Page 13 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 13 of 97 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
7
The literature expanded in 1960 when Keith Davis referred to CSR as “decisions
and actions taken for reasons at least partially beyond the firm’s direct economic or
technical interest (Thomas & Nowak, 2006).” Another breakthrough in CSR development
came in 1971 when the Committee for Economic Development (CED) published the
Social Responsibilities of Business Corporations (Carroll 1991; Lee, 2008; Thomas &
Nowak, 2006). The CED outlined three concentric circles to depict CSR: the inner circle;
the intermediate circle; the outer circle. In 1979, Carroll (1979) published his three-dimensional
conceptual model of corporate social performance (CSP), in which the three
dimensions are CSR, social issues and corporate social responsiveness. This concept
immediately gained wide acceptance by the CSR profession (Lee, 2008; Thomas &
Nowak, 2006).
In the 1980s, the focus of CSR switched from establishing an agreed-upon
definition to research on CSR, and other alternative concepts and themes such as social
responsiveness, CSP, public policy and business ethics sprang out of the trends and
became publicly recognized (Carroll, 1999). Some well-known researchers including
Jones, who posited that “CSR ought to be seen not as a set of outcomes but as a process
(Jones, 1980 as cited in Carroll, 1999, p285)”; and Tuzzoline and Armandi, who
proposed a foundation for organizational micro-analysis, presented a system to assess
corporate performance, and proposed metrics to monitor corporations’ social
responsibility (Tuzzolino & Armandi, 1981).
The definition of CSR did not expand significantly in the 1990s. However,
according to Carroll (1999), the concept of CSR was cited as the foundation for other
related concepts: “CSP, stakeholder-theory, business ethics theory, and corporate
Object Description
| Title | The effects of corporate social responsibility one employee engagement |
| Author | Ma, Hongyue |
| Author email | hongyuem@usc.edu; hongyuem@gmail.com |
| Degree | Master of Arts |
| Document type | Thesis |
| Degree program | Strategic Public Relations |
| School | Annenberg School for Communication |
| Date defended/completed | 2011-04-01 |
| Date submitted | 2011 |
| Restricted until | Unrestricted |
| Date published | 2011-05-03 |
| Advisor (committee chair) | Thorson, Kjerstin |
| Advisor (committee member) |
Floto, Jennifer Little, Sharoni |
| Abstract | Both corporate social responsibility (CSR) and employee engagement have become increasingly important to businesses today. The two are related: CSR affects a company’s employee engagement.; The purpose of this study is to explore those effects; the degree to which they take place and circumstances in which they occur; it also compared CSR’s influence to other well-recognized drivers of employee engagement to determine the significance of it.; This thesis will help corporations better understand the role of CSR when it relates to employee engagement, so they can design their CSR efforts accordingly and maximize the outcomes. |
| Keyword | corporate social responsibility (CSR); employee engagement; relationship between CSR and employee engagement; drivers of employee engagement; effects of CSR on employee engagement |
| Geographic subject (country) | USA; Germany |
| Coverage date | 1863/2009 |
| Language | English |
| Part of collection | University of Southern California dissertations and theses |
| Publisher (of the original version) | University of Southern California |
| Place of publication (of the original version) | Los Angeles, California |
| Publisher (of the digital version) | University of Southern California. Libraries |
| Provenance | Electronically uploaded by the author |
| Type | texts |
| Legacy record ID | usctheses-m3879 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Rights | Ma, Hongyue |
| Repository name | Libraries, University of Southern California |
| Repository address | Los Angeles, California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Filename | etd-Ma-4564 |
| Archival file | uscthesesreloadpub_Volume26/etd-Ma-4564.pdf |
Description
| Title | Page 13 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 7 The literature expanded in 1960 when Keith Davis referred to CSR as “decisions and actions taken for reasons at least partially beyond the firm’s direct economic or technical interest (Thomas & Nowak, 2006).” Another breakthrough in CSR development came in 1971 when the Committee for Economic Development (CED) published the Social Responsibilities of Business Corporations (Carroll 1991; Lee, 2008; Thomas & Nowak, 2006). The CED outlined three concentric circles to depict CSR: the inner circle; the intermediate circle; the outer circle. In 1979, Carroll (1979) published his three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate social performance (CSP), in which the three dimensions are CSR, social issues and corporate social responsiveness. This concept immediately gained wide acceptance by the CSR profession (Lee, 2008; Thomas & Nowak, 2006). In the 1980s, the focus of CSR switched from establishing an agreed-upon definition to research on CSR, and other alternative concepts and themes such as social responsiveness, CSP, public policy and business ethics sprang out of the trends and became publicly recognized (Carroll, 1999). Some well-known researchers including Jones, who posited that “CSR ought to be seen not as a set of outcomes but as a process (Jones, 1980 as cited in Carroll, 1999, p285)”; and Tuzzoline and Armandi, who proposed a foundation for organizational micro-analysis, presented a system to assess corporate performance, and proposed metrics to monitor corporations’ social responsibility (Tuzzolino & Armandi, 1981). The definition of CSR did not expand significantly in the 1990s. However, according to Carroll (1999), the concept of CSR was cited as the foundation for other related concepts: “CSP, stakeholder-theory, business ethics theory, and corporate |
