides choosing samples from large
corporations featuring in the list of top sustainable businesses, we also
included some small and medium-sized companies recommended by
industrial experts as having good reputations for CSR.
For this study, in-depth semi-structured interviews with individual
employees formed the main data collection approach, as such interviews
can provide guidelines for eliciting participants’ stories but are also
flexible enough to be able to cope with unexpected stories from
participants (Charmaz & Mitchell, 1996). Each interview was based on

generalized interview questions that basically covered the interviewees’
backgrounds, perceptions of CSR and the company they worked for,
and their individual experiences of CSR engagement. During the inter-
views, probing questions were asked and questions were adjusted based
on or to follow up on the replies of the interviewees, helping us to
explore more deeply and deal with any unexpected interviewee experi-
ences. These questions and the interview protocol enabled our respon-
dents to steer the conversation towards issues that were specifically
related to our research objectives within the broad parameters of CSR.
By allowing the interviewees to be flexible in what was discussed, we
were able to capture the key issues and gain a clear picture of the factors
that tended to motivate them to engage in CSR.
The interviewees selected for this research fulfilled the following
criteria. First, the respondents needed to have experience of participating
in CSR activities voluntarily, and not just having been required to do
so by their supervisor/company. Second, the respondents had to have
been involved in CSR activities continuously and to have participated
in voluntary CSR activities at least three times, implying they had abun-
dant experience in CSR engagement. This criterion was set in order to
screen for interviewees with sufficient knowledge and experience to give
us insights into their perceptions and observations of CSR. Third, we
chose respondents from a wide range of departments where CSR tended
to be a personal choice rather than included in job descriptions, as we
wanted to mainly focus on CSR activities in which employees participate
voluntarily, rather than as a formal obligation. For example, in this
research, various kinds of CSR activities are taken into consideration,
including diverse pro-social activities (e.g. employee volunteering pro-
grams) or pro-environmental activities (e.g. embedding CSR criteria in
daily work, such as saving water/electricity or better recycling) in which
employees participate voluntarily.
In-depth semi-structured interviews (which varied in length from
30 min to more than 4 h) were conducted with 30 employees of 11
companies from a wide range of industries (alcoholic beverages, dairy
products and juices, food packaging, consumer goods and real estate)
and of different sizes (from 100 to 5000 employees) in Vietnam.
According to the Vietnam Corporate Sustainability Index, the sample
included four large companies from the Top 100 Sustainable Businesses
2016, along with three from the 400 most sustainable Vietnamese busi-
nesses 2016, and four small and medium-sized companies with good
reputations for CSR in Vietnam, which had been actively engaged in
CSR for the past three years and frequently nominated in CSR reports
and news.
Table 1. Data sources (research sample).

Length of Length of
interview interview
No Code Department (min) No Code Department (min)
1 M1 Supply chain 68 16 M16 Production 66
2 F2 Service 96 17 F17 Human Resources 67
3 F3 Technology 30 18 M18 Quality Assurance 57
4 M4 Production 38 19 F19 Quality Assurance 76
5 F5 Quality Assurance 53 20 M20 Production 54
6 F6 Technology 265 21 F21 Technology 54
7 M7 Utility-WWT 88 22 F22 Technology 58
8 F8 Quality Control 69 23 M23 Clinic 56
9 F9 Quality Control 80 24 F24 Technology 153
10 M10 Production 99 25 F25 Purchasing 40
11 F11 Technology 134 26 M26 Technology 57
12 M12 Production 91 27 M27 Sale 51
13 M13 Electricity 52 28 M28 TPM 40
14 F14 Planning 79 29 F29 Technology 82
15 M15 Production 69 30 F30 Purchasing 54
Furthermore, so as to gain several perspectives, we included a diverse

range of employees: the 30 employees in the final sample came from
many different departments (see Table 1), had worked at their companies
for varying amounts of time, held a variety of positions (operators, tech-
nologists, team leaders, supervisors, officers, managers) and had different
demographics, in terms of gender, age and marital status. Through the
collection of data from companies recognized for conducting CSR, and
from employees with a wide range of departmental and industry back-
grounds, we were able to provide a diversified perspective in depicting
insights on employees’ motivation to participate and engage in voluntary
CSR activities, not perceived as their work obligation. This enabled us to
explore the employees’ views of, and attitudes to, CSR in their organiza-
tions more widely. Considering the concept of saturation, we determined
a sufficient sample size based on reaching “the point when no additional
concepts or relationship among concepts emerge” (McShane & Cunningham,
2012, p. 85). We reached a point of saturation after 30 interviews, and
the meta-themes emerged in the first 10 interviews. Additionally, we used
archival data such as sustainability reports, newsletters from company
websites and other relevant news articles from online sources to improve
our understanding of the CSR programs in these organizations.
Data analysis
The process of grounded theory basically consists of three main stages:

(1) open coding (generating categories), (2) axial coding (selecting and
positioning categories) and (3) selective coding (connecting categories)
(Creswell, 2013). We applied techniques and procedures that many other
authors have used, including naturalistic inquiry and grounded theory
building (Creswell, 2013; Saldaña, 2015; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). We

followed the stages listed above to refine and figure out the interrela-
tionships between the different categories of information. We carried
out the following four steps to produce the desired level of efficiency
(Strauss & Corbin, 1998).
In our initial step, after each interview, we took notes on all the
information provided. Full interview transcripts were arranged based on
the research questions. Subsequent to this, we coded and reviewed the
data carefully in order to arrange it into groups by keywords and closet
meaning. Supplemental data, as mentioned earlier, aided our investigation
of the employees’ responses. At this point, we compared the similarities
and differences among the transcripts, and summarized and refined the
information as data codes.
In our second step, we used constant comparative techniques to search
for similarities among the interviewees and to identify new terms and
overlaps within our database, so that we could discern the main con-
cepts. During this step, we always tried to retain the interviewees’ own
language and terms. After we had found all the groups of codes that
we could, we identified short phrases to express each concept at a higher
level. In total, by the end of this process, we had developed a set of 24
first-order concepts, with each of the concepts coded with at least three
quotes from three different interviewees.
In the third step of our analysis, we again used the constant com-
parative method, this time to examine the links between the categories
of the first-order concepts and to collapse them into distinct themes/
clusters. We cycled iteratively between the first-order concepts and these
clusters of them until 10 s-order themes emerged in the most appropriate
and adequate way.
The final step of the analysis involved gathering these themes into aggre-
gate dimensions that were more general and simplified. Three aggregate
dimensions emerged to consolidate our theorizing: personal characteristics,
CSR capacity and organizational reinforcement. We found these dimensions
by refining our research data and categorizing factors that influenced the
employees’ motivation within the dimensions of the employees themselves,
the organizational mechanism and their experiences of engaging in CSR.
Findings
We explored the different issues through our empirical data, including
diverse intrinsic and extrinsic factors that had an impact on the employ-
ees’ CSR engagement within their organizations. We grouped our findings
into three main categories, which we identified (as noted above) as
Table 2. Dimensions, themes, concepts, and representative data.

Dimensions – themes – concepts Representative data
Personal Characteristics
1. Philanthropic spirit
• Altruism motive “I’m really that kind of person who enjoys helping others,
especially those who need help. Every time I receive their
gratitude, I feel happy and willing to help more.” (F20)
• Empathetic towards others “I always try to see others’ point of view, and try to understand
how it feels to be faced with those difficulties in one’s life. Such
empathy has always driven me to join charity activities, and of
course the CSR activities of my company.” (F2)
2. Religious influence
• Driven by religious faith “Daoism (Chinese system of beliefs) somehow…. influences the
way I treat others. I was taught to be generous and kind to
others, and actually I do feel a sense of achievement if I’ve
successfully followed my belief” (M13)
3. Personal hobbies and interest
• Passion for social activities “I want to participate partly because I am passionate about it,
as well as to live virtuously.” (M18)
• Personal enjoyment and hobbies “I always feel enjoyment and excitement during the CSR
activities. People are passionate, happy and satisfied, which
makes the experience memorable.” (F9)
rganizational citizenship
4. O
behavior
• Acting responsibly towards the “If there is an activity of similar form and meaning to that of
company another organization, I will choose to join with my company
because I think it is a chance to contribute to my company.” (F3)
• Being a brand ambassador “I am an employee of the company, so I should be a brand
ambassador for it. When we go to participate in voluntary
activities, it increases the scale of CSR activities. They are
expanded.” (F11)
CSR Capacity
5. CSR planning
• Meaningfulness of CSR activities “By helping out in the charity, I can see those changes and how
much our companies have helped to improve the situation of
the charity. I feel that what we have done is meaningful.” (F14)
• Employee involvement in orga- “I find that in this company people like to participate in voluntary
nizing CSR activities activities because they are actively organizing, selecting locations
and planning.” (M4)
6. CSR implementation
• Diversified CSR activities “Most of the CSR activities have been updated regularly, and I
am very excited for the new ideas and changes.” (F6)
• Stress relief and enjoyment “Actually, I will not treat CSR involvement as part of work. In
contrast, I feel relief and enjoy the involvement, and I’m excited to
take those activities as a little happy time during the workday.” (M7)
• Imparting good practices to “By helping to install solar panels on roofs in the local
other people community, especially for those with a low income, it means
they can use extra solar energy, which helps them to save on
their electricity bills. This is a good practice for integrating our
professional technology and community support, which makes
me feel proud.” (M15)
ersonal development through
7. P
CSR engagement
• Improving life skills “Through the voluntary CSR, I also learned how to communicate
with the community.” (F9)
• Accumulating knowledge “Thanks to participating in the activities, I have also learnt many
tips about using water properly. Sometimes my job is too busy,
and I do not have time to learn about this, and through this
program is one way to accumulate that knowledge.” (F2)
• Changing behavior “Thanks to the activities that have increased my knowledge of
water saving, even when I go home I can apply them
immediately.” (F14)
(Continued)
Table 2. (Continued)
Organizational Reinforcement
ewards and achievement
8. R
through CSR engagement
• Earning points for KPIs “In our company, those who volunteer in CSR events are taken
note of and get extra points on their KPIs. Since the company
has implemented this policy, more and more employees have
been willing to participate.” (M28)
• Receiving a supervisor’s compli- “My supervisor is very supportive of CSR projects, and sometimes
ment I have participated in CSR events just to get complimented by
my supervisor.” (F30)
• Gaining tangible reward “People who have good ideas or show initiative will receive
encouraging rewards. The gifts are very encouraging to
participants.” (F2)
9. Workplace relationships
• Avoiding being judged “Most of my colleagues have participated (in CSR activities). I
don’t want to be judged or become isolated by refusing to get
involved.” (M4)
• Constructing a social network for “By participating in CSR events, I have opportunities to meet
career development colleagues from other departments. Actually, I was considering
transferring to another department. Getting to know the people from
that department will help a lot with my career development.” (M18)
• More interaction with colleagues “Participating in activities is also an opportunity for me to see
my colleagues in other ways, not through the phone or email,
which is also more interesting.” (F2)
• Building friendships “When participating in CSR activities, I was able to meet people
from other departments, which made me happier by giving me
more friends in my workplace.” (F29)
10. Charismatic leadership effects
• Leader’s encouragement “My supervisor is always very supportive toward CSR projects,
and he always gave great compliments to those who contributed
to CSR activities, which has encouraged me to get more involved
in such activities.” (F5)
• Leader acting as a role model by “My boss is very devoted to CSR projects, and regularly
participating participates in CSR activities even though he is always very busy.
I admire his effort and passion, and am hoping to become as
good as him.” (M10)
personal characteristics, CSR capacity and organizational reinforcement.

Table 2 illustrates the data structure of our findings, which explore the
relationships between different dimensions, and the first-order and
second-order concepts.
Personal characteristics
Our data reveal that certain personal characteristics, such as a philan-
thropic spirit, religious influence, personal interest and organizational
citizenship behavior, tend to have important effects on employees’ values,
moral status, requirements of themselves and personal principles, which
in turn lead to CSR engagement. It can be observed that the CSR
motivation of individual employees is based on social orientation, which
is the need to serve society (love for social activities), and attached to
their personal interests. In other words, with certain intrinsic motiva-
tions embedded in their personal characteristics, employees will feel
proud of and satisfied by voluntarily engaging for the benefit of the
company, even if it exceeds the requirements they have to fulfill. Our

findings reflect the fact that personal characteristics play a very import-
ant role in the promotion of certain types of behavior, and equally in
employees’ engagement in CSR activities. These personal characteristics
relate to the interests, needs and attributes of the employees that come
into play when they want to take part in social activities in their
organizations.
Philanthropic spirit
According to our research data, some CSR activities will provide employ-
ees with a chance to engage with social issues and have conversations
with elders, children, vulnerable groups or impaired people. That social
involvement and interaction will attract employees with high levels of
altruism and empathy. For those employees, engaging in CSR will be
viewed as a chance to realize social accomplishments, with altruism and
empathy being the main intrinsic motivations.
“Every time I visit the elderly, I feel more in love with them, because they give
us a very emotional feeling; their enthusiasm makes me feel very happy and I
really want to help them.” (F25)
Furthermore, people who are empathetic towards others have greater

intentions to help people facing experiences similar to those they have
faced in the past. They often treat others’ pain as their own, and will
dedicate themselves to rescuing people and improving their living condi-
tions. For those employees, participation in CSR, such as employee vol-
unteer programs, will be strongly connected to helping people who need it.
“The activity that I like to participate in the most is giving presents to children
during the Mid-Autumn Festival. Since my childhood was difficult, I am very under-
standing of the desire to have a gift or toys like other friends on this occasion.” (F22)
As previous research has addressed, philanthropy was the main topic

considered in early concepts of responsibility, starting with the philan-
thropy of well-off individuals in late 18th- and 19th-century society
(Waddock, 2008). According to Godfrey (2005, p. 778), “philanthropic
activity anchors one end of the pathway, shareholder wealth the other”,
CSR being seen as a non-reciprocal transfer of wealth between two
parties. Most of the articles on CSR, however, are concerned with
philanthropy in terms of building trust among or satisfying the employ-
ees, from the company’s perspective. Those articles refer to philanthropy
as an expected norm, or “the right thing”, that companies should do
to satisfy their stakeholders, including their employees (Bhattacharya
et al., 2008; Visser, 2006). Moreover, Mirvis (2012) emphasizes that
“Volunteerism is a linchpin of the integrated philanthropy system” (p.

93). Thus, philanthropy plays a very important role in contributing to
the satisfaction employees hope to obtain from their CSR activities
(Siltaoja, 2006). Since CSR activities are mostly aimed at benefitting
the environment or human beings, or dealing with other social issues,
it is observed that employees with empathy and altruism are more
willing to engage in such activities for the purpose of fulfilling their
social mission, and those characteristics are observed to be features of
a philanthropic spirit, and act as a strong intrinsic motivation for
individual employees’ CSR engagement.
For example, altruism, defined as “a selfless exhibition of trading one’s
personal resources to benefit another”, could be perceived as a form of
consequentialism, which implies that ethically right actions are those
that bring about good consequences for others (Furnham et al., 2016,
p. 359). Altruism is acknowledged as being a vital reason for individuals’
sacrificing of their time, money or even organs for others (Ben-Ner &
Kramer, 2011). Our findings also support the argument of previous
research regarding the influence of altruism, revealing that employees
with altruistic motives are more willing to participate in voluntary CSR
activities as they feel a sense of accomplishment and enjoyment from
engaging in such social activities, as well as personal satisfaction.
Religious influence
It has been observed that employees will participate in CSR due to the
influence of their religion. For example, Buddhism’s concept that there
is more blessing for the giver than the receiver could drive its followers
to give away their wealth and belongings to others in gratitude. Some
of the employees interviewed for this study acknowledged the inspiration
and influence of their religion, and explained that they felt CSR engage-
ment was an opportunity to fulfill its doctrine. Thus, if an employee’s
religious values are connected with the values of CSR, this can act as
an influential intrinsic motivation for their engagement in the latter:
“Buddhism taught me that charity is like giving without thinking of gratitude.
I just follow my mind, follow my emotions and I do it […] Sometimes I act to
accumulate virtue, possibly in return for the luck I have, or in order to have good
fortune, for my family or myself.” (M27)
As previous studies have claimed, religion is a significant factor that

has a great influence on individual values, personalities, behavior and
perceptions of the world (Ramasamy et al., 2010). Although little research
has provided conclusive evidence on religious factors that might influ-
ence employees’ motivation regarding CSR, our data offer evidence
supporting the religious influence argument.
Personal hobbies and interests

It is also observed that personal hobbies and interests act as an import-
ant intrinsic motivation for employees’ participation in voluntary CSR
activities. On some occasions, employees are more willing to attend
interesting CSR activities if they correspond to their personal hobbies.
If they find interest and enjoyment in CSR participation, they will have
stronger motivation to engage in further CSR activities. For example,
some employees viewed organizational CSR activities (e.g. volunteering
programs or internal training/workshops) as exciting and novel experi-
ences, aligned with their personal interests or preferences, thus intrin-
sically motivating them to continue to get involved:
“I am a person who enjoys exploring and experiencing. Therefore, new and exciting
places will encourage my participation.” (M15)
Organizational citizenship behavior

The feeling of being an ambassador for their company or brand could
act as an important intrinsic stimulation for employees’ engagement in
organizational CSR activities. It can be observed in our data that some
employees viewed their company’s CSR activities as PR (public relations),
and thus employees with organizational citizenship behaviors might be
more dedicated to them, as a means to bring honor and a positive
reputation to the company:
“I am an employee working for a company; thus, I should act responsibly towards
the company, and participating in CSR is one way of doing so.” (M12)
In the personal dimension, we conclude that employees with certain

attributes such as altruism and empathy tend to perceive CSR engagement
as a means to fulfill their own vision and follow their own interests. Some
employees will view CSR as a way to carry out their own personal social
mission, while others will see it as part of organizational citizenship behav-
ior, that is, a way for employees to contribute towards organizational
effectiveness, through an extra role not linked to any contract, formal
recognition or reward (Story & Neves, 2015). Generally, organizational
citizenship behavior is a combination of altruism, fulfilling responsibility,
self-sacrifice, and moral behavior, which make an employee behave well
and participate more frequently in all kinds of organizational activities
(Wagner & Rush, 2000), including organizational CSR activities in which
participation is voluntary. When an employee feels commitment and
responsibility towards their company, they will believe that attending a
CSR activity is a way to show this, motivating their CSR engagement. Our
data show that these personal characteristics tend to be embedded in the
individual employees and act as powerful intrinsic motivation, inspiring
them to achieve their own personal missions through CSR engagement.
CSR capacity
Our findings reveal that the planning and implementation of CSR

that employees have witnessed, and the personal development they
have achieved, through their previous CSR experiences could signifi-
cantly influence their perceptions of CSR. CSR in an organization
with a strong capacity to deliver it can improve employees’ enjoyment
and sense of accomplishment. Employees will feel more enthusiastic
if they are given more autonomy regarding their CSR engagement.
Furthermore, knowledge sharing and skills enhancement achieved
through the CSR process may change employees’ perceptions of it,
and enhance their identification with and commitment to ethical
activities. Our data suggest that employees will have greater intentions
to engage in more CSR activities in the future if the firm has pre-
viously provided an enjoyable CSR experience for them. That is, a
strong CSR capacity within an organization, which refers to an orga-
nization’s “knowledge, skills and processes relating to the planning,
implementation and evaluation of CSR activity” (Lee et al., 2013, p.
1718), could enhance employees’ intentions to continue to engage in
voluntary CSR activities.
CSR planning
According to our data, employees may start to pay attention to envi-
ronmental or social issues, and gain access to information and knowledge
to which they have previously paid little attention, after participating
in organizational CSR activities. Through well-planned CSR activities,
employees could be impressed or touched by different social and envi-
ronmental issues, and acknowledge the meaningfulness of what they are
going to achieve through such CSR activities. Some of the interviewed
employees confirmed that they believed they could make personal con-
tributions through such CSR engagement, and potentially help to solve
such social or environmental problems.
“When my job is too busy and [there is] no time to think about meaningful
activities, sometimes, when a company organizes community-based activities like
this, it also has a lot of meaning and positive effects for us (employees).” (F22)
Moreover, it can be seen from the interview data that, when employees
are involved in planning and organizing their firms’ CSR projects or
activities, they are also more willing to engage in and devote time to
them voluntarily.
“Being self-organized makes me more motivated to participate, because when I

schedule and do everything, I find myself more responsible for it.” (F14)
As previous research has shown, CSR encompasses various types of

interaction with social communities as well as the environment (Lee,
2008), which may provide valuable experiences for employees, who would
otherwise have little time for such activities during their busy working
lives. Being involved in CSR planning and implementation stimulates
employees’ personal intentions to participate in social service and achieve
personal fulfillment from doing so. Employees find themselves becoming
enthusiastic about activities that are meaningful to society and the envi-
ronment, and gradually incubate a self-requirement, either during or
outside of work, to make continuous contributions. Consequently,
well-organized and efficient CSR planning, with a meaningful purpose,
and getting employees involved in the planning and decision process,
are important stimuli, which could be perceived as intrinsic motivation
for employees to engage in and devote themselves to CSR.
CSR implementation
Unlike their routine work, CSR activities could provide employees with
more autonomy and enable them to show their creativity or even bring
their own ideas into reality. Through a well-designed and efficient imple-
mentation of CSR, employees could gain a sense of accomplishment,
enjoyment and satisfaction, encouraging repeat engagement. Many of our
interviewees admitted that the freshness of the community activities was
what attracted them, as engaging in such activities away from the work-
place functioned as a form of stress relief from their regular work routine.
The data show that employees may often be required to act objectively,
effectively and efficiently in carrying out their jobs in the workplace;
however, participation in voluntary CSR programs comprises emotional,
social and empathetic involvement, arousing an employee’s humanity and
bringing new stimulation and stress relief to their personal life.
“Every time I join, I am very excited because the form of activity is always chang-
ing.” (F19)
This finding is consistent with a similar phenomenon identified in

Bhattacharya et al. (2008), in that CSR can aid employees’ work-life
integration by helping to reduce their stress and getting them involved
in their own social communities, while our research further implies that
such stress relief and personal satisfaction that employees experience
through organizational CSR also act as important stimuli for their con-
tinued engagement in voluntary CSR programs such as employee vol-
unteering activities:
“Participating in CSR is also a way to relax because of having a whole day off or
a few happy hours.” (F5)
It is indicated in the CSR literature that personal growth (Aguilera

et al., 2007; Lee et al., 2013) and self-enhancement (Bhattacharya et al.,
2008; Cha et al., 2014) are important factors for organizations to con-
sider when instigating CSR projects. Evidence shows that many compa-
nies have been successful in engaging their employees in organizational
CSR by implementing employee development projects (Aguilera et al.,
2007). As Grant (2012) argues, CSR could act as a tool for satisfying
employees’ needs, by filling a gap in their regular work; when meaning
is lacking, employees will seek compensation through their organizational
CSR. Our finding echoes this research, suggesting that personal devel-
opment and growth, such as knowledge and life skills, gained from CSR
experiences, are meaningful for employees, acting as important intrinsic
motivation for their continued participation and engagement in voluntary
CSR activities.
“The activity that we feel is the most meaningful is spreading information about
saving water. We go directly to people’s homes to impart knowledge. This helps us to
both improve our knowledge and also other people’s environmental awareness.” (F11)
Organizational reinforcement
Organizations with a strong ethical culture may put forth a signal that
behaving ethically will influence an employee’s personal rewards and
career development. Thus, employees may view CSR engagement as
proof of the implementation of ethical values, and consequently expect
to earn a good reputation, recognition and potential opportunities
through CSR engagement. In this research, organizational reinforcement
emphasizes the motivational factors, including both tangible and intan-
gible rewards, that employees receive through CSR engagement, the
relationships developed through the CSR process, and the influence of
charismatic leaders in the workplace. An ethical organization with an
ethical climate, encouraging employees to behave ethically, may in turn
produce ethical and enthusiastic employees who wish to participate in
CSR activities (Coldwell et al., 2008), while our research proves that
the opposite also holds, suggesting that ethical employees may also help
to produce an ethical organization.
Rewards and achievement through CSR engagement

Some companies may provide rewards and bonuses to encourage employ-
ees to participate in CSR activities. Our data indicate that such incentives
may fulfill employees’ needs for internal rewards and also create a
win-win situation for the company and the employees. For example,
some employees participate in CSR because active engagement in
organizational social events including voluntary CSR activities could

help them gain credits towards their appraisals, as
“active participants may receive a bonus for their achievements, which is also related
to the year-end evaluation results (KPI) and the bonus for the employee.” (M15)
The rewards employees receive through CSR engagement can be both

tangible and intangible, forming an extrinsic motivation for CSR par-
ticipation. Some employees mentioned small gifts or free lunches offered
by the company as encouraging rewards, while many were keener on
the intangible rewards, such as getting recognition from their supervisor:
“the most valuable reward I received from CSR was being praised by my boss in
front of others. At that time, I was so happy and proud of myself.” (M10)
Workplace relationships
Maintaining good workplace relationships is found to be one of the
employee’s main considerations when deciding to engage in CSR. As
mentioned earlier, an ethical organizational environment may require
or at least put pressure on employees to act ethically. Therefore,
employees will be concerned that, if they are not seen to be conducting
themselves ethically, by getting involved in CSR training or activities,
for example, they may be subject to negative judgements and percep-
tions from their supervisors and peers. Under such conditions, they
could view CSR engagement as a way to avoid judgement in the
workplace:
“When everyone is involved, especially in donation activities, someone who does
not get involved is often judged, such as for being stingy.” (M1)
According to Grant (2012), CSR projects can reduce the boundaries

between different functions, different levels of status, and power
distance. Our data also suggest that, for many employees, especially
those from large companies, voluntary organizational CSR activities
represent good opportunities to interact with employees from other
departments/divisions with whom they would not normally associate
in their regular work life. Such personal relationships established
through CSR activities could benefit their career development, and
are therefore an important potential motivation for their CSR
engagement:
“I want to participate in part because I want to expand my relationships with many
people, from different divisions. This will help me a lot in my future work.” (F3)
Our findings suggest that, through diverse organizational CSR activ-

ities, employees could have more interaction with coworkers, develop
friendships with colleagues who share similar perceptions and experi-

ences, or even construct a social network in the workplace. Such poten-
tial benefits for workplace relationships are reported by many employees
as an important motivation for their engagement in the various CSR
activities organized by their companies:
“Being involved in social activities is an opportunity to create intimacy among
colleagues, since, if people are just going to work, it’s not easy to create such
bonds.” (M16)
Charismatic leadership effects

It is observed that employees will develop a more positive attitude
towards CSR engagement when they see an emotional bond between
themselves and their superiors:
“When I saw my boss participate very enthusiastically in social activities, I felt
his warmth and true feelings for everyone. I realized that his participation was a
motivation for myself to participate in social activities.” (F22)
The same is true when they have the opportunity to get close to each
other and express their common voice as colleagues without regard for
their position at work. Therefore, managers who show engaging and
charismatic behaviors, especially in CSR activities, not only raise aware-
ness about doing good among their subordinates but also break down
organizational hierarchy barriers, offering a strong motivation for
employees to follow their lead:
“When the boss directly lobbies me, I will become more aware, more specific about
that activity, and somehow that also motivates me to participate in it.” (F9)
Our finding suggests that charismatic leadership qualities could signifi-

cantly affect employees’ motives for CSR engagement, as leaders, especially
middle-level managers, could have a positive influence on employees’
CSR-specific behaviors. This finding echoes the research of Collier and
Esteban (2007, p. 30): “without full support from the organization’s lead-
ership, ethics will not be fully embedded throughout the company”. Thus,
when employees are encouraged to think positively about organizational
CSR projects, they tend to take part in discretionary work activities.
Our finding is also in line with Lee et al. (2012), who comment that
employees will be more satisfied with their jobs when they see a link
between their own ethics and the top management’s interests. This can
be explained by a spillover process between managers and their subor-
dinates as, when spillover effects (from leaders) create spiritual inspi-
ration or admiration for individuals, or lead to an attitudinal or behavioral
change process, they play a role as an intrinsic motivator (of employees)
(Vlachos et al., 2014).
Figure 1. The personal characteristics – CSR capacity – organizational reinforcement model
of individual employees’ motivation for voluntary CSR activities.
Discussion
Our findings lead to the proposal of a Personal characteristics – CSR
capacity – Organizational reinforcement (PCO) model (Figure 1), which
outlines the diverse motivations behind individual employees’ engagement
in voluntary CSR activities.
Under the dimension of personal characteristics, we suggest that
certain characteristics of individuals, such as a philanthropic sprit, reli-
gious influence, personal preferences and interests, or an individual’s
organizational citizenship behavior, could provide important motivation
for their CSR engagement. Some virtuous characteristics, such as altruism
and empathy, tend to be embedded in individual employees’ personal
backgrounds or previous life experiences, and offer critical intrinsic
motivation for their engagement in or even devotion to CSR for the
purpose of fulfilling their personal social mission.
Under the dimension of CSR capacity, we suggest that an organization

with a strong CSR capacity, featuring well-planned CSR with employees’
involvement, diversified and efficient CSR implementation in which
employees have autonomy, and where there is positive feedback whereby
employees achieve personal development through the CSR process, mak-
ing it an enjoyable and meaningful experience for the individual employ-
ees, will stimulate its employees to continue participating in CSR.
Last but not least, organizational reinforcement, including offering
rewards attached to CSR, the maintenance or development of harmonious
workplace relationships through CSR, and charismatic leaders who rec-
ognize and encourage their subordinates and act as role models, sends
a signal that attending voluntary CSR activities will eventually benefit
the employees themselves in various ways in the workplace, offering a
strong incentive for employees’ CSR engagement.
Previous research has revealed that CSR is a complex concept whose
analysis requires multiple perspectives (business, ethical, stakeholder and
institutional) (Bice, 2017). In this vein, we propose that analyzing indi-
vidual employees’ motivation for CSR engagement also requires a
multi-perspective interpretation, considering that employees tend to
participate in CSR for multiple reasons. Our research and the framework
proposed identify three dimensions of motives for employees’ engagement
in organizational CSR: personal characteristics, CSR capacity and orga-
nizational reinforcement. Our theoretical framework also demonstrates
a circular effect within the three dimensions of motivational factors.
Starting from personal characteristics, there are several personal features,
such as altruism, a philanthropic spirit and religion, that motivate
employees to engage in CSR. These are intrinsic motivations that encour-
age employees to accept CSR autonomously, without expecting any extra
feedback or rewards for their engagement. On the other hand, CSR
capacity and organizational reinforcement comprise several extrinsic
motivations for employees’ CSR engagement. Some organizations may
provide encouragement or rewards, or put pressure on their employees
to engage in CSR. Employees will be influenced by the organizational
environment, especially by the ethical climate, or by their colleagues.
Employees may view CSR activities as a chance to gain career develop-
ment opportunities, and may expect to obtain knowledge and informa-
tion, experience novelty and excitement, or even gain rewards. Some
employees may initially be driven to participate through extrinsic moti-
vations reinforced by their organization. However, after participating,
good experiences of the CSR planning and implementation process, and
the personal development they gain through their CSR engagement, may
inspire empathy and organizational citizenship behavior, thereby facili-
tating a transformation of their personal characteristics, implying
potential interaction and influence between the different intrinsic and

extrinsic motivations.
Conclusion
Employees are increasingly encouraged or even required to engage in
organizational CSR activities (Du et al., 2015). Given the importance of
employees’ participation in organizational CSR and the limited knowledge
regarding the underlying mechanisms from the individual perspective in
the CSR literature, this study offers insights by proposing a Personal
characteristics – CSR capacity – Organization reinforcement (PCO) model
of individual employees’ motivation for CSR engagement, based on an
analysis of qualitative empirical data collected from individual employees.
First and foremost, we claim that CSR is a complicated phenomenon
combining the concepts of ethics, business and society, which employees
associate with fulfilling their social mission, self-development and career
enhancement. Previous research has claimed that similarity of personal
and organizational values helps increase employee commitment (Hansen
et al., 2011), and we also observe in our research that employees who
naturally behave ethically, and have strong empathy for social issues, are
more easily attracted to CSR activities (Collier & Esteban, 2007). An
organization which is known for its ethical operations will attract and
recruit employees with empathy, social awareness and altruism (Rupp
et al., 2006). As indicated in our model, employees with certain charac-
teristics are more willing to engage in voluntary CSR activities, intrin-
sically motivated by a desire to fulfill personal missions. These employees
would expect themselves to take part in certain forms of social activity
and contribute to society. In such situations, CSR represents a realization
of their social mission and satisfaction of their social requirements of
themselves (Slack et al., 2015). We claim that CSR engagement is actually
a realization of an employee’s vision of fulfilling their social mission,
which reflects the arguments of internal market theory (Berry &
Parasuraman, 1992; Bhattacharya et al., 2008) and self-determination
theory (Rupp et al., 2006). Our finding that personal characteristics
influence CSR engagement combines an ethical perspective with internal
market theory and self-determination theory, clarifying that ethical
employees are self-determined to fulfill their social mission, while engag-
ing in voluntary organizational CSR satisfies their social needs.
Second, an interesting result that previous research has not uncovered
is that CSR activities implemented well can provide employees with
exciting, varied and interesting experiences, and thereby the extra stim-
ulation of knowledge, information and social involvement. In other
words, CSR could be perceived as a social activity that emphasizes
interpersonal interaction, enhancing employees’ sense of belonging to

their organization and community.
Furthermore, it has been observed that an ethical climate has a sig-
nificant influence on employees’ CSR engagement, in various ways. In
an ethical organization, an employee will often receive encouragement
to get involved in voluntary CSR activities from their supervisors and
peers, an important source of motivation or even peer pressure. As a
result, some employees refer to their CSR involvement as a response to
expectations from supervisors and peers; additionally, some will perceive
voluntary CSR activities as an opportunity to gain a good reputation,
recognition and social capital. As social exchange theory demonstrates,
employees will earn extra social value from participating in CSR activ-
ities, comprising social or emotional comfort and the self-satisfaction
of following one’s interests (Slack et al., 2015). An interesting finding
of our research is that some employees link CSR engagement to their
career development, and they may expect to gain promotions or recog-
nition from their CSR participation. Thus, besides social and emotional
exchange, we have observed that there is also an exchange effect in
terms of career development from CSR engagement.
Theoretical contribution
Although previous research has discussed employee motivation for CSR

involvement through various theories, none of those theories can provide
a thorough explanation of the complex motivations of individual employ-
ees. Aiming to narrow this gap and deepen our knowledge of the moti-
vations behind employees’ participation in organizational CSR, this
research conducted an in-depth qualitative analysis of first-hand empir-
ical data, using a grounded theory approach, and proposes the Personal
characteristics – CSR capacity – Organization reinforcement (PCO)
model, which provides a systematic view of individual employees’ moti-
vations for CSR engagement. As indicated in the PCO model, we inves-
tigate employee motivation through personal, organizational and CSR
perspectives, with various motivations explored, including both intrinsic
and extrinsic factors, while also indicating the interactions and influences
among the different categories. Our framework provides a systematic
view of individual employees’ motivations for CSR engagement, which
none of the existing CSR or organizational theory has been able to
explain independently. The findings of this study also make a significant
contribution to the CSR literature, as well as providing further impli-
cations for existing organizational behavior theories.
First, in the personal characteristics dimension, we highlight the
critical impacts of altruism and empathy as fundamental intrinsic
motivation for employees’ CSR engagement, and address the importance

of organizational citizenship behavior, which is normally perceived as a
consequence of CSR, while we find that it could also act as an important
motivation for CSR. As previous research has addressed, the implemen-
tation of CSR will have a significant positive influence on employees’
organizational citizenship behavior (Abdullah & Rashid, 2012; Smith
et al., 1983), while our findings demonstrate that the opposite also
occurs. Organizational citizenship behavior consists of altruism, courtesy
and conscientiousness (Organ, 1988), which correspond to the core
values of an ethical organization and to CSR activities. Due to the
correspondence of values, employees with a strong awareness of orga-
nizational citizenship will be motivated to engage in CSR, through their
altruism, and because committing to CSR is also a demonstration of
courtesy and conscientiousness. Organizational citizenship behavior act-
ing as a motivation for employees’ CSR engagement may also be
explained by internal marketing theory and psychological contract theory.
Second, within the dimension of CSR capacity, we highlight the impor-
tance of CSR planning and implementation, as well as the possible
personal development employees could achieve through the process. In
this research, we emphasize the necessity for a diversified, fresh and
autonomous CSR experience, which will attract more employees to get
involved. This implication contributes to the existing CSR literature,
implying that a strong CSR capacity is not just the consequence of
employees’ engagement, but also acts as an important motivation for
employees’ engagement. The perception of employees’ involvement and
autonomy within the CSR process also echoes the primary focus of
cognitive evaluation theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000), which emphasizes the
need for competence and autonomy in the workplace.
Within the organizational reinforcement dimension, we claimed that
the employee being ethical and being situated in an ethical organiza-
tional climate is the foundation for their CSR motivation. If an employee
is ethical, they will have a strong incentive to engage in CSR; on the
other hand, an ethical organizational climate can foster employees’ CSR
engagement in various ways, including through peer pressure and by
providing career development incentives. If a company puts less empha-
sis on CSR, employees will have less incentive to engage. Consequently,
we cover the arguments from social exchange theory, which implies
the importance of organizational factors that could reinforce employees’
interest in participating and highlights the critical influence of peers
and leaders, echoing some implications from self-determination theory,
which describes the process through which individuals can become
strongly motivated due to external stimuli (Ryan & Deci, 2000).
Moreover, the potential interaction and influences between the different
intrinsic and extrinsic motivational factors behind employees’ CSR

engagement also support and further extend Ryan and Deci (2000)’s
motivation research, which states (p. 63) that “a person might originally
get exposed to an activity because of an external regulation (e.g. a
reward), and (if the reward is not perceived as too controlling) such
exposure might allow the person to experience the activity’s intrinsically
interesting properties, resulting in an orientation shift”.
To sum up, our research findings and the diverse elements indicated
in the PCO model enrich our understanding regarding various man-
agement theories in both the CSR and organizational behavior areas,
clarifying their connections and relationships in terms of employees’
motivation for CSR engagement, which makes a significant contribution
to the CSR literature and also provides further insights into various
organizational behavior theories.
Practical implications
Employees are increasingly encouraged or even required to engage in

organizational CSR activities (Du et al., 2015). The findings of this
research and the proposed PCO model offer several important practical
implications, providing a useful guide for companies seeking to better
motivate their employees to engage in organizational CSR. First, since
many intrinsic motivations tend to be embedded in the individual
employees’ personal characteristics, which are highly related to their
personalities and previous experiences, HR might take these personal
characteristics into consideration in the recruitment and selection process.
Second, employee involvement is identified as a central component of
CSR capacity. When designing CSR programs, it is important to get
employees involved in the decision making, as autonomy in the planning
and implementation process for CSR could make employees feel more
responsible for the project. Since employees are an important source of
ideas for CSR initiatives (McShane & Cunningham, 2012; Ramus & Steger,
2000), getting employees involved in CSR planning could also generate
more creative ideas and increase the diversity and meaningfulness of
CSR activities, thereby attracting further engagement from employees.
Third, workplace relationships and charismatic leadership effects are
perceived as critical elements of organizational reinforcement of employ-
ees’ CSR engagement. Therefore, it is suggested that leaders should act
as role models in engaging in CSR, and effective recognition from
managers of employees’ efforts in organizational CSR would also sig-
nificantly increase employees’ willingness to engage. Moreover, estab-
lishing an ethical climate in the workplace, offering tangible or intangible
rewards, and involving employees across divisions/departments to extend
the participants’ social networks could also increase employees’ motiva-

tion. In a nutshell, by understanding the motivations for employees’
CSR engagement, companies could better tailor their CSR programs to
their employees’ preferences and interests, and then better motivate them
to participate and engage in organizational CSR.
Limitations and future research
Although this research has filled an existing research gap by proposing

a comprehensive framework combining cross-conceptual and
cross-dimension perspectives in investigating employees’ CSR engage-
ment, several limitations should be acknowledged, along with suggestions
for future research. First and foremost, our research data are restricted
to a relatively small sample of employees from leading CSR companies
in Vietnam. Since there has been increasing recognition of context-based
CSR research (Davidson, 2016; Nguyen et al., 2018), whether the findings
of this research and the PCO model apply to employees in general, or
employees in other social contexts, will need further investigation.
Therefore, we recommend a comparative study across countries, and
further cross-cultural research, to investigate individual employees’ moti-
vations for CSR engagement in diverse workplaces.
Second, despite the feasibility and contribution of our research in
revealing the relationship between employees and the CSR activities in
their companies, it is hard to claim that our findings and the theoretical
framework have fully uncovered all the factors in this research context,
as some may remain unexplored. Therefore, we recommend further
research to expand the generality of our model by applying it in different
contexts. Furthermore, we did not include organizational types (e.g.
industry and ownership) in this research. Future research could further
explore the relationship between employee features and CSR activities,
for example using a survey approach with a larger sample of employees,
and taking a range of organizational features into consideration.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
References
Abdullah, M. H., & Rashid, N. R. N. A. (2012). The implementation of corporate
social responsibility (CSR) programs and its impact on employee organizational
citizenship behavior. International Journal of Business and Commerce, 2(1), 67–75.
Aguilera, R. V., Rupp, D. E., Williams, C. A., & Ganapathi, J. (2007). Putting the S
back in corporate social responsibility: A multilevel theory of social change in or-
ganizations. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 836–863. https://doi.org/10.5465/

amr.2007.25275678
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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311436079
Al Kerdawy, M. M. A. (2019). The role of corporate support for employee volunteering
in strengthening the impact of green human resource management practices on
corporate social responsibility in the Egyptian firms. European Management Review,
16(4), 1079–1095. https://doi.org/10.1111/emre.12310
Bansal, P., & Roth, K. (2000). Why companies go green: A model of ecological re-
sponsiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 717–736.
Ben-Ner, A., & Kramer, A. (2011). Personality and altruism in the dictator game:
Relationship to giving to kin, collaborators, competitors, and neutrals. Personality
and Individual Differences, 51(3), 216–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.04.024
Berry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. (1992). Services marketing starts from within. Marketing
Management, 7(1), 24–34.
Bhattacharya, C. B., Sen, S., & Korschun, D. (2008). Using corporate social responsi-
bility to win the war for talent. MIT Sloan Management Review, 49(2), 36–45.
Bice, S. (2017). Corporate social responsibility as institution: A social mechanisms
framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 143(1), 17–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10551-015-2791-1
Bilbao-Terol, A., Arenas-Parra, M., Canal-Fernandez, V., & Bilbao-Terol, C. (2013).
Selection of socially responsible portfolios using hedonic prices. Journal of Business
Ethics, 115(3), 515–529. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1411-6
Bird, F., & Velasquez, M. (2006). Just business practices in a diverse and developing world:
Essays on international business and global responsibilities. Palgrave Macmillan.
Brunton, M., Eweje, G., & Taskin, N. (2017). Communicating corporate social respon-
sibility to internal stakeholders: Walking the walk or just talking the talk?Business
Strategy and the Environment, 26(1), 31–48. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1889
Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the mor-
al management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(4), 39–48. https://
doi.org/10.1016/0007-6813(91)90005-G
Carroll, A. B., & Shabana, K. M. (2010). The business case for corporate social respon-
sibility: A review of concepts, research and practice. International Journal of
Management Reviews, 12(1), 85–105. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00275.x
Cha, J., Chang, Y. K., & Kim, T.-Y. (2014). Person-organization fit on prosocial iden-
tity: Implications on employee outcomes. Journal of Business Ethics, 123(1), 57–69.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1799-7
Charmaz, K., & Mitchell, R. G. (1996). The myth of silent authorship: Self, substance,
and style in ethnographic writing. Symbolic Interaction, 19(4), 285–302. https://doi.
org/10.1525/si.1996.19.4.285
Coldwell, D. A., Billsberry, J., Van Meurs, N., & Marsh, P. J. (2008). The effects of
person–organization ethical fit on employee attraction and retention: Towards a
testable explanatory model. Journal of Business Ethics, 78(4), 611–622. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10551-007-9371-y
Collier, J., & Esteban, R. (2007). Corporate social responsibility and employee com-
mitment. Business Ethics: A European Review, 16(1), 19–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1467-8608.2006.00466.x
Cooper, S. (2004). Corporate social performance: A stakeholder approach. Ashgate.
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (4th ed.).Sage Publications.
Dahlsrud, A. (2008). How corporate social responsibility is defined: An analysis of 37

definitions. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 15(1),
1–13. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.132
Davidson, D. K. (2016). The importance of context in understanding CSR. In A.
Örtenblad (Ed.) Research handbook on corporate social responsibility in context (pp.
32–45). Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
DeTienne, K. B., Agle, B. R., Phillips, J. C., & Ingerson, M. C. (2012). The impact of
moral stress compared to other stressors on employee fatigue, job satisfaction, and
turnover: An empirical investigation. Journal of Business Ethics, 110(3), 377–391.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-1197-y
Du, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2010). Maximizing business returns to corporate
social responsibility (CSR): The role of CSR communication. International Journal
of Management Reviews, 12(1), 8–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00276.x
Du, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2015). Corporate social responsibility, multi-faceted
job-products, and employee outcomes. Journal of Business Ethics, 131(2), 319–335.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2286-5
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 mul-
tidimensional corporate stakeholder responsibility scale. Journal of Management,
44(2), 619–657. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315569311
Farooq, M., Farooq, O., & Jasimuddin, S. M. (2014). Employees’ response to corporate
social responsibility: Exploring the role of employees’ collectivist orientation. European
Management Journal, 32(6), 916–927. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2014.03.002
Frynas, J. G., & Yamahaki, C. (2016). Corporate social responsibility: Review and
roadmap of theoretical perspectives. Business Ethics: A European Review, 25(3),
258–285. https://doi.org/10.1111/beer.12115
Furnham, A., Treglown, L., Hyde, G., & Trickey, G. (2016). The bright and dark side
of altruism: Demographic, personality traits, and disorders associated with altruism.
Journal of Business Ethics, 134(3), 359–368. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2435-x
Gatignon-Turnau, A.-L., & Mignonac, K. (2015). (Mis) Using employee volunteering
for public relations: Implications for corporate volunteers’ organizational commit-
ment. Journal of Business Research, 68(1), 7–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.
2014.05.013
Glavas, A. (2012). Employee engagement and sustainability: A model for implementing
meaningfulness at and in work. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 2012(46), 13–29.
https://doi.org/10.9774/GLEAF.4700.2012.su.00003
Glavas, A., & Kelley, K. (2014). The effects of perceived corporate social responsibility
on employee attitudes. Business Ethics Quarterly, 24(2), 165–202. https://doi.
org/10.5840/beq20143206
Godfrey, P. C. (2005). The relationship between corporate philanthropy and sharehold-
er wealth: A risk management perspective. Academy of Management Review, 30(4),
777–798. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2005.18378878
Grant, A. M. (2012). Giving time, time after time: Work design and sustained employ-
ee participation in corporate volunteering. Academy of Management Review, 37(4),
589–615. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2010.0280
Hacking, I. (2003). The social construction of what? (9th ed.). Harvard University Press.
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(1), 29–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10551-011-0903-0
Haski-Leventhal, D., Roza, L., & Meijs, L. C. (2017). Congruence in corporate social
responsibility: Connecting the identity and behavior of employers and employees.
Journal of Business Ethics, 143(1), 35–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2793-z
Hoeffler, S., Bloom, P. N., & Keller, K. L. (2010). Understanding stakeholder responses
to corporate citizenship initiatives: Managerial guidelines and research directions. Journal
of Public Policy & Marketing, 29(1), 78–88. https://doi.org/10.1509/jppm.29.1.78
Houghton, S. M., Gabel, J. T., & Williams, D. W. (2009). Connecting the two faces of
CSR: Does employee volunteerism improve compliance?Journal of Business Ethics,
87(4), 477–494. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9954-2
Jamali, D., & Karam, C. (2016). CSR in developed versus developing countries: A
comparative glimpse. In A. Örtenblad (Ed.) Research handbook on corporate social
responsibility in context (pp. 89–110). Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
Kim, S. Y., & Park, H. (2011). Corporate social responsibility as an organizational
attractiveness for prospective public relations practitioners. Journal of Business Ethics,
103(4), 639–653. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0886-x
Koch, C., Bekmeier-Feuerhahn, S., Bögel, P. M., & Adam, U. (2019). Employees’ per-
ceived benefits from participating in CSR activities and implications for increasing
employees’ engagement in CSR. Corporate Communications: An International Journal,
24(2), 303–317. https://doi.org/10.1108/CCIJ-12-2017-0123
Kurtz, L. (2008). Socially responsible investment and shareholder activism. In A.
Crane, A. McWilliams, D. Matten, J. Moon, & D. Siegel (Eds.), The Oxford hand-
book of corporate social responsibility (pp. 249–280). Oxford University Press.
Lee, M. D. P. (2008). A review of the theories of corporate social responsibility: Its
evolutionary path and the road ahead. International Journal of Management Reviews,
10(1), 53–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2007.00226.x
Lee, Y.-K., Kim, Y. “S. ”., Lee, K. H., & Li, D-x. (2012). The impact of CSR on rela-
tionship quality and relationship outcomes: A perspective of service employees.
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31(3), 745–756. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2011.09.011
Lee, E. M., Park, S.-Y., & Lee, H. J. (2013). Employee perception of CSR activities: Its
antecedents and consequences. Journal of Business Research, 66(10), 1716–1724.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.11.008
Lin-Hi, N., & Müller, K. (2013). The CSR bottom line: Preventing corporate social
irresponsibility. Journal of Business Research, 66(10), 1928–1936. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.02.015
Lock, I., & Seele, P. (2016). The credibility of CSR (corporate social responsibility)
reports in Europe. Evidence from a quantitative content analysis in 11 countries.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 122, 186–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcle-
pro.2016.02.060
McShane, L., & Cunningham, P. (2012). To thine own self be true? Employees’ judg-
ments of the authenticity of their organization’s corporate social responsibility pro-
gram. Journal of Business Ethics, 705(1), 81–100.
Mirvis, P. (2012). Employee engagement and CSR. California Management Review, 54(4),
93–117. https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2012.54.4.93
Morgeson, F. P., Aguinis, H., Waldman, D. A., & Siegel, D. S. (2013). Extending cor-
porate social responsibility research to the human resource management and orga-
nizational behavior domains: A look to the future. Personnel Psychology, 66(4),
805–824. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12055
Newman, A., Miao, Q., Hofman, P. S., & Zhu, C. J. (2016). The impact of socially
responsible human resource management on employees’ organizational citizenship
behaviour: The mediating role of organizational identification. The International

Journal of Human Resource Management, 27(4), 440–455. https://doi.org/10.1080/09
585192.2015.1042895
Nguyen, M., Bensemann, J., & Kelly, S. (2018). Corporate social responsibility (CSR)
in Vietnam: A conceptual framework. International Journal of Corporate Social
Responsibility, 3(1), 9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40991-018-0032-5
Onkila, T. (2015). Pride or embarrassment? Employees’ emotions and corporate social
responsibility. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 22(4),
222–236. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1340
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome.
Lexington Books.
Peloza, J., & Shang, J. (2011). How can corporate social responsibility activities create
value for stakeholders? A systematic review. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 39(1), 117–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-010-0213-6
Porter, M., & Kramer, M. R. (2011). Creating shared value. Harvard Business Review,
89(1/2), 62–77.
Ramasamy, B., Yeung, M. C. H., & Au, A. K. M. (2010). Consumer support for cor-
porate social responsibility (CSR): The role of religion and values. Journal of Business
Ethics, 91(S1), 61–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0568-0
Ramus, C. A., & Steger, U. (2000). The roles of supervisory support behaviors and
environmental policy in employee “Ecoinitiatives” at leading-edge European compa-
nies. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 605–626.
Rodell, J. B., Breitsohl, H., Schröder, M., & Keating, D. J. (2016). Employee volunteer-
ing: A review and framework for future research. Journal of Management, 42(1),
55–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315614374
Rodrigo, P., & Arenas, D. (2008). Do employees care about CSR programs? A typolo-
gy of employees according to their attitudes. Journal of Business Ethics, 83(2), 265–
283. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9618-7
Rupp, D. E., Ganapathi, J., Aguilera, R. V., & Williams, C. A. (2006). Employee reac-
tions to corporate social responsibility: An organizational justice framework. Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 27(4), 537–543. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.380
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of
intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1),
68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
Saldaña, J. (2015). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage.
Settoon, R. P., Bennett, N., & Liden, R. C. (1996). Social exchange in organizations:
Perceived organizational support: Leader-member exchange and employee reciproc-
ity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(3), 219–227. https://doi.org/10.1037/
0021-9010.81.3.219
Siltaoja, M. E. (2006). Value priorities as combining core factors between CSR and
reputation – a qualitative study. Journal of Business Ethics, 68(1), 91–111. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10551-006-9042-4
Singhapakdi, A., Lee, D.-J., Sirgy, M. J., & Senasu, K. (2015). The impact of incongru-
ity between an organization’s CSR orientation and its employees’ CSR orientation on
employees’ quality of work life. Journal of Business Research, 68(1), 60–66. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.05.007
Slack, R., Corlett, S., & Morris, R. (2015). Exploring employee engagement with (cor-
porate) social responsibility: A social exchange perspective on organisational partic-
ipation. Journal of Business Ethics, 127(3), 537–548. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10551-014-2057-3
Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior:
Its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(4), 653–663. https://
doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.68.4.653
Stewart, R., Volpone, S. D., Avery, D. R., & McKay, P. (2011). You support diversity,
but are you ethical? Examining the interactive effects of diversity and ethical climate
perceptions on turnover intentions. Journal of Business Ethics, 100(4), 581–593. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0697-5
Story, J., & Neves, P. (2015). When corporate social responsibility (CSR) increases
performance: Exploring the role of intrinsic and extrinsic CSR attribution. Business
Ethics: A European Review, 24(2), 111–124. https://doi.org/10.1111/beer.12084
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Procedures and techniques
for developing grounded theory. Sage Publications.
Surroca, J., Trib, J. A., & Waddock, S. (2010). Corporate responsibility and financial
performance: The role of intangible resources. Strategic Management Journal, 31(5),
463–490. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.820
Tian, Q., & Robertson, J. L. (2019). How and when does perceived CSR affect employ-
ees’ engagement in voluntary pro-environmental behavior?Journal of Business Ethics,
155(2), 399–412. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3497-3
Turban, D. B., & Greening, D. W. (1996). Corporate social performance and organi-
zational attractiveness to prospective employees. Academy of Management Journal,
40(3), 658–672.
Valentine, S., & Fleischman, G. (2007). Ethics programs, perceived corporate social
responsibility and job satisfaction. Journal of Business Ethics, 77(2), 159–172. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9306-z
Van Buren, H. J. (2000). The bindingness of social and psychological contracts: Toward
a theory of social responsibility in downsizing. Journal of Business Ethics, 25(3),
205–219.
Van Marrewijk, M. (2003). Concepts and definitions of CSR and corporate sustainabil-
ity: Between agency and communion. Journal of Business Ethics, 44(2), 95–105.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023331212247
Visser, W. (2006). Revisiting Carroll’s CSR pyramid: An African perspective. In E. R.
Pedersen & M. Huniche (Eds.), Corporate citizenship in developing countries (pp.
29–56). Copenhagen Business School Press.
Vlachos, P. A., Panagopoulos, N. G., & Rapp, A. A. (2013). Feeling good by doing
good: Employee CSR-induced attributions, job satisfaction, and the role of charis-
matic leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 118(3), 577–588. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10551-012-1590-1
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. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1946
Waddock, S. (2008). Building a new institutional infrastructure for corporate respon-
sibility. Academy of Management Perspectives, 22(3), 87–108. https://doi.org/10.5465/
amp.2008.34587997
Wagner, S. L., & Rush, M. C. (2000). Altruistic organizational citizenship behavior:
Context, disposition, and age. The Journal of Social Psychology, 140(3), 379–391.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00224540009600478
Wbcsd.org. (2016). Ranking the 100 most sustainable businesses in Vietnam. https://
www.wbcsd.org/Programs/Redefining-Value/External-Disclosure/Reporting-matters/
Resources/Reporting-matters-2016.

Hsieh 2022

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hsieh 2022

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The International Journal of Human Resource

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rijh20

What drives employees to participate in corporate

Ying-Che Hsieh, Jingjing Weng, Nhan Thanh Pham & Li-Hsiang Yi

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2021.1967422

Published online: 30 Sep 2021. Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1704 View related articles

View Crossmark data Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

What drives employees to participate in corporate

CONTACT Jingjing Weng jingjingweng@mail.ntust.edu.tw Graduate Institute of Technology

whether it takes a business, ethical, stakeholder or institutional approach

Employee motivation for CSR engagement

The existing literature has highlighted the importance of employees’

2015). However, it should be noticed that employees are a heterogeneous

and cultural, and it is necessary to construct an overall view when inves-

participants (Charmaz & Mitchell, 1996). Each interview was based on

Table 1. Data sources (research sample).

Furthermore, so as to gain several perspectives, we included a diverse

The process of grounded theory basically consists of three main stages:

building (Creswell, 2013; Saldaña, 2015; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). We

Table 2. Dimensions, themes, concepts, and representative data.

personal characteristics, CSR capacity and organizational reinforcement.

company, even if it exceeds the requirements they have to fulfill. Our

Furthermore, people who are empathetic towards others have greater

As previous research has addressed, philanthropy was the main topic

“Volunteerism is a linchpin of the integrated philanthropy system” (p.

As previous studies have claimed, religion is a significant factor that

Personal hobbies and interests

Organizational citizenship behavior

In the personal dimension, we conclude that employees with certain

Our findings reveal that the planning and implementation of CSR

“Being self-organized makes me more motivated to participate, because when I

As previous research has shown, CSR encompasses various types of

This finding is consistent with a similar phenomenon identified in

It is indicated in the CSR literature that personal growth (Aguilera

Rewards and achievement through CSR engagement

organizational social events including voluntary CSR activities could

The rewards employees receive through CSR engagement can be both

According to Grant (2012), CSR projects can reduce the boundaries

Our findings suggest that, through diverse organizational CSR activ-

friendships with colleagues who share similar perceptions and experi-

Charismatic leadership effects

Our finding suggests that charismatic leadership qualities could signifi-

Under the dimension of CSR capacity, we suggest that an organization

potential interaction and influence between the different intrinsic and

interpersonal interaction, enhancing employees’ sense of belonging to

Although previous research has discussed employee motivation for CSR

motivation for employees’ CSR engagement, and address the importance

intrinsic and extrinsic motivational factors behind employees’ CSR

Employees are increasingly encouraged or even required to engage in

the participants’ social networks could also increase employees’ motiva-

Limitations and future research

Although this research has filled an existing research gap by proposing

ganizations. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 836–863. https://doi.org/10.5465/

Dahlsrud, A. (2008). How corporate social responsibility is defined: An analysis of 37

behaviour: The mediating role of organizational identification. The International

You might also like