Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
The effects of corporate social responsibility one employee engagement
(USC Thesis Other)
The effects of corporate social responsibility one employee engagement
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
THE EFFECTS OF CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ON EMPLOYEE
ENGAGEMENT
by
Hongyue Ma
A Thesis Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
MASTER OF ARTS
(STRATEGIC PUBLIC RELATIONS)
May 2011
Copyright 2011 Hongyue Ma
ii
Acknowledgements
First and foremost, I would like to express my gratitude to my committee
chairwoman, Prof. Kjerstin Thorson, for her patience, motivation, enthusiasm, and her
great efforts to explain things clearly and simply. Her guidance helped me in all the time
of research and writing of this thesis. This study would not have been possible without
her constant support.
My sincere thanks also go to the rest of my thesis committee, Prof. Jennifer Floto
and Prof. Sharoni Little, for their encouragement, inspirational ideas and insightful
comments.
In Addition, I would like to thank Prof. Laura Jackson for her constant help
throughout the research and study process as well as her encouragement and valuable
suggestions.
I also would like to thank Dr. Rebecca Weintraub, Dr. Susan Resnick West, and
Mr. Kirk Stewart for their generous help on both my thesis and career plans.
Last but not least, I want to express my gratitude to Lauren Tornano, Rebecca
Lucore, Ashley Popojas, and Deborah-M Wallance from Bayer U.S., and Casey Welch
from Southwest Airlines. I would never have finished the case studies without their help.
I also would like to thank Tornano for her kind invitation to visit Bayer U.S. and her
inspirational ideas regarding internal communication.
iii
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ii
List of Tables iv
List of Figures v
Abstract vi
Chapter One: Introduction 1
Chapter Two: Literature Review 6
Evolution of CSR 6
Evolution of Employee Engagement 9
Employee Engagement – Relevant Research 10
The Relationship between CSR and Employee Engagement 16
Engaging Employees in CSR Programs 18
Best Practices to Engage Employees in CSR Programs 19
Chapter Three: Hypothesis 22
Deduction 22
Hypothesis 22
Research Questions 23
Chapter Four: Research 24
Research Questions 24
Research Approach 24
Research Methodology 26
Chapter Five: Case Studies 49
Bayer AG/Bayer U.S 49
Southwest Airlines (SWA) 60
Chapter Six: Outcomes 73
Redefining CSR 73
CSR’s Effects on Employee Engagement 74
Bibliography 82
Appendices:
Appendix A 87
Appendix B 89
iv
List of Tables
Table 2.1: The Q12 Index 14
Table 4.1: Survey Data Table No.1 29
Table 4.2: Survey Data Table No.2 31
Table 4.3: Basic Information about Four CSR Indices 39
Table 4.4: The Comparison Result of 100 Best Companies to Work For and Four 41
CSR Indices
Table 4.5: Standards of CSR Performance Rating 46
v
List of Figures
Figure 2.1: Towers Perrin 2007–2008 Top Drivers of Attraction, Retention and 12
Engagement
Figure 2.2: Right Management’s Global Drivers of Employee Engagement 13
Figure 2.3: How Organizations Measure Levels of Employee Engagement (EE) 16
Figure 4.1: 100 Best Companies to Work for vs. Global 100 Most Sustainable 42
Corporations
Figure 4.2: 100 Best Companies to Work for vs. FTSE4GOOD Index 42
Figure 4.3: 100 Best Companies to Work for vs. Ethibel Sustainability Index 43
Figure 4.4: 100 Best Companies to Work For vs. Dow Jones Sustainability Index 44
Figure 4.5: CSR Performance Rating 47
Figure 5.1: SWA Share The Spirit 2008 66
Figure 5.2: Employee Engagement at SWA 69
Figure 5.3: The Interaction between CSR and Employee Engagement and Its 71
Influences
Figure 6.1: CSR’s Effects on Employee Engagement: Model One 76
Figure 6.2: CSR’s Effects on Employee Engagement: Model Two 76
Figure 6.3: CSR’s Effects on Employee Engagement: Model Three 77
Figure 6.4: CSR’s Effects on Employee Engagement: Model Four 78
vi
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.
1
Chapter One: Introduction
This thesis explores the effects of corporate social responsibility (CSR) on
employee engagement and the significance of those effects compared to other top drivers
of employee engagement. It looked at this subject from different facets using varied
research methods and verified the connection between CSR and employee engagement.
The ultimate purpose of this thesis is to inform companies about CSR’s role and how to
design CSR efforts when it comes to improving employee engagement.
Before further exploring this theme, it is necessary to understand the definition of
both corporate social responsibility and employee engagement that the thesis used and the
grounds on which the theme came into existence.
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) — also known as corporate responsibility,
corporate citizenship, responsible business, sustainable business and corporate
sustainability — “is the continuing commitment by business to behave ethically and
contribute to economic development while improving the quality of life of the workforce
and their families as well as of the local community and society at large (Holme & Watts,
2000).” The aim of CSR is to give back a portion of a corporation’s profit to society
(Reputation Institution, 2010). Despite the skepticism of whether CSR is truly ingrained
in corporations’ strategy or whether it is simply a sideshow associated with companies’
public relations activities, the concept of corporate social responsibility has become
increasingly important to businesses today and to those organizations who seek to
influence industries and society at large. Because of severe competition and the public’s
attention on social responsibility, corporations need to be socially responsible citizens to
survive and to grow business in today’s competitive market.
2
Employee engagement is employees’ positive emotional and intellectual
attachment and employees’ commitment to an organization’s success, which in turns
influences him/her to apply additional discretionary effort to work (Kore Access, 2008;
Gibbons, J. 2006; Towers Perrin, 2005 as cited in Endres & Mancheno-Smoak, 2008).
Although employee engagement is a relatively new concept that emerged in recent years,
it has been widely regarded as necessary for successful businesses. The best performing
corporations know that a high level of employee engagement is linked to achieving
corporate goals and differentiates them from their competitors, and therefore it is
necessary to incorporate employee engagement into the business strategies (Gallup,
2011). An increasing number of corporations began to realize the authenticity of the
notion that higher employee engagement was associated with a wide range of business
outcomes, such as improved customer service, increased productivity, retention and
increased profits.
On the one hand, it is true that companies need CSR to stand out from their
competitors; successful companies also need CSR to shape their public images and
reputations. On the other hand, companies want employee engagement because it is
connected to business performance. When correlated together, business analysts noticed
that CSR can affect employee engagement to some extent. In fact, CSR is among one of
the top drivers of employee engagement in some studies (Towers Perrin, n.d.). There are
two reasons that might explain the correlation.
First, there is no doubt that employees are one of the most important components
of a corporation’s business operations. As stakeholders in and an audience of a
corporation, the employees are obligated to understand explicitly the corporation’s
3
mission and vision as well as its strategies. Engaged employees who work with passion
and feel a profound connection to the corporation (Gallup, 2004 as cited in Endres &
Mancheno-Smoak, 2008) are willing to align themselves with its strategies, mission and
values, which allows them to see the value of their work and regard themselves
contributing to organizational goals. CSR is commonly regarded as associated with
corporations’ mission, vision, values and culture, and CSR initiatives are able to
articulate them in a practical way. Corporations that advocate this idea ingrain CSR into
their business strategies. For this reason, it follows that engaged employees should
embrace CSR for its connection to the corporation’s values and mission.
The other reason is that CSR helps organizations “win the war for talent
(Bhattacharya & Sen & Korschun, 2008, p37).” An increasing number of both existing
employees and potential employees are attracted to corporations that are socially
responsible corporate citizens. Growing evidence shows that an organization’s reputation
for CSR is one of the features that attract and retain extraordinary talent. People simply
like to work with corporations that share their values. Knowing the corporation
contributes to society allows employees to match their values with the company’s and
further align themselves with the organizational goals. This could affect the level of
employee engagement.
Even though those two reasons seem rational and authentic, there is little evidence
that the degree to which CSR is important to a company’s employee engagement,
exceeds the importance of other well-recognized drivers, such as senior managements’
concern for employees’ well-being and opportunities to improve employees’ skills and
capabilities. What’s more, the performances of both CSR and employee engagement can
4
be measured quantitatively and qualitatively through research methods, such as surveys
and interviews But there are few well-recognized and accepted methods to measure the
correlation between CSR and employee engagement, especially how CSR can affect
employee engagement.
The purpose of this thesis is to verify that CSR is one of the top drivers of
employee engagement. To achieve the aim, an examination of CSR’s effects on employee
engagement was performed through a series of qualitative and quantitative research
methods. Six different aspects of CSR and employee engagement were reviewed in
theory. Several pertinent pieces of literature were highlighted to support the foundation of
this thesis. The details and key findings of literature review are explored in Chapter Two.
The core hypothesis, which is how CSR can affect employee engagement, was examined
in Chapter Three. Three deductions that derived from the main hypothesis can also be
found in the same chapter. Additionally, a variety of empirical research methods,
including qualitative interviews; qualitative questionnaire; qualitative case studies;
quantitative survey; quantitative data comparison; and quantitative data re-analyzing,
were adopted to verify the hypothesis. The details of each methodology are presented in
Chapter Four and Five. Chapter Six covers the study’s outcomes and how its conclusions
were reached.
Finally, the study compared the importance of CSR’s effects to other well-
recognized top drivers of employee engagement. It identified the degree and
circumstances that CSR can affect employee engagement and demonstrated different
scenarios when the two are associated. What’s more, the thesis also points out that most
corporations in the United States overlook the fact that employees’ workplace safety and
5
human rights are part of CSR, and therefore they deserve special attention when those
two aspects go internationally.
The thesis will hopefully help corporations better understand the role of CSR
when it relates to employee engagement. It depicts a clear picture of the degree and
circumstances that CSR can affect employee engagement. When it comes to increasing
the level of its employee engagement, a corporation can match its own situation with
different scenarios shown at the end of the study to foresee the outcomes, and further
tailor the investment in CSR. By adopting the thesis’ recommendations and customizing
the commitment accordingly, corporations would be able to make good use of CSR’s
effects at the accurate time and under proper circumstances without wasting money and
effort.
6
Chapter Two: Literature Review
To begin with, it is necessary to introduce the definition and history of both CSR
and employee engagement. The literature summary below explains how these two
concepts came into existence, how they are defined and the relationship between the two.
The evolutions of CSR and employee engagement are summarized in a chronological
order, which outlines both concepts’ development and lays a foundation for further
exploring CSR’s effects on employee engagement. This literature summary helps readers
to better understand the nature of both fields as well as how the two concepts connect and
correlate.
Evolution of CSR
Even though academics and practitioners have striven to establish one agreed-
upon definition for years, there is no single, universal meaning for CSR (Carroll, 1999).
The definition shown in Chapter One is the one that the author believed best serve the
theme.
The most commonly known origin for CSR dates back to 1953 when Howard
Bowen published his book Social Responsibilities of the Businessman (Carroll, 1979;
Carroll, 1999; Preston, 1975; Wartick & Cochran, 1985 as cited in Lee, 2008). Bowen,
commonly credited as the “Father of CSR,” attempted to define the relationship between
corporations and society (Carroll, 1979; Carroll, 1999; Preston, 1975; Wartick & Cochran,
1985 as cited in Lee, 2008). He defined CSR as “the obligations of businessmen to
pursue those policies, to make those decisions, or to follow those lines of action which
are desirable in terms of the objectives and values of our society (Bowen, 1953, p44).”
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
8
citizenship were the major themes that took center stage in the 1990s (Carroll, 1999,
p288).” The 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janiero was a key moment in the evolution of
CSR as the concept began to become “a veritable industry that has own rights with its
own practitioner’s journals conferences (Brown & Cloke, 2009).” Another important
contribution to the development was Wood’s CSP framework which “places CSR into a
broader context than just a standalone definition (Carroll 1999, p289).” In Carroll’s book,
he stated:
For CSR to be accepted by a conscientious business person, it should be framed
in such a way that the entire ranges of business responsibilities are embraced. It is
suggested here that four kinds of social responsibilities constitute total CSR:
economic, legal, ethical, and philanthropic. Furthermore, these four categories or
components of CSR might be depicted as a pyramid. To be sure, all of these kinds
of responsibilities have always existed to some extent, but it has only been in
recent years that ethical and philanthropic functions have taken a significant place.
Each of these four categories deserves closer consideration. (Carroll, 1991, p40)
The debate about CSR’s role in business continued in the 21
st
century with the
argument that multinational corporations should exert more effort to improve social and
environmental conditions on the planet (Scherer & Smid, 2001, as cited in Lee, 2008). In
his book, Oketch (2004) stated that “there is need to ensure that the global market
operates according to a certain set of rules and institutions that a majority of people see as
being legitimate (as cited in Lee, 2008).” Meanwhile, the development of CSR appeared
to move away from a US-dominated discourse to a more international one (Lee, 2008).
Significant international developments that have influenced CSR’s evolution include the
British government’s appointment of a minister for corporate social responsibility; the
release of the European Commission’s Green Paper, Promoting a European Framework
for Corporate Social Responsibility; and the release of United Nations Global Compact
regarding human rights, labor and the environment (Lee, 2008; Gail & Nowak 2006).
9
Evolution of Employee Engagement
Similar to CSR, there is no universally accepted definition of employee
engagement. For the purpose of this study, the author combined one of three definitions
from Gallup Organization, Tower Perrin’s Global Workforce Study, and The Conference
Board.
Most of the literature on employee engagement comes from professional and
practical sources, such as researchers and consultants, instead of academics (Sridevi &
Markos, 2010). The concept of employee engagement appeares to have been first
mentioned by Khan (1990, as cited in Kula & Gatenby & Rees & Soane & Truss, 2008)
who regarded it as a stand-alone concept that differentiates from other employee role
constructs such as involvement, commitment or intrinsic motivation. He mentioned that
“engagement requires employees to be psychologically as well as physically present
when occupying and performing an organizational role (Khan, 1990 as cited in Kula et al.,
2008, Conceptualizing employee engagement, para.1).”
Since then, however, many different and conflicting definitions sprang up, and
those studies examined employee engagement under different protocols, which made the
state of knowledge of employee engagement rather difficult to determine (Kula et al.,
2008).
Despite this, it was argued that all those definitions seem similar to other well-
known and established constructs such as “organizational commitment” and
“organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB) (Robinson, 2004 as cited in Kula et al.,
2008).” But Robinson regarded employee engagement as “one step up from commitment.”
10
He stated that:
…engagement contains many of the elements of both commitment and OCB but
is by no means a perfect match with either. In addition, neither commitment nor
OCB reflect sufficiently two aspects of engagement – its two way nature, and the
extent to which engaged employees are expected to have an element of business
awareness. (Robinson, 2004, as as cited in Kula et al., 2008)
Rafferty, et al also distinguished employee engagement from commitment and OCB on
the ground that employee engagement is a reciprocal process that requires a two-way
effort between employees and corporations (Sridevi & Markos, 2010).
Employee Engagement–Relevant Research
Aside from the theoretical history and definition of employee engagement, there
were several studies that determined the direction of employee engagement’s
development. Understanding the current trends of and the aspects that determined
employee engagement helped readers better understand the significance of CSR’s impact.
As mentioned in Chapter One, corporations today realize the importance of
employee engagement as good business practice; they are thirsting for a high level of
employee engagement. Thus investment of money and effort are required to maintain and
invigorate the level of employee engagement. Because of this, a large number of relevant
studies have been conducted. The results involved a wide range of aspects in terms of
employee engagement: the current trends of employee engagement; the percentage of
engaged/disengaged employees in a certain company or among general workforce; the
advantages of high level of employee engagement and the consequences of low level of
employee engagement; best practices for increasing the level of employee engagement;
and the methods of measuring the level of employee engagement (Kular et al, 2008).
Most importantly, various studies have identified the top drivers of employee engagement.
11
Melcrum’s (2008) survey results showed that 81% of the organizations now have
employee engagement on their agenda, and 54% of the organizations treat it as part of the
company’s philosophy incorporated into overall human capital practices. It seems to be a
positive trend. However, Towers Perrin (n.d.)’s Global Workforce Study showed that
only 21% of employees were fully engaged at work. Meanwhile, 41% of the employees
were categorized as physically enrolled at work, and 8% of the employees were
disengaged. The article Employee Engagement: Maximizing Organizational Performance
also presented data pointing that the level of employee engagement varies from country
to country. India had the highest percentage at 45%, and Japan has the lowest, at only 11%
(Right Management, 2009). Additionally, Melcrum (2008)’s survey found that only 25%
of the organizations address engagement through a formal program, and large
organizations are more likely than small ones to embrace it as part of a general
philosophy.
It is obvious that corporations realized the importance of improving the level of
employee engagement, and they planned to do something about it. However, they either
did not pay enough attention or did not have access to enough resources or the right
approaches to tackle the issue. Apparently, a lot of steps need to be taken to increase the
level of employee engagement.
Some studies located lists of key drivers based on the results of qualitative
interviews and quantitative surveys. The top ten factors were illustrated by Towers Perrin
in its Global Workforce Study result (See Figure 2.1). Corporations’ reputation for social
responsibility ranked third. The definition Towers Perrin adopted is very specific, but this
thesis adopts a broader definition of employee engagement that includes attraction,
12
retention and engagement. It can be seen that CSR appeared on all three list of top ten
drivers across all three segments. To better explore this topic, five were chosen by the
Towers Perrin 2007–2008 Top Drivers of Attraction, Retention and
Engagement
Note. Adapted from “Towers Perrin 2007–2008 Global Workforce Study,” by Towers Perrin, 2008
Figure 2.1
author as the representatives, which also appeared on several other studies’ results in
terms of top drivers of employee engagement. They are senior management’s concern in
employees’ well-being; opportunities for employees to improve skills and capabilities;
13
input into department’s decision making; career advancement opportunities; and the
organization’s ability to quickly resolve customers’ concerns (Towers Perrin, n.d.).
Additionally, benefits were chosen to be one the top drivers of employee engagement.
These six top drivers will be frequently mentioned as “other top drivers of employee
engagement” later in this thesis.
Right Management’s Global Drivers of Employee Engagement
Note. Adapted from “Right Management Global Benchmarking Employee Engagement Study,” by Right Management,
2008
Figure 2.2
14
Similar to the Global Workforce Study, Right Management (2009) also identified
the global drivers of employee engagement, and corporations’ community involvement
ranked 14
th
out of 26 aspects. (See Figure 2.2) The six top drivers that were mentioned
above covered most aspects on this list.
The Q12 Index
1. Do you know what is expected of you at work?
2. Do you have the materials and equipment to do your work right?
3. At work, do you have the opportunity to do what you do best every day?
4. In the last seven days, have you received recognition or praise for doing good work?
5. Does your supervisor, or someone at work, seem to care about you as a person?
6. Is there someone at work who encourages your development?
7. At work, do your opinions seem to count?
8. Does the mission/purpose of your company make you feel your job is important?
9. Are your associates (fellow employees) committed to doing quality work?
10. Do you have a best friend at work?
11. In the last six months, has someone at work talked to you about your progress?
12. In the last year, have you had opportunities to learn and grow?
Note. Adapted from “Gallup Organization Q12,” by Gallup Organization, 2010
Table 2.1
15
Based on those two studies, it is clear that CSR plays a role when it comes to
employee engagement. However, the Gallup organization didn’t include CSR as one of
the top drivers when it identified the drivers of employee engagement. Gallup researchers
summarized 12 core elements which they thought best demonstrate and determine a
corporation’s employee engagement. If those 12 elements are satisfied, they lay the
foundation for a company’s high level of employee engagement (Thackray, n.d.). (See
Table 2.1) It is not hard to tell that most of the drivers that were identified by Tower
Perrin and Right Management also covered by those 12 questions. However, none of
these 12 questions mentioned anything directly relevant to CSR. This finding indicated
that CSR is not one of the key factors that determine a company’s employee engagement,
which conflicted with the findings of both Global Workforce Study and Right
Management. The conflict implies that whether CSR drives employee engagement on a
large scale is still being debated.
When it comes to the methods that corporations adopted to measure the level of
employee engagement, most studies showed that quantitative surveys are the most
common tools. According to Melcrum (2008)’s employee engagement survey, a quarter
of corporations that have employee engagement on their agenda do not have a formal
method for measuring it. (See Figure 2.3) According to Right Management (2009),
qualitative interviews and focus groups were also widely adopted as the most effective
ways to measure an organization’s level of employee engagement besides quantitative
surveys.
16
How Organizations Measure Levels of Employee Engagement (EE)
Note. Adapted from “Right Management Employee Engagement Survey,” by Right Management, 2009
Figure 2.3
The Relationship between CSR and Employee Engagement
To achieve the thesis goals, a review of the relationship between CSR and
employee engagement is summarized in the section below. As mentioned in Chapter One
an increasing number of corporations invest efforts and money in their CSR initiatives,
and employees in today’s workplace also pay attention to corporations’ reputation for
CSR. The CSR initiatives can be derived from the corporate mission, vision, value and
culture – all of which employees would want to be part of it. Because of this, CSR is able
to impact employee engagement to some extent and instill employees’ pride in the
corporation. The section below offers a professional support for these ideas.
If corporations tie their CSR initiatives to their values, they have the power to
improve employee recruitment, satisfaction and retention, the Harvard Business School
concluded (Marquis & Thomason & Tydlaska, 2010). Massachusetts Business
Roundtable (MBR)(2009) supported this idea by saying that CSR reveals the companies
values and thus can be part of the employee value proposition. Both studies’ results
17
implied that corporations’ CSR programs tie into their company values and further relate
to employees. The benefit of this connection is that it helps the company achieve its goals.
As stated in Using Corporate Social Responsibility to Win the War for Talent, the
outcomes of CSR initiatives can be regarded in two categories: internal and external.
Internal outcomes include high level of commitment, greater morale, and dedication to
excellence in work tasks and etc, all of which lead to external outcomes: employees
contribute to the company’s goals (Bhattacharya & Sen & Korschun, 2008).
From the employees’ perspective, they want to be part of an organization that
demonstrates a concern for society, and CSR initiatives manifest such concern and satisfy
those needs, Harvard Business School concluded (Marquis et al., 2010). Similarly, the
MBR (2009, corporate citizenship and employee retention – current trends, para.3) stated
that “today’s employees want to be part of an enterprise that cares about more than its
bottom line. They want to be part of a company whose values are expressed in its
engagement and contributions to the community.” Jim Copeland of Deloitte also said
“the best professionals in the world want to work in organizations in which they can
thrive. And, they want to work for companies that exhibit good corporate citizenship
(White Paper of World Economic Forum, 2003, Employee and governments as key
drivers, para.2).” All the results above indicated the fact that employees applaud
corporations’ CSR initiatives, which match their personal values. It also suggested that
CSR is relevant to employees’ interests.
CSR should be one of the factors that strengthen a corporation’s level of
employee engagement and its overall performance, Max Caldwell (2010) stated. This
idea mirrors one of the key findings earlier in this chapter that CSR is one of the top
18
drivers of employee engagement (Towers Perrin, n.d.; Right Management, 2009).
Combined, they indicate that CSR is connected to employees’ interest, and can affect the
level of employee engagement.
Engaging Employees in CSR Programs
Because CSR connects with employee interest — and employees welcome
corporations that share similar values with them — good corporate citizens involve
employees in CSR initiatives to better meet workers’ emotional needs, which in turn,
benefits the company.
The Harvard Business School encouraged organizations to engage employees in
CSR programs because they are an effective way to meet employees’ emotional needs
and thus achieve commitment and motivation (Marquis et al., 2010). Similarly, Coro
Strandberg (2009) investigated the role of human resources in CSR and said that
employees prefer to work for organizations aligned with their personal values. Therefore,
involving employee in CSR is able to enhance employee recruitment and retention. MBR
(2009) even listed the specific benefits of involving employees in CSR programs
including tying the employees into the company’s mission and vision; leveraging
employees’ current skill and deploying them; and providing employees opportunities to
develop new skills. MIT Slogan (2009) added instilling employees’ pride in the
corporation to the benefits list, arguing it would increase their performance. Researchers
also found that CSR is most effective when employees are the actual enactors, and the
company acts as an enabler. All the research showed that it is beneficial to involve
employees in CSR initiatives. However, no research revealed that how effective current
initiatives are in engaging employees in CSR programs.
19
According to Bea Boccalandro (2009), volunteerism has not yet been properly
adopted in the workplace. This idea is echoed by the Boston College Center for
Corporate Citizenship (BCCCC), which said that the potential of transforming social and
corporate sectors that resides within employees is largely untapped. When used properly,
employee volunteerism benefits corporations. However, even to those companies who
have such initiatives, employees got little benefit from the volunteerism program other
than feeling like they supported the corporation (BCCCC, 2009).
Apparently it is a well-accepted notion that engaging employees in the
corporations’ CSR initiatives benefits both the employees and the corporations. However,
most companies at present do not involve employees properly in its CSR programs, and
volunteerism was not effective enough to maximize the benefits.
Best Practices to Engage Employees in CSR Programs
Because of the insufficient and improper use of employee volunteerism,
corporations were not able to maximize the benefits of it. Therefore, researchers
identified several best practices that corporations can adopt and incorporate into their
programs.
The Harvard Business School suggested seven aspects that corporations need to
work on to better engage employees and further benefit from it: treat employees as
internal customers; be specific with CSR initiatives; consider Gen Y’s preference and
influence on CSR; effectively communicate; encourage learning and foster development
through CSR; encourage participation at all levels; consider and acknowledge the
benefits (Marquis et al., 2010). MBR (2009) also recommended best practices to engage
employees in CSR programs: create and maintain a clear link to the company’s mission
20
and secure executive endorsement; engage employees at all levels as decision makers and
leaders in regard to CSR targets and activities; leverage employees’ skills and their
ability to make positive contribution to the community; provide opportunities for
employees to develop new skills; encourage teamwork through group volunteer programs.
The best practices from both studies implied that it is essential to connect
employees personally with the corporations’ CSR goals as well as their organizational
goals and values. To engage employees successfully, corporations need to educate
employees the reasons CSR is important and how they can contribute to it. There are
several ways of achieving this goal. According to Coro Strandberg (2009, p6), “having an
overarching vision from the company that includes CSR, having senior management and
board members’ commitment, having engaged employees and having the provision of
skills, tools and incentives” were the factors that determine the success of implementing
CSR strategies.
Besides presenting the definition and evolution of both concepts of CSR and
employee engagement, the studies and research cited above depicted a connection
between CSR and employee engagement. Additionally, they recommended best practices
in terms of engaging employees in CSR initiatives. Even though several studies showed
that CSR affects corporations’ levels of employee engagement, none of them indicated
directly how it can affect employee engagement. That led to another issue that no
methods were presented in the literature and research review to measure the influences of
CSR on employee engagement. Another flaw is that no study and research demonstrated
21
the degree and extent to which CSR is important to employee engagement. In other
words, it is possible that CSR only affects the level of employee engagement when
certain conditions are fulfilled. All of these shortcomings will be tackled later in this
thesis.
22
Chapter Three: Hypothesis
Hypothesis
Corporate social responsibility effort can affect a corporation’s level of
employee engagement.
The outcomes of the literature review implied that there is a connection between
CSR and employee engagement. However, it is not a clear whether CSR is able to impact
employee engagement significantly. Even though some research showed that CSR is one
of the top drivers of employee engagement, they failed to indicate to what extent CSR
can affect employee engagement. This thesis aimed to identify the credibility of the
hypothesis and to determine under what circumstances and to what degree CSR’s efforts
are able to affect a corporation’s employee engagement.
Deduction
Deduction one: A good reputation for CSR can invigorate employees’ level of
engagement; a bad reputation for CSR can harm employees’ level of engagement.
Because CSR can reflect a corporation’s values, and employees welcome
corporations who share the same values with them, CSR directly correlates with
employees’ interest. If a corporation’s CSR efforts can affect its level employee
engagement, then a corporations’ reputation for CSR can affect their employee
engagement both positively and negatively.
Deduction two: Communicating CSR information with employees and
engaging employees in CSR benefits a corporation by bolstering the level of
employee engagement.
23
If CSR can affect employee engagement, and if employees’ participation in those
initiatives can benefit corporations, then it is always a good thing for a corporation to
communicate CSR information with its employees and engage them in CSR initiatives.
Furthermore, employees who participate in CSR initiatives are more likely to be engaged
at work than those who do not.
Research Questions
Research questions: Corporations that have high employee engagement are
more likely to have good reputations for CSR; Corporations that have good
reputations for CSR are more likely to have high employee engagement.
Based on the idea that CSR can affect employee engagement and CSR is one of
the top drivers of employee engagement, it was inferred that corporations who seek a
high level of employee engagement should pay more attention to CSR and are more
likely to invest in CSR. Therefore, they are more likely to have good reputations for CSR.
Since CSR is an important factor that affects employee engagement, a good CSR
reputation tends to result in higher employee engagement. Therefore, corporations that
have good reputations for CSR are more likely to have high employee engagement.
The evidence for both arguments above is not strong enough to support the logical
relationship between the hypothesis and two arguments. Therefore, they are regarded as
research questions in this thesis.
24
Chapter 4 Research
Research Questions
To determine whether the hypothesis and subsequent deductions are true, the
research aimed to answer the following questions:
• Does communicating information about CSR with employees about CSR
information benefit the corporations and their employee engagement?
• How does engaging employees in an organization’s CSR initiatives benefit
corporations and their employee engagement?
• Do employees who participate in CSR programs in a corporation tend to be
more engaged at work than those who do not?
• How does a corporation’s CSR impact its level of employee engagement?
• How important are the effects of CSR compared to other key drivers of
employee engagement such as senior management’s concern for employees’
well-being and opportunities to develop personal skills and capabilities?
• Are corporations who have good reputations for employee engagement more
likely to have good reputation of CSR?
Research Approach
One of the challenges of this thesis was the method of measuring the effects of
CSR on employee engagement. For years, researchers have strived for ways to measure
employee engagement. The most accepted and widely used methods of measuring
employee engagement are quantitative and qualitative surveys (Kular et al, 2008).
Concurrently, surveys have been adopted widely as a way to measure a corporation’s
CSR performance. Similarly, some quantitative data can be measured based on the
25
numbers of employees that participated in a corporation’s CSR programs, the amount of
money that has been raised for a certain non-profit organization, or whether a certain
CSR goal has been achieved (Jackson, personal communication, January 20, 2011).
However, when it comes to measuring the effects of CSR on employee
engagement, no proper method has been recognized so far. Simply put, there is no well
developed and accepted method to measure the correlation between CSR and employee
engagement, especially CSR’s effects on employee engagement.
To minimize limitations of the research results, various methods were adopted to
approach the questions from different angles and facets, and a method entitled
triangulation was used to achieve better outcomes. Five kinds of primary research
methods were used in the thesis: quantitative survey; qualitative interviews and
questionnaire; comparison of existing data of CSR and employee engagement; rating the
CSR Performance of 100 Best Companies to Work For List; and case studies.
The quantitative survey was designed to collect the employees’ views about
CSR’s effect on employee engagement. It contributed to the thesis especially when it
came to the significance comparison of CSR effects and other top drivers of employee
engagement. Qualitative interviews and the questionnaire were designed to identify
professionals’ and consultants’ ideas about CSR’s effects on employee engagement. The
key findings of both research methods will be presented in the following session, and the
detailed information of the survey can be found in the Appendix A.
The research of comparing existing and well-known data of CSR and employee
engagement used the method of cross-board analyzing to identify if the companies who
have high levels of employee engagement and satisfaction also have a good reputation for
26
CSR. It also sought to determine if companies whose reputation for CSR are good have a
high level of employee engagement. It adopted the list of Fortune Magazine 2011: 100
Best Companies to Work For as a base point, and compared the companies on the list to
those on four well-known global CSR lists. The details of the research methodology will
be presented in the following section.
The research for rating the CSR performance also adopted Fortune Magazine
2011: 100 Best Companies to Work For as the existing data for further analysis. The main
websites of all 100 companies were explored to determine the CSR performance, which
were graded on a scales of 1–10 based on standard criteria. The purpose of this research
was to further identify whether companies who have high levels of employee engagement
also have a good reputation for CSR. The details of this method will be presented in the
following section, and the score of each company can be found in the Appendix B.
The case studies identified the credibility of the hypothesis and three deductions
by exploring two companies who perform well in the field of both CSR and employee
engagement. The case study of Bayer U.S. was based on the outcomes of on-site
interviews, questionnaires, surveys and secondary research; the case study of Southwest
Airlines was based on the outcomes of questionnaires and secondary research. Details of
each case study will be presented in Chapter Five.
Research Methodology
Quantitative survey.
Research methodology.
The survey was designed to identify the employees’ perception of their
corporations’ CSR and how they felt it affected employee engagement. The questions
27
were asked in a multiple-choice form. Forty-six participants from 46 different companies
were randomly selected to take the survey, and 43 of them completed it. Participants were
employees from diverse industries including Basic Materials, Consumer Goods,
Consumer Service, Financials, Health Care, Oil & Gas, Pharmaceuticals,
Telecommunications and Utilities. The survey was completely anonymous. Details of the
survey can be found in the Appendix A.
Research results.
The survey result showed that 61% of the respondents regard their corporations
having good reputation for CSR, which indicates that most respondents were satisfied
with their corporation’s CSR initiatives. In total, 43% of the respondents think their
corporations’ reputation for CSR affects the levels of employee engagement. The
question was asked under the circumstance that no other top drivers of employee
engagement were mentioned, and no comparison was asked between CSR’s effects and
other top drivers.
The survey results showed that 38% of the respondents participated in their
organizations’ CSR initiatives before. Of those respondents,
• 82% said that they like working at their corporations;
• 76% said they are happy and engaged at work;
• 82% said they pay attention to their corporations’ CSR programs;
• 76% said they would like to more about their corporations’ CSR programs;
• 88% said their corporations’ reputation for CSR can make them proud to
be an employee;
28
• 70% said that their corporations’ reputation for social responsibility
invigorates the level of their engagement at work. (See Table 4.1)
Overall, the data indicated that respondents who used to participate in their
companies CSR initiatives are more likely to be satisfied with their current corporations,
and they are more likely to learn and get involved in the corporations’ CSR initiatives.
Additionally, they tend to advocate the idea that CSR can affect the level of employee
engagement.
On the contrary, 62% of respondents said they never had a chance to participate in
their corporations’ CSR initiatives. Of those respondents,
• 59% said that they like working at their organizations;
• 55% said they are happy and engaged at work;
• 76% said that they pay attention to their corporations’ CSR programs;
• 92% said that they would like to know more about the corporation’s CSR
programs;
• 73% said that said the corporation’s reputation for CSR can make them
proud to be an employee;
• 26% said that their corporations’ reputation for social responsibility
affects the level of their engagement at work. (See Table 4.1)
Compared to the data of respondents who participated in their corporations CSR
initiatives before, the respondents who never did tended to be more neutral about their
corporations. The data also showed that those who never participated in the CSR
programs tend to be more eager to know the information about their corporations’ CSR
initiatives, which indicated that not enough information regarding CSR was received by
29
this group of employee. What’s more, the data also implied that those employees were
less likely to advocate the idea that CSR can affect employee engagement.
Survey Data Table No.1
Respondents who participated
in their organizations’ CSR
programs before
Respondents who never had a
chance to participate in their
organizations’ CSR programs
Like working at current the
organizations
82% 59%
Are happy and engaged at work 76% 55%
Pay attention to their organization’s
CSR programs
82% 76%
Would like to more about the
organization’s CSR programs
76% 92%
Agree that the organization’s
reputation for CSR can make them
proud to be an employee.
88% 73%
Agree that organizations’ reputation
for social responsibility invigorates
the level of their engagement at work
70% 26%
Table 4.1
Overall, the data implied that respondents who participated in their corporations’
CSR programs tended to like their jobs more and are more engaged at work compared to
those who never had a chance to participate. The majority of respondents, regardless of
30
whether they have ever participated in the CSR programs or not, paid attention to the
information on CSR sent by their corporations. Most respondents agreed that a
corporation’s reputation for CSR can make them proud to be an employee. Respondents
who used to participate in their organization’s CSR programs are much more likely to
think that the organizations’ reputation for CSR invigorates the level of their engagement
at work.
Additionally, the survey result showed that 70% of the respondents who used to
participate in their corporations’ CSR programs said they are happier at work after doing
so, and they learned a lot from them. Seventy-six percent said they are more engaged at
work after participating. Seventy percent said they are looking forward to participating in
more CSR programs in their corporations. This data indicated that engaging employees
in CSR initiatives benefits the employees and corporations indirectly.
However, no matter whether the respondents participated or not, the vast majority
of the respondents do not think their organizations’ CSR reputation and initiatives are
able to make up for other top drivers of employee engagement. (See Table 4.2)
In conclusion, the majority of respondents wanted to know more about their
corporations’ CSR information and would like to be involved in it. The employees who
used to participate in CSR programs tended to be happier and more engaged at work
compared to those who never did, and they were more likely to advocate the idea that
CSR can affect the levels of employee engagement. However, the vast majority of
employees disagree that CSR is as important as other factors when it comes to affecting
employee engagement on a large scale. In other words, CSR can neither take the place of
31
nor make up for other top drivers of employee engagement. See Appendix A for survey
questions.
Survey Data Table No.2
Because of this organizations reputation for CSR, I would be still engaged at work even if:
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neither disagree nor
agree
The senior management did not care about the
employees’ well-beings
21% 49% 18%
I have no opportunities to improve their skills and
capabilities
25% 63% 9%
I have little input into their own departments’
decision making
21% 53% 9%
I have no career advancement opportunities. 25% 63% 9%
The benefits are not satisfying. 37% 41% 11%
The organization cannot resolve customers’
concerns quickly.
11% 70% 13%
Table 4.2
Qualitative interviews and questionnaire.
Research methodology.
The purpose of the qualitative interviews was to understand the academic and
professionals’ ideas about the hypothesis’ authority in details. There were three
professionals that were interviewed:
32
• Kirk Stewart is the executive vice president in APCO Worldwide's New York
office, former vice president of worldwide communications for Nike, Inc. and
former Chairman of Manning, Selvage & Lee, a top global public relations
agency. He holds both his B.A. and M.A. degrees from the University of
Southern California and has more than 35 years of public relations and public
affairs experience.
• Dr. Rebecca Weintraub is a professor at Annenberg School for
Communication and Journalism, University of Southern California. She is the
director of Communication Management. She specializes in the field of
communication, facilitation, change management and organizational behavior,
and has more than 20 years of experience in relevant fields.
• Laura Min Jackson is an independent consultant and a professor at Annenberg
School for Communication on and Journalism, University of Southern
California. She specializes in consulting of B2B, Healthcare, Nonprofit,
Consumer Goods, Crisis Management, and Training & Facilitation.
The interview questions were categorized into four categories: General ideas
about CSR’s effects on employee engagement; communicating CSR information with
employees; involving employees in CSR initiatives; and the comparison of CSR and
other top drivers of employee engagement. The key findings that derived from the
interviews are in the following section.
33
Research results.
General idea about CSR’s effect on employee engagement.
All three professionals believed that CSR can affect employee engagement to
some extent, but they approach the issue from different facets.
Both Stewart (personal communication, January 25, 2011) and Jackson (personal
communication, January 20, 2011) agreed that a corporation’s reputation and efforts for
CSR can affect its level of employee engagement. There is a “direct connection between
a corporation’s CSR initiatives and the positive impact that has on employee morale and
engagement (Stewart, 2011).” Stewart (2011) mentioned that all the data he observed so
far suggested that there is a connection between a corporation’s CSR efforts and its level
of employee engagement. Jackson approached this idea by connecting CSR with
corporations’ values. She said that CSR is a strong part of a corporation’s culture, which
should be tied to the corporation’s mission and vision. In other words, a corporation’s
mission and vision rationalized what CSR truly is rather than a “lofty concept.” A
corporation’s mission and vision can make employees feel their work is valuable, and
CSR can be a manifest station of the corporation’s mission and vision. This is one of the
reasons why CSR can impact employee engagement. Additionally, she mentioned that
companies could communicate CSR more effectively by educating employees about how
it relates to the corporation’s values. It is always challenging for employees to correlate
CSR to the corporation’s values and translate philosophical CSR to the relevant activities.
Weintraub (personal communication, January 26, 2011) believes the answer for
this question depends on how a corporation uses its CSR. Since CSR is regarded as part
of the corporation’s public relations activities, — which aims to put a positive gloss on
34
the corporation’s image — it would not affect the corporation’s level of engagement, she
said. However, if a corporation makes good use of CSR and links it back to employees, it
can affect the corporation’s level of employee engagement. Employees need to see the
corporation’s CSR initiatives matching their experience with the company. In other
words, employees’ judgments determine whether CSR initiatives are authentic.
When no other drivers of employee engagement are utilized, all three
professionals believed that CSR can affect employee engagement, as long as the
initiatives are authentic. The reason for this is that CSR can be linked back to a
corporation’s mission and vision, and therefore it can affect a corporation’s level of
employee engagement.
Communicating CSR information with employees.
All three believed that it is beneficial to communicate a corporation’s CSR
information with employees. By doing so, it creates a link between the corporation and
the employees, which is far more than just telling employees of what the company is
doing (Weintraub, 2011).
Jackson emphasized that both positive and negative CSR information should be
communicated consistently to the employees. “It is a missed opportunity that employees
learn what the corporation is doing [in terms of CSR] on papers. They [employees] will
be like I wish I know; I want to donate to that, she said.” It is always necessary to inform
employees about what is going about in general, and CSR information is part of that. It is
almost universally positive to consistently communicate with the employees.
Additionally, employees are part of the broad audience and stakeholders of a corporation,
she said. Thus, they can influence other potential employees and the outside world at
35
large. “The employees can always be the ambassadors for the company, and in that way
telling them all the good stuff you are doing only benefits the company over the longer
term,” she said. When asked if there is any benefit that is relevant to a corporation’s
employee engagement, she said that it does have a positive impact on employees, but not
necessarily and specifically on employee engagement.
In conclusion, it is beneficial to communicate with employee about CSR
information, and employees deserve to be informed about what the company is doing as
stakeholders and audiences.
Involving employees in CSR initiatives.
All three agreed that involving employees in a corporation’s CSR initiatives is
critical and beneficial.
Stewart regarded engaging employees in CSR as more critical than
communicating with employees about CSR information. “Employees are demanding that
kind of direct engagement. New generations of employees expect their employers to be
responsible and provide opportunities for them to give back. It's critical in attracting the
top talent and it's critical to retaining them,” he said. The most significant benefit is the
relationship and the human interaction with colleagues and community members that are
possibly built through CSR programs, Jackson said. Employees are able to develop their
personal skills and capabilities through the process of participating CSR programs. To
Weintraub, the benefits of involving employees in CSR programs revolve around their
pride in a corporation. “Employees are proud of what the company is doing and what
they are doing. It becomes more tangible for them,” she said. Engaging employees shows
36
to them that the corporation’s CSR initiatives are not merely posters or public relations
moves. It is authentic. It is part of the company culture, and it is who the corporation is.
In conclusion, it is beneficial to engage employee in a corporation’s CSR
initiatives. The benefits involve increasing pride in the companies, developing personal
skills and capabilities and better human interactions.
Comparison of CSR and other top drivers of employee engagement.
Stewart regarded CSR as critical compared to the other six drivers. He raised the
idea that CSR sometimes is part of several other top drivers of employee engagement.
“Directly involving employees in CSR initiatives is a factor in demonstrating how much
management cares about its employees; community involvement activities are important
ways for employees to improve their capabilities and skills; and it's perceived as part of
the company's benefit programs,” he said. However, CSR would not result in good
employee engagement, which means all the top drivers are necessary. When other drivers
remain satisfied and unchanged, CSR can definitely affect employee engagement. It is
quite possible employees would still remain engaged even if a corporation has a bad CSR
and all the other top drivers remain satisfied and unchanged, he said.
Weintraub said a good reputation for CSR cannot affect employee engagement
significantly, even though employees regard the corporation’s CSR as authentic. She
does not believe CSR initiatives could make up for a significant number of other top
drivers of employee engagement. However, she believes that a good reputation for CSR
can affect employee engagement positively when other top drivers are satisfied and
unchanged. “CSR works better in a positive way,” she said. If a corporation had bad
37
CSR, the employees would start to question the company, but the level of employee
engagement would not be necessarily impacted.
Jackson also disagreed with the idea that CSR can replace any of the other top
drivers. “It will be naïve to believe that CSR can make up the loss for other top drivers of
employee engagement,” she said. For her, bad CSR would not impact employee
engagement necessarily, and employees would still remain engaged at work as long as all
the top drivers of employee engagement remain satisfied and unchanged.
In conclusion, CSR can affect employee engagement when other top drivers of
employee engagement (senior management’s concern in employee well-being;
opportunities for employees to improve skills and capabilities; input into department’s
decision making; career advancement opportunities; organization’s ability to quickly
resolve customers’ concerns; and employees’ benefits) remain satisfied and unchanged.
However, CSR cannot impact employee engagement significantly when other drivers
come into play, and it cannot make up for the loss of any of those factors.
Other findings.
The interviews also revealed other key findings about internal CSR.
Jackson raised an interesting idea that corporations view CSR as relating with the
outside world, which could mean they neglect internal CSR. “According to United
Nation’s Global Compact, treating employees ethically and maintaining a safe working
environment is part of the definition of CSR,” she said. When people talk about
employees in the CSR context, the frame usually involves employees’ human rights and
workplace safety. CSR can be divided into two parts: external CSR and internal CSR, she
said. If something bad happened to employees’ human rights and workplace safety,
38
employees would not be engaged, even though other top factors are satisfied and
unchanged, Jackson said. In fact, Weintraub suggested that none of the other drivers
would exist if the employees’ human rights are violated or their workplace safety is
jeopardized. Fortunately, most U.S. domestic companies are working hard to meet the
threshold on both issues because of labor laws and a variety of regulatory factors. In fact,
few of them have problems in these two areas. Things like violating employees’ human
rights and jeopardizing workplace safety are moderately rare in the United States.
The ideas from both professionals indicated that internal CSR regarding
employees’ human rights and workplace safety can be vital to employee engagement.
When those two factors are well satisfied, they cannot impact employee engagement
positively. However, corporations would risk employee engagement or even its business
if they do not pay attention to both issues and make effort to ensure that employees’
human rights are well protected and workplace safety are well guaranteed.
The Comparison of existing CSR and employee engagement data.
Research methodology.
The purpose of this section is to identify if companies who have high levels of
employee engagement tend to have good reputation of CSR. Fortune Magazine’s 2011
100 Best Companies to Work For was adopted as the base point of the comparison. The
list evaluated hundreds of companies across the United States to determine the best
companies to work for. According to the magazine’s website, companies are scored in
four categories: credibility (communication to employees); respect (opportunities and
benefits); fairness (compensation, diversity); and pride (philanthropy, celebrations) and
camaraderie. (Great Place to Work, 2011)
39
The comparison was conducted based on the assumption that the companies who
are on the 100 Best Companies to Work For are most likely to have a high level of
employee engagement in general because of their high levels of employee satisfaction
and retention (Employees satisfaction and retention are regarded as correlated with
employee engagement in this thesis.). Based on this idea, the thesis compared the
Basic Information about Four CSR Indices
Global 100 Most
Sustainable
Corporations
It is “a list released by Global Responsible Investment Network with partnership
among Corporate Knights, Inflection Point, Global Currents and Phoenix Global
Advisors LLC. It aims to create a virtuous cycle where the most sustainable
companies attract the most capital and earn the best returns. The list believes that
those 100 companies deserve to be recognized, as they are the models for the art
of the possible, living proof of how billion dollar entities can squeeze more wealth
from less material resources while honoring the social contract.”
1
FTSE4Good Index The list “has been designed to measure the performance of companies that meet
globally recognized corporate responsibility standards, and to facilitate
investment in those companies. Transparent management and criteria alongside
the FTSE brand make FTSE4Good the index of choice for the creation of
Responsible Investment products. ”
2
Ethibel Sustainability
Index
It “provides a comprehensive perspective on the financial performance of the
world's leading companies in terms of sustainability for institutional investors,
asset managers, banks and retail investors. It aims to provide a financial and
social profit to investors.”
3
Dow Jones
Sustainability Indices
It is “the first global index tracking the financial performance of the leading
sustainability-driven companies worldwide. Based on the cooperation of Dow
Jones Indices and SAM they provide asset managers with reliable and objective
benchmarks to manage sustainability portfolios.”
4
Table 4.3
1
Retrieved from http://www.global100.org/index.php.
2
Retrieved from http://www.ftse.com/Indices/FTSE4Good_Index_Series/index.jsp.
3
Retrieved from http://www.ethibel.org/subs_e/4_index/main.html.
4
Retrieved from http://www.sustainability-index.com/.
40
companies on this list with those on the four global authoritative CSR indices (Global
100 Most Sustainable Corporations; FTSE4GOOD Index; Ethibel Sustainability Index;
Dow Jones Sustainability Index. (See Table 4.3) The comparison was on the theoretical
basis that if companies who have high levels of employee engagement tend to have good
reputation of CSR, most companies who are on the list of 100 Best Companies to Work
For should also appear on one or more CSR indices.
Research result.
The comparison result showed that a total of 17 companies on the 100 Best
Companies to Work For also were listed on the four CSR indices. There are:
• three listed on the Global 100 Most Sustainable Corporations out of 100
companies;
• 14 listed on the FTSE4GOOD Index out of 657 companies;
• seven listed on the Ethibel Sustainability Index out of 338 companies;
• four listed on Dow Jones Sustainability Index out of 323 companies.
However, only three companies from 100 Best Companies to Work for are listed on all
four CSR indices. (See Table 4.4)
The 100 Best Companies to Work For list is for companies based in the United
States, but all four CSR indices operate internationally. Therefore, U.S. companies in the
four global CSR indices were selected for comparison. A detailed comparison of each
four CSR indices with the 100 Best Companies to Work for is presented below.
41
The Comparison Result of 100 Best Companies to Work for and Four CSR Indices
Ranking of
100 Best
Companies
to Work for
Global 100
Most
Sustainable
Companies
FTSE4GOOD
Index
Ethibel
Sustainability
Index
Dow Jones
Sustainability
Index
SAS 1 √
Google 4 √
Cisco 20 √ √ √
Goldman
Sachs Group
23
√
Whole Foods
Market
24
√
Qualcomm 33 √
Intuit 44 √
Novo
Nordisk
47 √ √ √ √
American
Express
49
√
Intel Corp. 51 √ √ √ √
General
Mills
58
√
Adobe
Systems
65
√
Mattel 69 √
Marriott
International
71
√
Microsoft 72 √
Starbucks
Corp.
98 √ √ √ √
Accenture 99 √
Table 4.4
100 Best Companies to Work for vs. Global 100 Most Sustainable Corporations.
Only three companies on 100 Best Companies to Work For appeared on the index
of Global 100 Most Sustainable Corporations. It indicated that only 3% of the U.S.
companies that are more likely to have high employee engagement also have good
reputation for CSR. (See Figure 4.1)
42
100 Best Companies to Work for vs. Global 100 Most Sustainable Corporations
Figure 4.1
Three U.S. companies on the Global 100 Most Sustainable Corporations index
were listed in the 100 Best Companies to Work For, and there were 12 U.S. companies on
the Global 100 Most Sustainable Corporations index. This data indicated that 20% of the
U.S. companies that had good reputations for CSR also were good at employee
engagement. (See Figure 4.1)
100 Best Companies to Work for vs. FTSE4GOOD Index.
Figure 4.2
3%
100 Best Companies to Work for
Companies on both on
100 Best Companies
to Work for and
Global 100 Most
Sustainable
Companies
20%
U.S. companies on the list of Global
100 Most Sustainable Companies
U.S. companies on
both 100 Best
companies to Work
for and Global 100
Most Sustainable
Companies
14%
100 Best Companies to Work for
Companies on both
Best 100 Best
Companies to Work
for and FTSE4GOOD
Index
10%
U.S. companies on FTSE4GOOD
Index
U.S. companies on
both Best 100 Best
Companies to Work
for and
FTSE4GOOD Index
43
100 Best Companies to Work for vs. FTSE4GOOD Index.
Fourteen companies on the 100 Best Companies to Work For also appeared on the
FTSE4GOOD Index. It indicated that 14% of the U.S. companies that were more likely to
have high levels of employee engagement also had good reputations for CSR. (See Figure
4.2)
Fourteen U.S. companies on the FTSE4GOOD Index were also listed in the 100
Best Companies to Work For. Since there are 133 U.S. companies on the global
FTSE4GOOD Index, this data indicated that about 10% of the U.S. companies that have
good reputations for CSR also were good at employee engagement. (See Figure 4.2)
100 Best Companies to Work for vs. Ethibel Sustainability Index.
Seven companies on the 100 Best Companies to Work For appeared on the
Ethibel Sustainability Index. It indicated that 7% of the U.S. companies that were more
likely to have high levels of employee engagement also had good reputations for CSR.
(See Figure 4.3)
100 Best Companies to Work for vs. Ethibel Sustainability Index.
Figure 4.3
7%
100 Best Companies to Work for
Companies on both
100 Best Companies
to Work for and
Ethibel
Sustainability Index
11%
U.S. comapanies on Ethibel
Sustainability Index
U.S. companies on
both 100 Best
Companies to Work
for and Ethibel
Sustainability Index
44
Seven U.S. companies on the index of Ethibel Sustainability Index were listed in
the 100 Best Companies to Work For. Since there were 55 U.S. companies on the Ethibel
Sustainability Index, this data indicated that 11% of the U.S. companies that had good
reputation for CSR also were good at employee engagement. (See Figure 4.3)
100 Best Companies to Work For vs. Dow Jones Sustainability Index.
Four companies on the 100 Best Companies to Work For also appeared on the
Dow Jones Sustainability Index. It indicated that 4% of the U.S. companies that were
more likely to have high levels of employee engagement also had good reputations for
CSR. (See Figure 4.4)
100 Best Companies to Work For vs. Dow Jones Sustainability Index.
Figure 4.4
Four U.S. companies on the index of Dow Jones Sustainability Index were listed
in the 100 Best Companies to Work for. Since there were 58 U.S. companies on the Dow
Jones Sustainability Index, this group of data indicated that 6% of the U.S. companies
that had good reputations for CSR were good at employee engagement. (See Figure 4.4)
4%
100 Best Companies to Work for
Companies on both
100 Best Companies
to Work for and Dow
Jones Indexes
6%
U.S. companies on Dow Jones
Sustainability Indexes
U.S. companies on
both 100 Best
Companies to Work
for and Dow Jones
Indexes
45
Conclusons from Comparison .
Based on these comparisons, between 3% and 12% of U.S. companies that were
more likely to have high employee engagement also were good at CSR. Six percent to 20%
of U.S. companies that had good reputations for CSR also had high levels of employee
engagement. These findings are not strong enough to support the notion that there is a
connection between organizations’ CSR and employee engagement. In fact, it showed
that there is little connection between CSR and employee engagement. In other words,
CSR is not necessarily a factor that can impact employee engagement significantly.
Rating the CSR performance of 100 Best Companies to Work For list.
Research methodology.
This research methodology evaluated the CSR performances of the 100 Best
Companies to Work For. The goal was to further confirm whether those companies that
had high levels of employee engagement also tend to have good reputations for CSR. It
was conducted on the basis that the 100 Best Companies to Work For were more likely to
have high levels of employee engagement. The hypothesis was that companies on this list
should pay a lot attention to CSR to get higher employee engagement, assuming that CSR
could affect employee engagement significantly. Therefore, those companies’ websites
were explored in detail to determine if they had a good CSR performance.
5
The
companies were rated on a scale from 0–10, based on the CSR performance rating
standard developed for this thesis. (See Table 4.5) The 10 criteria were created to best
reflect a company’s CSR performance, using the CSR definition that this thesis adopted.
5
The data for Google is not available. In total, 99 companies’ websites were explored instead of 100.
46
Standards of CSR Performance Rating
Aspects Points
The description of CSR’s importance 1 point
The description of the CSR’s connection to company’s values 1 point
The amount of information on CSR initiatives 1 point
The quality of information on CSR initiatives 1 point
The scope of CSR 1 point
Variety of CSR programs 1 point
Outcomes/achievement of the CSR programs 1 point
Publishing a CSR report 1 point
CSR programs that involve employees 1 point
Partnership with other organizations and foundations (Non-profit) 1 point
Table 4.5
Research results.
Research showed that 70% of the companies on the 100 Best Companies to Work
For had a CSR page or section on their websites. (See Figure 4.5) The average rating for
all companies was 3.2 out of 10. This is not enough to support the notion that those
companies have good CSR performance and high employee engagement. Only 18
47
companies scored excellent (7–9 points) in the CSR performance rating, which suggested
that only 18% of the companies were good at both employee engagement and CSR.
Thirty-two companies scored 1–3 points, which indicated that 32% realized the
importance of CSR, however, they did not pay enough attention to it. Surprisingly, 30%
of those companies who had high employee engagement also scored zero in the
performance rating, which meant that they did nothing in terms of CSR. (See Figure 4.5)
CSR Performance Rating
Figure 4.5
In addition, 26% of the companies have some kind of CSR report with varied
names. Considering that CSR reporting is still a voluntary move in the world, the score is
quite high already. It showed that CSR has become increasingly important to business
today.
In conclusion, the majority of companies on the 100 Best Companies to Work For
list paid little to no attention to the companies’ CSR, even though they realized it was
30%
32%
20%
12%
6%
0 point
1-3 points
4-6 points
7-9 points
10 points
48
somewhat important to their business. Because those companies were more likely to have
high levels of employee engagement, it can be inferred that CSR was not one of the
factors that significantly help them win the honor of 100 Best Companies to Work For. In
other words, CSR does not affect employee engagement significantly. See Appendix B.
49
Chapter Five: Case Studies
Two case studies are presented in detail in this chapter to further complement the
key findings in Chapter Four. The Bayer U.S. case study was performed through on-site
interviews, questionnaires and secondary research; the Southwest Airlines case study was
conducted with questionnaires and secondary research. Both are divided into four
sections: Background, Qualifications, Analysis and Conclusions. The Background
sections briefly provide the necessary information about the companies; the
Qualifications sections provide the reasons why each case study is a good fit to the thesis
from both CSR and employee engagement perspectives; the Analysis sections explore
details about the company’s CSR efforts, employee engagement and the correlation
between them; the Conclusion sections summarize the key findings of the case study and
how it proves the hypothesis.
Bayer AG/Bayer U.S.
Background.
Bayer AG (Bayer) (FWB: BAYN) is a chemical and pharmaceutical company
founded in Barmen, Germany in 1863. It is a global enterprise with core business in the
fields of health care, nutrition and high-tech materials. As a management holding
company, it operates businesses in three subgroups: Bayer HealthCare, Bayer Crop
Science and Bayer Material Science. The three business segments operate independently
under the leadership of the management holding company. The holding company
operates 302 smaller companies around the world, and has about 5,000 products in the
market. It is well-known for its original brand of aspirin. In fiscal 2009, it had an annual
report of €31.2 billion on sales, €1.7 billion on capital expenditures and €2.7 billion on
50
research and development. Approximately 108,400 employees work for Bayer AG
worldwide. Bayer products and services are designed to benefit people and improve the
quality of lives, and the company embraces value through innovation, growth and high
earning power. (Bayer AG, 2009)
Bayer Corporation (also known as Bayer U.S.) is the Pittsburgh-based American
arm of Bayer AG. In addition to its headquarters, the company has 30 additional
corporate centers and 50 manufacturing operations nationwide with 21,000 employees.
(Bayer U.S., 2008)
Qualifications.
From a CSR perspective.
Some evidence shows that the pharmaceutical industry tends to take the lead in
CSR because of its nature. Many regard CSR as a fully integrated element of business
strategies. The industry also has more important reasons to be socially responsible than
the fact that it attracts prospective employees or that companies cannot isolate themselves
from society. The industry is always on a position of defense when it comes to CSR
(Capaldi, 2011). As Capaldi (2011) described, health care is a serious and ethically
sensitive issue, and that is why pharmaceutical companies must carefully and sensitively
ensure all stakeholders’ needs are met. Simply placating some special interest and
playing public relations games will never work in this industry. To survive and increase
business, pharmaceutical companies should always take the initiative to make sure the
health of the wider society is in a good condition (Capaldi, 2011).
Besides following a socially responsible business model, the pharmaceutical
companies undertake many additional initiatives covering a wide range of areas such as
51
health, safety, environment and public policies. Typical CSR initiatives include
improving access to medicines in developing countries; non-profit organizations’
donation programs; research and development for diseases prevalent; investing in health
related education and prevention programs; and establishing global safety and ethical
standards into daily business practices (Bale, n.d.).
Bayer is one of those pharmaceutical companies that need to take a defense
position to run the business. In fact, the thesis regards Bayer as one of the leaders among
in the industry in terms of CSR.
For decades, Bayer has considered itself a socially responsible corporate citizen
that is committed to sustainable development and social, as well as ethical,
responsibilities. CSR has been an integral part of Bayer’s business philosophy and
strategy, and has been included in Bayer’s annual reports for several years. In 2009,
Bayer AG provided €44 million to support its CSR initiatives. The CSR efforts included
education, research, environment, nature, health, social needs, sports and culture (Bayer,
2009).
Bayer (2009, p109) firmly believes that “a sustainable CSR commitment can
make an important contribution to the viability of society while at the same time
improving the conditions for our business activity and promoting our economic success
in the long term.” Under the instruction of Bayer’s mission statement, “Bayer, Science
for a Better Life,” the company “strives for a sustainable commercial success based on
sound business models and in harmony with the needs of the employees, society and the
environment (Bayer, 2009, p100).” In addition, Bayer (2009) has committed to
international sustainability initiatives such as the U.N. Global Compact and the
52
Responsible Care Global Charter.
The FTSE4GOOD Index lists Bayer as one of the most social responsible
companies in the world, which indicates that Bayer’s reputation for CSR is supported by
a third-party organization.
From an employee engagement perspective.
Employees remain Bayer’s most valuable asset, according to Bayer U.S.’s
website. It embraces a sustainable human resources policy focusing on “diversity,
equality of opportunities and support for its employees’ personal and career development.”
(Bayer, 2009, p111) The company provides high social standards, performance and
market-oriented compensation with numerous additional benefits to employees. The
employee turnover rate for Bayer Group as a whole in 2009 was 7% (Bayer, 2009). As it
is described on Bayer U.S. main website:
We take great pride in our efforts to be an employer of choice so that we can
continue to attract the best and the brightest. In addition to investing in employee
professional development and personal growth, we reward performance with fair
and competitive compensation and benefits. We achieve management diversity by
gender, race and culture. And, we encourage and recognize outstanding
accomplishments. (Bayer U.S., 2011a)
Because of Bayer’s excellent reputation for both CSR and employee engagement
and the pharmaceutical industries’ leading position in the CSR field, it is a good case
study candidate for this thesis. Additionally, Bayer is a prime example of how
pharmaceutical companies excel in CSR and how that affects employee engagement.
Analysis.
Both on-site interviews and questionnaires showed that all the respondents either
agreed or strongly agreed that Bayer has a good reputation for CSR and that Bayer’s
employees are engaged at work, which matches the company’s description of both CSR
53
initiatives and human resources policy.
According to Lauren Tornano (personal communication, January 6, 2011), the
internal manager of the Bayer U.S. head office, Bayer wanted to make the list of 100 Best
Companies to Work For. That is why Bayer used the list as a benchmark to measure
employee engagement. Tornano thought that the categories of the survey questions were
quite meaningful, and that was why Bayer adopted the survey to identify employees’
engagement and satisfaction. A trend that Tornano thought was interesting was that
employees’ pride in the company increased over time. “It was strong all cross the board.
The pride data in the survey [that Bayer conducted] is probably the closest of any to
really being a best place to work.” If the 100 companies that Fortune publicized are great
in terms of employee engagement, satisfaction, retention and so forth, then Bayer should
be close in meeting these standards, she said. As internal manager, Tornano said the data
about employees’ pride in the survey result tells her that Bayer is on the right track of
increasing the level of employee engagement. She believes that there is a correlation
between the pride and the mission of Bayer.
The thesis categorized the case study by different aspects:
CSR programs in Bayer U.S. .
According to Tornano, Bayer’s mission statement “Science for Better Life”
guides the company’s CSR activities. Bayer also believes that the CSR initiatives have to
meet the need for communities that Bayer’s employees live and work (Bayer, 2009).
Under those two principles, Bayer takes initiatives through several programs including:
• Bayer’s U.S. Foundation which supports programs that “enhance the
quality of life, provide unique and enriching opportunities that connect
54
diverse groups and ensure preparedness for tomorrow’s leaders (Bayer
U.S., 2011b).” It committed to improve communities in which Bayer’s
employees live and work. The foundation provides funding to organization
that serves these communities (Bayer U. S., 2011b).
• Making Science Make Sense (MSMS) which is a company-wide initiative
that “advances science literacy across the United States through hands-on,
inquiry-based science learning, employee volunteerism and public
education (Bayer U.S., 2011c).” More than 1,000 employees volunteered
in this program to foster science literacy and ignite student interest in
science (Bayer U.S., 2011c).
According to Bayer’s CSR manager Rebecca Lucore (personal communication,
January 24, 2011), Bayer also partners with non-profit organizations for events such as
the United Way Day of Caring and American Heart Association Heart Walk. Employees
also serve as board members of some non-profit organizations.
Communicating with employees about CSR information and the benefits.
There are several corporate channels Bayer head office uses to communicate with
employees including intranet, publications and push-emails that link back to intranet.
According to Tornano, employees are able to get the messages from Pittsburgh — the
headquarters of Bayer U.S. — about CSR and Bayer’s reputation. “For a big company
that has three units and services companies, which in total amounts to about 60 sites, it is
hard for messages from headquarters to cut through the clatter (Tornano, 2011).” An
employee awareness survey conducted by Bayer, however, showed that employees
received and understood those messages. This implies that Bayer has the ability to
55
communicate with employees efficiently and effectively about CSR information. Poor
internal communication might impede CSR. If key managers and employees do not
understand how CSR programs associate with organizational functions, they might not
effectively support them.
According to Lucore, it is very important to regularly update and communicate
with employees about Bayer’s CSR programs. The head office updates U.S. employees
weekly. This helps engage employees, she said. When the employees are aware of their
company’s role in society, they are more engaged at work.
One employee who volunteers an extraordinary amount of time to CSR said that
communication is a key element to CSR, and it has to be a two-way, mutual
communication. Bayer employees like to hear what the company is doing both from
outside and inside, she said. She feels prides answering questions about what the
company is doing or participating in the communities. This kind of communication
encourages employees to get more involved at work, she said.
Involving employees in CSR programs and its benefits.
As mentioned above, Bayer has a few CSR programs that involve employees.
Both the management group and employees that the author interviewed agree that it is
very beneficial to involve employees in Bayer’s CSR programs.
According to Lucore, participating in CSR programs allows employees to feel
more pride in the company and regard themselves as its champions in the community.
From a company perspective, this strengthens the bond between employees and employer,
which will indirectly benefit Bayer. From an employee perspective, workers will have a
chance to interact with their colleagues and the management and develop their personal
56
skills and capabilities. As one Bayer employee(personal communication, January 6, 2011)
said:
There are so many talented and diverse employees here at Bayer. Get them
involved [and] let them use their other talents besides what they may do on their
daily jobs. It is surprising when you take someone away from what they do day to
day – all the interesting and exciting things they have to offer. It also gives them
the chance to do something they like and helps them grow and network, not only
within, but on the outside of the company.
In terms of feedback from employee volunteerism, one volunteer (personal
communication, January 24, 2011) described it this way:
Participating in CSR Programs has taken me places I never thought I would be.
Networking, communication, leadership skills are quickly acquired without even
realizing you are doing all these things. It definitely helps me in my day-to-day
job. It really opens opportunities to employees.
When asked if there are any shortcomings or obstacles that Bayer faced while
encouraging employee to participate in CSR programs, Lucore said managers allow
employees time off to volunteer during the work day, and employees have the power to
decide which day they want take off for community work. Therefore, it is not normal to
see employees oppose volunteerism. As Tornano said, “From a corporate culture
perspective, employees should take an appropriate amount of time, with their managers’
approval, to go out and do volunteer work.” Bayer has a human resource policy that
allows any employee to take two days a year for volunteerism. Bayer employees choose
the organization for which they would like to volunteer. The employees are free to
schedule their volunteerism, which decreases resistance from the employees and the line
managers.
57
The effects of CSR on employee engagement.
Lucore supports the idea that good CSR is able to have a positive impact on an
organization’s employee engagement. If employees know that their company is respected,
they were more likely to be involved at work, she said.
Trocano believes that the most engaged employees are those who volunteer. They
are the ones that actually understand the company’s mission in a bigger context rather
than day-to-day business. They are the ones most likely to become the company’s
advocates. For those employees, the company’s CSR is one of the reasons that they work
for Bayer.
The volunteer-extraordinaire also strongly agreed with the idea that an
organization’s good reputation for social responsibility helps increase employee
engagement. She said she wants to work for a good company that not only cares about
the employees, but the things that are happening in the outside world.
The degree of importance of CSR compared to other key drivers of employee
engagement.
According to Trocano, CSR can help increase the level of employee engagement
when other key factors remain unchanged and satisfied. But it cannot make up for any of
those factors that listed in Towers Perrin’s Top Drivers for Employee Engagement such
as senior management’s concerns in employees’ well-being and opportunities for
employees to improve skills and capabilities (See Figure 2.1). She regarded CSR as an
add-on factor when it comes to employee engagement.
As Bayer U.S.’s CSR manager, Lucore ranked CSR the fourth out of the seven
most important factors for employee engagement. (The other factors/drivers included
58
senior management’s concern in employees’ well-being; opportunities for employees to
improve skills and capabilities; input into department’s decision making; career
advancement opportunities; the organization’s ability to quickly resolve customers’
concerns and employees’ benefits.) Even the volunteer-extraordinaire who thought
Bayer’s CSR programs invigorated her engagement at work, said that it would not help if
any of other top drivers are not satisfied. In other words, CSR cannot make up for any of
those well-recognized top drivers of employee engagement, and it cannot affect employee
engagement significantly.
Conclusion.
Because of the pharmaceutical industry’s nature and competitiveness, Bayer has
to pay attention to its CSR initiatives and try to present a positive public image to make it
stand out from its rivals.
The implication of the Bayer U.S. case study involves its good reputation for CSR.
The company is able to retain its good reputation and develop because (1) Bayer has
effective communication channels that allow two-way communication between
employees and management. The employees are able to receive CSR messages from
headquarters, which triggers their pride in the company. (2) Bayer allows employees to
participate in its CSR programs freely without much compulsion. Employees who are
engaged in those programs found them understand the company values better and further
connected with Bayer.
The second implication is that participating in CSR programs helps employees
become more engaged in the company, but only if no other key drivers come into play.
59
The third implication stems from the Bayer employees’ responses questionnaire
results regarding the relative importance of CSR when compared to other top key drivers
of employee engagement. CSR is not as important as other well-recognized top drivers,
and therefore, it can never make up for those other drivers. Once one or more of those
drivers change, the level of employee engagement will change accordingly no matter how
good Bayer’s reputation for CSR is.
The following four key findings can be generalized from the case study:
1. Communicating with employees about CSR is beneficial to an
organization and triggers employees’ pride in the company.
2. Involving employees in an organization’s CSR initiatives is a win-win
move. It benefits the company, because it helps employees connect with
the company; it benefits the employees who get involved, because it helps
them develop new skill sets and explore their potential.
3. CSR is able to invigorate employees’ engagement of no other factors that
affect employee engagement come into play. When other factors are
remain stable and satisfied, CSR has the capability to further bolster
employee engagement
4. When compared to other top key drivers, CSR has a relatively small, even
tiny, impact on employee engagement. In other words, it is an add-on
factor when it comes to employee engagement, and can never be traded to
make up the loss of any other factors.
60
Southwest Airlines (SWA)
Background.
Southwest Airlines Co. (NYSE:LUV) is an American passenger airline based in
Dallas, Texas. The business began on June 18, 1971 with three Boeing-737 aircraft
serving three Texas cities: Dallas, Houston and San Antonio. As of January 2011, the
company operated 537 Boeing-737 aircraft and offers services to 69 cities in 35 states
across the country. Additionally, it offers other travel services to its passengers such as
air, car, hotel, cruise and vacation packages. Southwest Airlines (SWA) is known for the
lowest cost structures in the domestic airline industry, and consistently offering the
lowest and simplest fares. The company principally provides point-to-point rather than
hub-and-spoke service, and it has predominantly served short-haul routes with high
frequencies. In recent years SWA has added medium and long-haul routes into its
services. As of June 30, 2009, SWA has the largest number of passenger boarding among
all airline companies in the United States. In the 2009 fiscal year, the company reported
revenue of $10,350 million. The operating profit of the company was $262 million (SWA,
2009).
Qualifications.
From a CSR perspective.
SWA regards itself as a company dedicated to “doing the right thing by taking
great strides to ensure customers safety, and fostering trusting relationship between SWA
employees, customers, suppliers and planet (SWA, 2011).” Each year, SWA publicizes
its “Southwest Cares Reports,” which is committed to maintaining a good CSR reputation
and fulfilling the statement above. It has a standalone website designed merely for
61
citizenship, (www.southwest.com/cares), which is updated in a timely manner to serve
the company’s CSR needs.
SWA is “dedicated to the highest quality of customer service delivered with a
sense of warmth, friendliness, individual pride, and company spirit (SWA, 2011).” Based
on that, SWA established statements to various stakeholders. Below are three that relate
directly to CSR.
Mission statement to the community:
Our goal is to be the hometown airline of every community we serve, and
because those communities sustain and nurture us with their support and
loyalty, it is vital that we, as individuals and in groups, embrace each
community with the Southwest Spirit of involvement, service, and caring
to make those communities better places to live and work. (SWA, 2008,
p4)
Mission statement to the Planet:
We strive to be a good Environmental Steward across our system in all of
our hometowns, and one component of our stewardship is efficiency,
which by its very nature, translates to eliminating waste and conserving
resources. Using cost-effective and environmentally beneficial operating
procedures (including facilities and equipment), allows us to reduce the
amount of materials we use and, when combined with our ability to reuse
and recycle material, preserves these environmental resources. (SWA,
2008, p4)
Sustainability vision statement:
Southwest’s vision for a sustainable future is one where there will be a
balance in our business model between Employees and Community, the
Environment, and our Financial Viability. In order to protect our world for
future generations, while meeting our commitments to our Customers,
Employees, and Stakeholders, we will strive to lead our industry in
innovative efficiency that conserves natural resources, maintains a creative
and innovative workforce, and gives back to the communities in which we
live and work. (SWA, 2008, p4)
SWA framed a few strategies based on the sustainability vision statement. These
cover various fields including energy saving, optimizing fuel efficiency, charitable
62
programs, providing leadership to a changing work force, eliminating waste generation
and ensuring suppliers are adhering to SWA’s environmental and cultural standard (SWA,
2008).
The Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship and Reputation Institute
listed SWA as one of the top 50 companies that are recognized as leaders (BCCCC,
2009). As the only airline company on the list, SWA has third-party recognition to prove
its dedication in treating customers well, creating the best workplace environment to
employees, reducing negative environmental impact, and being a trusted community
contributor.
From an employee engagement perspective.
SWA is one of the few companies that has excellent performance in both CSR
and employee engagement, especially the latter. The most important reason that SWA is
a good case to study for this thesis is that the company regards treating employees
properly as a CSR strategy. It considers offering benefits and training to employees and
rewarding workers for providing excellent customer service to customers as part of the
company’s CSR(Agnew, 2010; SWA, 2008). In other words, employees are considered
one of the target audiences of SWA’s CSR. It is obvious that workers are also part of
SWA’s human resource; however, few companies categorize employees’ interests under
CSR. Because the employee-relevant aspects are relatively broad in SWA’s CSR
definition — and some of the aspects tend to influence the level of employee engagement
— it is important to further explore the benefits of this categorization.
SWA also has a solid reputation internally that corresponds with its positive
external brand image (HR Focus, 2001, as cited in OE, 2010). SWA encourages
63
employees into incorporate the company’s mission to their work by providing
complementary resources and support for personal and professional development (OE,
2010). This move in turn encourages employees to live at the corporate messages and to
deliver the corporate brand externally. In other words, SWA smartly fulfill employees’
needs as a way of increase employees’ personal value which can ultimately be converted
to organizational uses. Value is created through a variety of approaches, two of which are
well-recognized by the public as FUN (fun) and LUV (love) (Hallowell, 1996).
SWA describes its dedication to the employees in this way:
We are committed to provide our employees a stable work environment with
equal opportunity for learning and personal growth. Creativity and innovation are
encouraged for improving the effectiveness of Southwest Airlines. Above all,
Employees will be provided the same concern, respect, and caring attitude within
the organization that they are expected to share externally with every Southwest
Customer. (SWA, 2008, p4)
SWA is well known for its family atmosphere as well as its high level of
employee engagement, customer satisfaction, productivity and lower employee turnover
rates. The top management team regards it as a result of the company’s good relationship
with employees (Gittell, 2001, as cited in OE, 2010). Gary C. Kelly, Southwest Airlines
chief executive officers sees employees as “the heart and soul of the company,” and
believes that SWA is responsible for treating its employees with same concern, respect
and care to employees (SWA 2008).
In the article Southwest's Secret to a Positive Corporate Culture: Its Employees,
which is published by Business Civic Leadership Center (BCLC) (n.d., Background,
para.1), the writer argued that SWA’s success lies in its culture and its reputation from
the inside out. SWA “values a happy workforce, and believes that its 35,000 satisfied
64
employees will keep customers coming back.” SWA realizes the importance of building
and sustaining strong internal relationships.
They [SWA] believe in promoting from within and providing employees the
opportunity to grow and learn from one another. Everyone at Southwest
understands the role each individual plays and how each and every employee
contributes to the company's success. Information flows freely between
employees and leadership, and this is especially important in an industry as
heavily unionized as the airline industry. With 87.7 percent of their workforce
unionized, these unclogged lines of communication are truly amazing. (BCLC,
2011, Background, para.4)
Marc Gunther, recognized as one of the leading CSR observers, classified SWA
as one of the smart companies that offers the ethic of service (Gunther, 2009). According
to Gunther (2009), SWA’s CSR strategy is one of those that “generates loyalty and
creates a powerful competitive advantage: Happier and more fulfilled employees mean
satisfied customers, and satisfied customers generate long-term value for shareholders.
Caring is good business (Gunther, 2009, Can a company care, para.3)”
Anecdotal evidence from various sources suggests that SWA’s employees are
having fun on the job, just as what a union president described, employees enjoy coming
to work every day (Hallowell, 1996). This makes SWA one of the top ten U.S. companies
to work for (Levering and Moskowitz, 1993 as cited in Hallowell, 1996).
Analysis.
SWA is recognized as a social responsible company both by the public and by its
employees. It is one of the best companies to work for because of its high level of
employee engagement and satisfaction. Various resources indicate that SWA’s
employees love to work at the company, and the majority of SWA’s employees are
highly engaged at work.
65
CSR programs in SWA.
The examples below suggest the variety of the SWA’s CSR programs:
• Community Giving Boards: boards of local employees in every city where
SWA flies are responsible for responding to charitable donation requests
from their communities. (Casey Welch, personal communication, January
24, 2011)
• Tickets for Time: for every 40 hours of registered volunteer service,
Southwest Airlines will donate one complimentary, roundtrip ticket to a
nonprofit organization where the employee or group of employees served.
(Casey, 2011)
• Diversity Council: a proactive group of workers reach out to advise the
company about recruitment, human resources policies, and supplier
diversity. (Casey, 2011)
• Adopt-A-Pilot: a mentorship program that provides SWA pilots the
opportunity to go into fifth-grade classrooms and lead them through
lessons on science, geography, math, creative writing, and other core
subjects, all related with aviation. Students also research careers, life
values, and realize the importance of staying in school. Adopt-A-Pilot is
offered free of charge to schools. (Casey, 2011; SWA, 2008)
• Backpack Brigade: one of SWA’s Share the Spirit programs. It is a month-
long program in partnership with Operation Homefront to raise support for
the families of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. (SWA, 2008)
66
• Green Team: comprised of employee volunteers across the company, the
Green Team offers recommendations to augment environmentally-
responsible business practices. The Green Team works cooperatively with
our professional environmental staff and Green Ambassadors in each
Southwest Airlines city to answer environmental questions from
Employees and to consider suggestions for improvement. (Casey, 2011)
Figure 5.1 shows an overlook of the outcomes of SWA’s Share The Spirit 2008.
SWA Share The Spirit 2008
Note: Adapted from Southwest Airlines 2009 Annual Report, by Southwest Airlines, 2010
Figure 5.1
Communicating with employees about CSR information and the benefits.
According to Ginger Hardage, who is the head of SWA’s internal and external
communication, the foundation of successful two-way communication is the level of
knowledge and the information the company provides that allows employees to feel like
owners (BCLC, 2011). SWA communicate with its employees on a timely manner
through various channels:
67
Southwest communicates with employees every day through news on their
intranet, every week through a telephone news line, every month with a 32-page
magazine, and every quarter through the financial ‘Knowing the Score’ message,
and every year through a series of town hall meetings. (BCLC, 2011, What to
learn from Southwest Airlines, para.4)
It indicates that SWA has the ability to communicate with its employees
effectively. SWA’s communications also integrated the corporate cultures into the
messages to allow employees to understand how their behavior contributes to the
company’s image as a whole. It suggests that SWA has its own customized and effective
way to communicate with employees, which can influence the employees’ personal value
on their jobs.
According to one of the company’s CSR specialists, SWA updates its employees
with CSR information weekly. However, it is always a challenge for SWA to
communicate with more than 35,000 employees whose work scenarios vary by time and
location.
Different work group receive communication in different ways. Bringing
awareness to our employees that these programs are available to them is
sometimes only half the battle… [But]We're always communicating and
educating (Casey, 2011).
When asked about the benefits of communicating with employees about CSR
information, the CSR specialist said:
It's up to everyone in our company to maintain our culture of responsibility. It's
important to communicate frequently about corporate responsibility efforts in
order to instill a sense of pride in our employees, to educate them on the
importance of CSR and to show gratitude for the hard work they put in to ensure
that Southwest Airlines remains a socially responsible company. (Anonymous,
personal communication, 2011)
Because CSR is integrated into the company’s value and culture, SWA regards it
necessary to keep employees updated about relevant information. In this way employees
68
are able to better understand the company’s position and how its CSR decisions echoes
SWA’s mission. It helps employees to better deliver the SWA brand both internally and
externally.
Involving employees in CSR programs.
SWA allows employees to reach out to communities and provide help where it is
needed. The company rewards exceptional volunteers each year to encourage employee
volunteerism (SWA, 2008). The majority of SWA’s CSR programs require employees’
involvement, and many have participated in them.
When asked about the employee feedback about CSR programs, the SWA’s CSR
specialist said:
Our employees take great pride in what they do. By supporting them in the
communities where they live and work through CSR efforts, they know that their
company takes pride in them too. We believe the growing popularity of these
programs is a testament to their importance. It allows us to engage our employees
in a different way, a way that encourages them to bring their entire selves to work.
(Anonymous, personal communication, 2011)
SWA believes that participation in CSR instills a sense of company pride.
Engaging employees in SWA’s CSR programs offers opportunities for the company to
educate employees about its benefits and helps them better understand the importance of
maintaining an efficient, ethical and sustainable work environment. Involving employee
in CSR programs will not only provide a better environment of engagement and
productivity in SWA internally, but will also help to SWA’s business prosper externally.
The effects of CSR on employee engagement.
It is clear that SWA’s superb reputation in CSR increases employees’ pride in the
company. However, no direct evidence shows that CSR is able to affect the level of
employee engagement in SWA. Engaged employees can be proud of the company;
69
however, workers who have pride in their companies might not necessarily be engaged at
work. Employees might also need other factors such as commitment, motivation and
passion to be engaged at work. If this is the case, then the SWA case study is not able to
prove that CSR can impact employee engagement significantly.
The degree of importance of CSR compared to other key drivers of employee
engagement.
Because SWA defines CSR so broadly — and treating employees properly is
considered as part of CSR most of the time — it becomes rather difficult to compare
CSR’s impact with other top drivers of employee engagement. (See Figure 5.2) To SWA,
it is bad CSR practice when senior management fails to (1) care about employees’ well-
being; (2) provide employees with enough opportunities to further develop their skills
and capabilities; (3) allow the employees’ voice to be heard by management team; (4)
ensure employees are satisfied, which are well-recognized as top drivers of employee
engagement.
Employee Engagement at SWA
Figure 5.2
70
Under these circumstances, it is rather difficult to distinguish CSR from other top
drivers of employee engagement.
Conclusion.
The SWA case study has several implications for CSR. The first stems from the
fact that employees are well informed about SWA’s CSR information via various
channels, which allows them to better understand the company’s values and culture, and
further increases their pride in the company. The majority of SWA’s CSR programs
require employees’ involvement, and an increasing number of employees participate in
those programs year by year. This fact lays the foundation for the second implication,
which is participating in CSR programs benefits SWA in several aspects: (1) it instills a
sense of company pride; (2) allows employees to understand the company’s values and
how CSR fits the company’s mission and culture; (3) emphasizes the importance of CSR
to SWA’s success and encourages further initiatives, which will benefit SWA’s bottom
line.
The most important implication of the SWA case study revolves around its
reputation for CSR and employee engagement and the relationship between those two
fields. Making employee engagement a part of CSR is rather creative among other
corporations today. It is common to include employees’ basic human rights and
workplace safety as a corporation’s CSR. However, including employees’ interests as
part of CSR is apparently goes beyond what most companies do. It is an aggressive and
risky strategy, even to some giant international companies.
Because SWA regards employee engagement as part of its CSR and has a strong
reputation in both areas, the thesis makes a reasonable assumption: it is the excellent
71
performance in both areas that allows SWA to combine CSR with its human resource or
internal communication functions. (Employee engagement might not be the only field
that overlaps both CSR and HR/internal communication). Furthermore, because SWA is
strong in both CSR and employee engagement, the author assumes that they positively
affect one another. In fact, the combination and the interaction between CSR and
employee engagement make SWA even stronger in both fields, and helps give SWA a
competitive advantage in its corporate reputation, productivity and profitability. (See
Figure 5.3)
The Interaction between CSR and Employee Engagement and Its Influences
Figure 5.3
SWA’s CSR programs require a high level of employee engagement (employee
engagement is taken as part of CSR in SWA), and highly engaged employees will have a
positive effect on corporate reputation, productivity and profitability. (The red arrows on
Figure 5.3)
72
Engaged employees take the initiative to understand the importance of CSR to the
company’s values and culture and even participate in the CSR programs. This helps SWA
deliver an image of socially responsible citizen and further boosts corporate reputation
and profitability. (The green arrows on Figure 5.3)
Three key findings can be drawn from the SWA case study:
1. When used effectively, communicating with employees about a corporation’s
CSR programs always helps a company’s reputation both internally and
externally.
2. Involving employees in an organization’s CSR initiatives can instill pride in
the company, but does not necessarily improve employee engagement.
3. If a company has a strong CSR reputation and high employee engagement,
the two can strength one another and further benefit the organization’s
reputation, productivity and profitability. However, the reverse might not be
true. The SWA case study does not imply that a bad CSR reputation harms
employee engagement, or that low employee engagement harms CSR.
73
Chapter Six: Outcomes
In this concluding chapter, the thesis key findings are summarized in two
categories: Redefining CSR and CSR’s effects on employee engagement. The redefining
CSR section concludes that companies have neglected CSR’s internal aspects, especially
when it comes to employees’ workplace safety and human rights. Companies could be
placed at risk without exerting enough effort to ensure safe working environment and
protecting employees’ human rights. The section on CSR’s effects on employee
engagement points out the validity of the original thesis hypothesis and three deductions
that were based on the literature reviews and research results. At the end of the chapter,
recommendations are presented to help companies customize their investment and efforts
in CSR when it comes to increasing employee engagement.
Redefining CSR
The first category of outcomes involves redefining CSR. As mentioned in Chapter
One it is almost impossible to find a universal definition that fits all companies and their
activities. CSR is a subjective concept that relies on diverse interpretations and
perception. The majority of definitions are broad enough to include external CSR, or the
company as a social citizen; and internal CSR, the employer is responsible for its
employees. However, employees’ human rights and workplace safety are always
neglected as part of the internal CSR based on the interview key findings.
The United Nations Global Compact has principles for both human rights and
workplace safety respectively, and it includes both as part of CSR (UNGC, n.d.). Even
though most CSR definitions are broad enough to include employees’ safety and human
rights, most corporations neglect these practices. Most of the time, companies pay more
74
attention to external CSR and neglect internal CSR, because they do not consider
employees part of their CSR’s initiatives. Therefore, employee interests, especially their
safety and human rights, are not included in CSR strategies and initiatives. Another
reason for this is that most companies in the United States meet the legal threshold for
worker safety and employees’ human rights. Therefore, employees even do not consider
safety and human rights as issues in an organization. However, working to improve
workplace safety and human rights become relatively important internationally. This is
especially true in developing countries.
As globalization becomes increasingly important to business, corporations should
include employee workplace safety and human rights in their definition of CSR.
Jeopardizing employees’ workplace safety or violating employees’ human right can
create hazards for companies, which will be regarded by the public as not socially
responsible. Without meeting the threshold for employees’ workplace safety and human
rights, employees would not be able to be engaged at work, regardless of any key drivers
of employee engagement. In other words, without employee safety and basic human
rights, employee engagement would never exist.
CSR’s Effects on Employee Engagement
The other category of outcomes involves the core of the thesis, which is CSR’s
effect on employee engagement.
Based on the literature review, six top drivers of employee engagement were
identified: senior management concern for employee well-being; opportunities for
employees to improve skills and capabilities; input into department’s decision making;
career advancement opportunities; organization’s ability to quickly resolve customers’
75
concerns; and employees benefits. Those top drivers were used frequently in this paper to
determine the significance of CSR’s effect on employee engagement.
While comparing CSR’s effects to the other top drivers of employee engagement,
the research showed that CSR is not one of the drivers that can affect the level of
employee engagement significantly: quantitative survey showed that 70% to 88% of the
respondents disagreed with the idea that they would be still engaged at work if their
employers had a strong CSR reputation, but at least one of the other top drivers of
employee engagement were unfulfilled. This finding mirrored the ideas from three
interviewees that a strong CSR reputation cannot make up for the loss of any of the other
top drivers. What’s more, the comparison of existing CSR and employee engagement
data also supported this idea. Only four companies that appeared on the list of 100 Best
Companies to Work For also appeared in all four CSR lists. Additionally, the companies
on the 100 Best Companies to Work For scored an average of 3.2 on the CSR
perfprmance rating. This suggests that those companies that are more likely to have high
employee engagement do not have high CSR performance.
However, CSR can have a positive impact when all the other top drivers of
employee engagement are satisfied and remain unchanged. If corporations meet the
threshold of employee workplace safety and human rights, CSR’s effects on employee
engagement can be summarized in four models/scenarios.
Model One: When other top drivers of employee engagement remain satisfied and
unchanged, good CSR can invigorate an organization’s level of employee engagement.
(See Figure 6.1) To those companies who did a great job on satisfying other top drivers
76
of employee engagement, CSR created an extra advantage that makes them stand out the
fierce competition.
CSR’s Effects on Employee Engagement: Model One
Figure 6.1
Model Two: When other top drivers of employee engagement remain satisfied
and unchanged, bad CSR efforts might make employees question the company, but not
necessarily affect employee engagement. The level of employee engagement would
CSR’s Effects on Employee Engagement: Model Two
Figure 6.2
likely remain at the same level. (See Figure 6.2) This model suggested that companies
that did a good job satisfying other drivers of employee engagement did not need to
worry if CSR performance was poor.
77
Model Three: When other top drivers of employee engagement change, the level
of employee engagement changes accordingly, no matter how good a CSR reputation is.
(See Figure 6.3) This model suggested that investing in CSR might not necessarily affect
employee engagement in a positive way when other top drivers come into play. In other
words, CSR is not the first priority of companies that are thriving for increasing
employee engagement. Instead, companies need to exert more attention and efforts on
other top drivers of employee engagement.
CSR’s Effects on Employee Engagement: Model Three
Figure 6.3
Model Four: When one or more other top drivers change, the level of employee
engagement changes accordingly, no matter how bad a corporation’s CSR reputation is.
This model suggested that a bad CSR reputation would not affect employee engagement
significantly when other top factors come into play. Compared to other top drivers, CSR
is not a good starting point for companies looking to increase employee engagement.
78
CSR’s Effects on Employee Engagement: Model One
Figure 6.4
The four models above present all the scenarios that companies might come
across when CSR functions as a driver of employee engagement and explain what would
happen in each scenario. On the basis of these four scenarios, this thesis concludes that
Deduction No.1 — a good reputation for CSR can invigorate employees’ level of
engagement; a bad reputation for CSR can harm employees’ level of engagement — is
partially supported. CSR is one factor that can affect employee engagement. But it is not
as important as the top drivers of employee engagement, and it cannot make up for the
loss of any of them. All the research findings showed that employee engagement changes
accordingly when other top drivers change. When other drivers of employee engagement
remain satisfied and unchanged, good CSR can invigorate the level of employee
engagement. In conclusion, CSR cannot impact employee engagement significantly, but
79
it can be an advantage that makes a corporation stand out from its competitors in a
relatively ruthless market.
Based on the literature review, surveys, interviews and case studies, Deduction
No.2 — communicating CSR information with employees and engaging employees in
CSR benefits a corporation by bolstering the level of employee engagement — is
partially supported. Communicating with employees about CSR and engaging them in
CSR programs can benefit corporations because it instills a pride among employees who
participate in those programs. This benefits corporations, but those benefits can vary in
form. Employees’ pride in the company does not equal employee engagement. The
literature review also showed that companies did not exert enough effort in CSR to gain
benefits in engaging employees. In other words, companies have not maximized the
benefits because they have not effectively implemented CSR programs. Therefore,
communicating CSR information with employees and engaging them in CSR programs
might not necessarily affect their engagement. The deduction is only true if pride in the
company leads to increased employee engagement, and CSR strategies are implemented
effectively.
All the key research findings suggested that CSR is not one of the vital factors
that affect employee engagement. The research of CSR and employee engagement data
comparison showed that only 3% to 12% of U.S. companies that are more likely to have
high employee engagement are good at CSR, and 6% to 20% of U.S. companies that have
good reputations for CSR have high employee engagement. What’s more, the companies
on the100 Best Companies to Work For list scored only 3.2 out of 10 on the CSR
performance rating, which is not strong enough to support the idea that CSR is one of the
80
key drivers that affect employee engagement. These key findings suggested that
corporations who have high employee engagement might not necessarily be good at CSR.
The reverse is also true. Therefore, both research questions — corporations that have
high employee engagement are more likely to have good reputations for CSR;
Corporations that have good reputations for CSR are more likely to have high employee
engagement — are not supported.
In summary, the thesis findings partially supported the validity of the original
thesis hypothesis. Good corporate social responsibility efforts can invigorate employee
engagement in a corporation when other key drivers of employee engagement remain
satisfied and unchanged. However, corporate social responsibility is not as important as
other key drivers when it comes to employee engagement. The conclusion is that CSR
cannot affect the level of employee engagement significantly when other top drivers
come into play.
The findings could help companies better understand the role CSR plays when it
comes to increasing employee engagement. The outcomes of redefining CSR reminded
companies to continue paying attention and spending efforts on protecting employees’
workplace safety and human rights. Neglecting those two issues could jeopardize a
company’s destiny. Without protecting workers’ safety and human rights, employee
engagement would not exist. The most significant lessons that companies can learn from
this thesis involves the degree and circumstances that CSR can affect employee
engagement. It is better for companies to match their own situation with the four models
shown above before deciding investing in CSR to increase employee engagement. They
help companies to predict the outcomes of their efforts and customize their CSR efforts
81
accordingly. The ultimate purpose of this thesis is to identify how investing in CSR can
affect employee engagement and when companies should make use of CSR without
wasting money or effort. Public relations practitioners throughout the world should
carefully review this study to prepare for the next decades of business operation.
82
Bibliography
Agnew, Michelle. (2010). The corporate social responsibility index and Southwest
Airlines. Retrieve from http://www.blogsouthwest.com/blog/corporate-social-
responsibility-index-and-southwest-airlines
Bale, Harvey Jr.. (n.d.). The Pharmaceutical industry and corporate social responsibility.
Retrieved from http://www.responsiblepractice.com/english/insight/ifpma/
Bayer AG. (2009). Bayer Annual Report 2009. Retrieved from
http://www.annualreport2009.bayer.com/en/Bayer-Annual-Report-2009.pdfx
Bayer U.S.. (2008). 50 years of Bayer in Pittsburgh. Pittsburgh, PA: Bayer Corporate
Communications.
Bayer U.S.. (2011a). Our people. Retrieved from
http://www.bayerus.com/about/bayerinus/OurPeople.aspx
Bayer U.S.. (2011b). Message from the Director. Retrieved from
http://www.bayerus.com/Foundation/Mission.aspx
Bayer U.S.. (2011c). About Making Science Make Sense. Retrieved from
http://www.bayerus.com/MSMS/MSMS_About/About.aspx
Bhattacharya, C.B. & Sen, Sanker & Korschun, Daniel. (2008). Using corporate social
responsibility to win the war for talent. MIT Sloan Management Review, 49(2), 37–
44.
Boccalandro, Bea. (2009). The end of employee volunteering: A necessary step to
substantive employee engagement in the community. The Center for Corporate
Citizenship. Retrieved from
http://www.cccdeutschland.org/sites/default/files/CCCDebatte%2007%20engl%20fi
nal2.pdf
The Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship (BCCCC). (2009). Mapping
success in employee volunteering. Retrieved from
http://handsonmwv.org/docs/Mapping_Succes_In_Employee_Volunteering.pdf
Brown, Ed & Cloke, Jonathan. (2009). Corporate social responsibility in higher education.
ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies 8 (3), 474–483.
Business Civic Leadership Center. (BCLC) U.S. Chamber of Commerce. (n.d.).
Southwest’s Secret to a Positive Corporate Culture: Its Employees. Retrieve from
http://www.uschamber.com/bclc/profiles/southwest.htm
83
Caldwell, Max. (n.d.) Uncovering the hidden value in corporate social responsibility. The
Journal of the EDS Agility Alliance, 3(1), p69.
Capaldi, Nicholas. (n.d.). Corporate social responsibility and business ethics in the
pharmaceutical industry. Retrieved from
http://www.bmpllp.com/files/CorporateSocialResponsibility.pdf
Carroll, Archie B. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate social
performance. Academy of Management Review, (4)4, 497–505. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/pss/257850
Carroll, Archie B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: toward the
moral management of organizational stakeholders, Business Horizons, 39-48.
Retrieved from http://www.cbe.wwu.edu/dunn/rprnts.pyramidofcsr.pdf
Carroll, Archie B. (1999). Corporate social responsibility: Evolution of a definitional
construct, Business and Society, 38(3), 268–295.
Endres, Grace M. & Mancheno-Smoak, Lolita. (2008). The Human Resource Craze:
Human Performance Improvement and Employee Engagement. Organization
Development Journal, 26(1), 69.
Ferguson, Amanda. (2007). Employee engagement: Does it exist, and if so, how does it
relate to performance, other constructs and individual differences. Retrieved from
http://www.lifethatworks.com/Employee-Engagement.prn.pdf
Field, Marilyn. (2010). Effectively using an integrated employee engagement program.
Retrieved from http://www.oppapers.com/essays/Employee-Engagement/506381
Gallup. (2011). Employee engagement. Retrieved from
http://www.gallup.com/consulting/52/employee-engagement.aspx
Gibbons, J. (2006). Employee engagement: A review of current research and its
implications. The Conference Board. Retrieved from http://www.conference-
board.org/cgi-
bin/MsmGo.exe?grab_id=0&EXTRA_ARG=&SCOPE=Public&host_id=42&page_
id=3870&query=john%20gibbons&hiword=JOHNS%20JOHNSON%20gibbons%2
0john%20
Great Place to Work. (2011). Fortune 100 best company to work for. Retrieved from
http://www.greatplacetowork.com/work_with_us/fortune_100best.php
Gunther, Marc. (2009). Can a company care?. Retrieve from
http://www.marcgunther.com/2009/06/04/can-a-company-care/
84
Hallowell, R. (1996). Southwest airlines: A case study linking employee needs
satisfaction and organizational capabilities to competitive advantage. Human
Resource Management, 35(4), 513–534.
Holme, Lord & Watts, Richard. (2000). Making good business sense. The World
Business Council for Sustainable Development. Retrieved from
http://www.wbcsd.org/DocRoot/IunSPdIKvmYH5HjbN4XC/csr2000.pdf
Jones, Thomas. M. (1980). Corporate social responsibility revisited, redefined. California
Management Review, 22(2), 59–67.
Khan, William A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and
disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692–724
Kore Access. (2008). Drive business success through improved employee engagement.
Retrieved from
http://www.koreaccess.com/koreaccess_web/resources/KA_Engagement_WhitePap
er.pdf
Kular, Sandeep & Gatenby, Mark & Rees, Chris & Soane, Emma & Truss, Katie. (2008).
Employee engagement: A literature review. Retrieved from
http://eprints.kingston.ac.uk/4192/1/19wempen.pdf
Lee, Min-Dong Paul. (2008). A review of the theories of corporate social responsibility:
Its evolutionary path and the road ahead. International Journal of Management
Reviews, 10(1), doi: 10.1111
Massachusetts Business Roundtable. (2009). Corporate social responsibility and
employee recruitment and retention: A primer. Retrieved from
http://www.maroundtable.com/doc_reports/0905_MBR_CSRreport.pdf
Marquis, Christopher & Thomason, Bobbi & Tydlaska, Jennifer. (2010). Corporate social
responsibility and employee engagement, Harvard Business School, 9-410-138
Melcrum. (2008). Melcrum employee engagement survey 2007/08 – summary of findings.
Retrieved from http://www.melcrum.com/offer/etee/surveysummary.pdf
OE Strategies. (2010). Developing stronger corporate brands through employee
engagement. Retrieved from
http://www.oestrategies.com/papers/White_paper_on_EE_engagement_&_brand.pd
f
Oketch, M. O. (2004). The corporate stake in social cohesion. Corporate Governance,
4(3), 5–19.
85
Reputation Institution. (2010). Why CSR matters to corporate reputation. Reputation
Intelligence, 1 (1).
Right Management. (2009). Employee engagement: Maximizing organizational
performance. Retrieved from http://www.right.com/thought-
leadership/research/employee-engagement---maximizing-organizational-
performance.pdf
Southwest Airlines (SWA). (2008). Southwest Cares. Retrieved from
http://www.southwest.com/assets/pdfs/corporate-commitments/southwestcares.pdf
Southwest Airlines (SWA). (2009). 2009 Annual Report. Retrieved from
http://phx.corporate-
ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9NDA3OTd8Q2hpbGRJRD0tMXxUeX
BlPTM=&t=1
Southwest Airlines (SWA). (2011). The mission of Southwest Airlines. Retrieved from
http://www.swabiz.com/html/about-southwest/index.html
Sridevi, M. Sandhya & Markos, Solomon. (2010). Employee engagement: The key to
improve performance. International Journal of Business and Management, 5(12).
Strandberg, Coro (2009). The Role of Human Resource Management in Corporate Social
Responsibility. Strandberg Consulting. Retrieved from
http://corostrandberg.com/wp-
content/uploads/files/CSR_and_HR_Management1.pdf
Thackray, John. (n.d.). Feedback for real. Gallup Management Journal. Retrieved from
http://www.artsusa.org/pdf/events/2005/conv/gallup_q12.pdf
Thomas, Gail & Nowak, Margaret (2006). Corporate social responsibility: A definition.
Retrieved from
http://www.business.curtin.edu.au/files/GSB_Working_Paper_No._62_Corp_Social
_Resp_A_definition_Thomas___Nowak.pdf
Towers Perrin. (2010). Closing the engagement gap: A road map for driving superior
business performance. Retrieved from
http://www.simnet.org/resource/group/066D79D1-E2A8-4AB5-B621-
60E58640FF7B/leadership_workshop_2010/towers_perrin_global_workfor.pdf
Towers Perrin. (n.d.) 2007-2008 Towers Perrin global workforce study, Retrieved from
http://www.towersperrin.com/tp/getwebcachedoc?webc=HRS/USA/2008/200802/G
WS_handout_web.pdf
Tuzzolino, F., & Armandi, B.R. (1981). A need-hierarchy framework for assessing
corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 6, 21–28.
86
The United Nations Global Compact (UNGC). (n.d.). The ten principles. Retrieved from
http://www.unglobalcompact.org/AboutTheGC/TheTenPrinciples/index.html
World Economic Forum (2003), Responding to the leadership challenge: Findings of a
CEO survey on global corporate citizenship, Retrieved from
https://members.weforum.org/pdf/GCCI/Findings_of_CEO_survey_on_GCCI.pdf
87
Appendix A
Employee Survey – The Effects of Employee Engagement on CSR
88
Note: There are two question 4s because “skip logic” was used — based on the answers of question 3 — to understand
the ideas from different groups of participants.
89
Appendix B
100 Best Companies to Work For and Their CSR Performance Rating
Rank Company Name CSR report CSR Rating
1 SAS Yes 8
2 Boston Consulting Group No 3
3 Wegmans Food Markets No 4
4 Google N/A N/A
5 NetApp No 3
6 Zappos.com No 0
7 Camden Property Trust No 0
8 Nugget Market No 4
9 Recreational Equipment No 7
10 DreamWorks Animation SKG No 0
11 Edward Jones No 0
12 Scottrade No 0
13 Alston & Bird No 2
14 Robert W. Baird & Co. No 2
15 Mercedes-Benz USA No 0
16 JM Family Enterprises No 6
17 USAA No 2
18 Stew Leonard's No 1
19 Methodist Hospital System No 3
20 Cisco Yes 9
21 Container Store No 0
22 DPR Construction No 0
23 Goldman Sachs Group Yes 8
24 Whole Foods Market No 8
25 Umpqua Bank No 0
26 Plante & Moran No 0
27 CHG Healthcare Services No 0
28 Bingham McCutchen No 1
29 Quicken Loans No 0
30 NuStar Energy No 2
31 W. L. Gore & Associates No 0
32 Chesapeake Energy No 6
33 Qualcomm Yes 10
34 QuikTrip No 3
35 Genentech Yes 5
36 Southern Ohio Medical Center Yes 3
37 Scripps Health Yes 7
90
Rank Company Name CSR report CSR Rating
38 PCL Construction Enterprises No 0
39 American Fidelity Assurance No 0
40 Balfour Beatty Construction No 4
41 Devon Energy Yes 8
42 Baptist Health South Florida No 1
43 Shared Technologies No 3
44 Intuit No 7
45 TDIndustries No 2
46 Johnson Financial Group No 0
47 Novo Nordisk Yes 10
48 Build-A-Bear Workshop No 4
49 American Express Yes 7
50 Baker Donelson No 0
51 Intel Yes 10
52 Salesforce.com No 1
53 Four Seasons Hotels No 1
54 Atlantic Health Yes 3
55 Perkins Coie No 3
56
Millennium: The Takeda Oncology
Company
No 2
57 Aflac No 2
58 General Mills Yes 9
59 Hasbro No 4
60 Children's Healthcare of Atlanta No 0
61 Mayo Clinic Yes 3
62 OhioHealth No 3
63 Deloitte Yes 6
64 FactSet Research Systems No 1
65 Adobe Systems Yes 10
66 EOG Resources Yes 6
67 Publix Super Markets Yes 5
68 Stryker Yes 4
69 Mattel Yes 3
70 S.C. Johnson & Son No 8
71 Marriott International Yes 4
72 Microsoft Yes 10
73 PricewaterhouseCoopers Yes 4
74 Nordstrom No 0
75 Arkansas Children's Hospital No 3
76 Gilbane No 0
77 Ernst & Young No 6
78 SRC/SRCTec No 0
91
Rank Company Name CSR report CSR Rating
79 National Instruments No 3
80 St. Jude Children's Research Hospital No 0
81 CarMax No 0
82 Teach For America No 0
83 Kimpton Hotels & Restaurants No 0
84 Bright Horizons Family Solutions No 0
85 Booz Allen Hamilton No 4
86 KPMG No 3
87 7 Men's Wearhouse No 0
88 Meridian Health No 1
89 Brocade Communications Systems No 5
90 CH2M Hill Yes 6
91 The Everett Clinic No 1
92 Rackspace Hosting No 0
93 J. M. Smucker No 1
94 Aéropostale No 0
95 Morningstar No 0
96 MITRE No 6
97 Darden Restaurants No 5
98 Starbucks Yes 10
99 Accenture Yes 8
100 W. W. Grainger No 3
Abstract (if available)
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.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Social innovation: Crowdsourcing and the new face of corporate social responsibility
PDF
The implementation of corporate social responsibility initiatives as a strategy for post-crisis rebuilding and renewal
PDF
An inconvenient truth about the public relations industry and greenwashing
PDF
Not being bad is not good enough: why companies need to be proactively doing good through CSR initiatives
PDF
Multinational corporations and corporate social responsibility: how history, non-governmental organizations and international groups are changing business
PDF
Strategic ethics: a new theoretical paradigm and measurement rubric for corporate responsibility projects
PDF
The gamification of corporate responsibility
PDF
Being a good sport: effectively implementing corporate social responsibility in North American professional sports
PDF
A call for a new code of responsibility: the value of establishing a CSR reporting standard
PDF
Public engagement, media relations and the future of the PR industry
PDF
As the CEO goes, so goes the corporate culture: The evolving relationship between the chief executive officer and the public relations professional
PDF
Case study on Chinese heavy industry companies' community relations in U.S.: a comparison between corporate effort and media representation
PDF
The civic responsibility of professional sports teams: Exploring the role of a team in its community
PDF
For the love of the game and community: evaluating professional athletes' charitable giving
PDF
Babies without borders: exploring perceptions of international adoption
PDF
The evolution of the internal communications practice and its importance to the survival of organizations
PDF
The role of international PR firms in the use of CSR to achieve harmonious society in mainland China and Hong Kong
PDF
Addressing employee retention in the technology industry: improving access to corporate social responsibility programs
PDF
Effective Messaging in the LASIK Industry
PDF
The evolution of sustainability: a public relations and business argument
Asset Metadata
Creator
Ma, Hongyue
(author)
Core Title
The effects of corporate social responsibility one employee engagement
School
Annenberg School for Communication
Degree
Master of Arts
Degree Program
Strategic Public Relations
Publication Date
05/03/2011
Defense Date
04/01/2011
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
corporate social responsibility (CSR),drivers of employee engagement,effects of CSR on employee engagement,employee engagement,OAI-PMH Harvest,relationship between CSR and employee engagement
Place Name
Germany
(countries),
USA
(countries)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Thorson, Kjerstin (
committee chair
), Floto, Jennifer (
committee member
), Little, Sharoni (
committee member
)
Creator Email
hongyuem@gmail.com,hongyuem@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m3879
Unique identifier
UC1184613
Identifier
etd-Ma-4564 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-469900 (legacy record id),usctheses-m3879 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-Ma-4564.pdf
Dmrecord
469900
Document Type
Thesis
Rights
Ma, Hongyue
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Repository Name
Libraries, University of Southern California
Repository Location
Los Angeles, California
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
corporate social responsibility (CSR)
drivers of employee engagement
effects of CSR on employee engagement
employee engagement
relationship between CSR and employee engagement