CSR initiative characteristics and employee engagement: An impact-based perspective
Abstract
Summary: Though corporations depend on the work of employees to achieve important humanitarian and environmental outcomes, research on employee engagement in corporate social responsibility initiatives (CSRIs) remains limited and fragmented. Building on existing studies, we develop a theoretical model explaining when and why CSRIs, on the basis of their distinctive characteristics, would be engaging to employees. Adopting the lens of social cognitive theory, we position employees as potential agents of social change, whose efforts are enabled through CSRIs that are expected to meaningfully impact stakeholders (including the employees themselves, their employing organizations, and external beneficiaries). We first model CSRIs in terms of their focus characteristics, which reflect the different types of goals that CSRIs can have. We then explain how these CSRI characteristics promote employee engagement through anticipated impacts that are commensurate with employees' personal expectations. Lastly, we explain how these effects depend on organizational support for the CSRI, which shapes employees' beliefs about the collective efficacy of the organization to achieve the CSRI goals, and on employees' identities, which determine the types of CSRI impacts that are more meaningful and therefore more conducive to engagement. We conclude with a discussion of implications for research and practice.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
People in organizations play a vital role in the effectiveness and success of a company's sustainability strategy.
“and despite insights that people in organizations play a vital role in the effectiveness and success of a company's sustainability strategy (e.g., Cohen, Taylor, & Muller-Camen, 2012;Opoku-Dakwa, Chen, & Rupp, 2018).”
From Common Good HRM: A paradigm shift in Sustainable HRM? (2020) · cites this paper as Opoku-Dakwa, Chen, & Rupp, 2018
Cites
The theory of planned behavior
Ajzen, I. (1991) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-t · Cited by 90,587 · see citing works
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037//0003-066x.55.1.68 · Cited by 27,815 · see citing works
Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: a multi‐sample study
Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004) · Journal of Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1002/job.248 · Cited by 9,297 · see citing works
New Environmental Theories: Toward a Coherent Theory of Environmentally Significant Behavior
Stern, P. C. (2000) · Journal of Social Issues · doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00175 · Cited by 8,682 · see citing works
Markus, H., & Nurius, P. (1986) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.41.9.954 · Cited by 5,806 · see citing works
Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement
Saks, A. M. (2006) · Journal of Managerial Psychology · doi:10.1108/02683940610690169 · Cited by 5,577 · see citing works
WHY COMPANIES GO GREEN: A MODEL OF ECOLOGICAL RESPONSIVENESS.
Bansal, P., & Roth, K. (2000) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/1556363 · Cited by 4,020 · see citing works
Maximizing business returns to corporate social responsibility (CSR): The role of CSR communication
Du, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2010) · International Journal of Management Reviews · doi:10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00276.x · Cited by 2,633 · see citing works
Self-evaluative and self-efficacy mechanisms governing the motivational effects of goal systems.
Bandura, A., & Cervone, D. (1983) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.45.5.1017 · Cited by 1,511 · see citing works
Well, I’m tired of tryin’! Organizational citizenship behavior and citizenship fatigue
Bolino, M. C., Hsiung, H.-H., Harvey, J., & LePine, J. A. (2015) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0037583 · Cited by 430 · see citing works
Discovering the Millennials’ Personal Values Orientation: A Comparison to Two Managerial Populations
Weber, J. (2017) · Journal of Business Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10551-015-2803-1 · Cited by 128 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Common Good HRM: A paradigm shift in Sustainable HRM?
Aust, I., Matthews, B., & Muller-Camen, M. (2020) · Human Resource Management Review · doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2019.100705 · Cited by 531 · see citing works
- Authors
- Opoku‐Dakwa, A., Chen, C. C., & Rupp, D. E.
- Affiliations
- Duquesne University (US)
- Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US)
- Purdue University West Lafayette (US)
- Corresponding author
- Opoku‐Dakwa, Akwasi
- Venue
- Journal of Organizational Behavior
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2018-04-10
- Volume
- 39
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 580-593
- ISSN
- 0894-3796 (ISSN-L)
- 1099-1379
- OpenAlex
- W2797138270
- Cited by
- 111
- References
- 11
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 2
- FWCI
- 17.96
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Organizational Behavior (publishedVersion)
- Rutgers University Community Repository (Rutgers University) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainability
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Job Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
- Keywords
- corporate social responsibility initiatives, employee engagement, social cognitive theory, organizational support, employee identity, collective efficacy, stakeholder impact
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review