Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-gq7q9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-18T13:27:18.822Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Making Corporate Social Responsibility Work: Recommendations for Utilizing the Power of a Shared Purpose

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 January 2015

Eileen Linnabery ,
Dominic Cottone  and
Karen West
Eileen Linnabery*
Affiliation:
YSC
Dominic Cottone
Affiliation:
YSC
Karen West
Affiliation:
YSC
*
E-mail: Eileen.linnabery@ysc.com, Address: YSC, 29S LaSalle Suite 720, Chicago, IL 60614
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Aguinis and Glavas (2013) provide a framework for understanding corporate social responsibility (CSR) programs and their outcomes. They suggest that embedding CSR within the strategy and everyday practices of an organization will help employees find meaning and purpose in their work. However, successfully implementing a large-scale organizational change—such as embedding CSR in all aspects of strategy and day-to-day business practices—brings many challenges. For example, in order for organizational change initiatives to succeed, organizational members must buy into the change, those at the top must drive the change, organizational members must be held accountable for implementing the change, and rewards should be tied to the behaviors that align with the change (Austin & Bartunek, 2003). In this article, we will expand upon Aguinis and Glavas to provide recommendations of how to uncover a shared purpose to inform CSR initiatives. Herein we provide recommendations for how to increase the likelihood of success when embedding CSR by first achieving the necessary understanding of what drives the organizational members' purpose and meaning before implementing the change.

Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 6 , Issue 4 , December 2013 , pp. 377 - 379
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aguinis, H., & Glavas, A. (2013). Embedded versus peripheral corporate social responsibility: Psychological foundations. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 6(4), 314–332.Google Scholar
Austin, J., & Bartunek, J. (2003). Theories and practices of organization development. In Borman, W., Ilgen, D., & Klimoski, R. (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 309–332). New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
Bains, G., Bains, K., Anciano, D., Andersen, J., Bains, R., Encombe, J.,… Rowe, K. (2007). Meaning, Inc. London: Profile Books.Google Scholar
Bushe, G. R., & Marshak, R. J. (2009). Revisioning OD: Diagnostic and dialogic premises and patterns of practice. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 45, 348–368.Google Scholar
Herold, D. M., Fedor, D. B., & Caldwell, S. D. (2007). Beyond change management: A multilevel investigation of contextual and personal influences on employees' commitment to change. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 942–951.Google Scholar
Rodgers, R., Hunter, J. E., & Rogers, D. L. (1993). Influence of top management commitment on management program success. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 151–155.Google Scholar
Schein, E. H. (1993). On dialogue, culture, and organizational learning. Organizational Dynamics, 22, 40–51.Google Scholar
Schneider, B., Brief, A. P., & Guzzo, R. A. (1996). Creating a climate and culture for sustainable organizational change. Organizational Dynamics, 24, 7–19.Google Scholar