Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-ph5wq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-29T05:00:11.077Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

When and Why Does Corporate Social Responsibility Work? Exploring Insights From Psychological Theories and Perspectives

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 January 2015

Annika Hillebrandt*
Affiliation:
Wilfrid Laurier University
*
E-mail: hill3230@mylaurier.ca, Address: School of Business and Economics, Wilfrid Laurier University, 75 University Avenue West, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2L 3C5

Abstract

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Commentaries
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

Aguilera, R., Rupp, D., Williams, C., & Ganapathi, J. (2007). Putting the S back in corporate social responsibility: A multilevel theory of social change in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32, 836863.Google Scholar
Aguinis, H., & Glavas, A. (2013). Embedded versus peripheral corporate social responsibility: Psychological foundations. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 6(4), 314332.Google Scholar
Breaugh, J. A. (1992). Recruitment: Science and practice. Boston, MA: PWS-Kent.Google Scholar
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
Higgins, E. T., & Bargh, J. A. (1987). Social cognition and social perception. Annual Review of Psychology, 38, 369425.Google Scholar
Jones, D. A., & Skarlicki, D. P. (2005). The effects of overhearing peers discuss an authority's fairness reputation on reactions to subsequent treatment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 363372.Google Scholar
Kelley, H. H. (1967). Attribution theory in social psychology. In Levine, D. (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (Vol. 15, pp. 192240). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
Lind, E. A. (2001). Fairness heuristic theory: Justice judgments as pivotal cognitions in organizational relations. In Greenberg, J., & Cropanzano, R. (Eds.), Advances in organizational justice (pp. 5688). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lind, E. A., Kray, L., & Thompson, L. (2001). Primacy effects in justice judgments: Testing predictions for fairness heuristic theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 85, 189210.Google Scholar
Lind, E. A., & Van den Bos, K. (2002). When fairness works: Toward a general theory of uncertainty management. In Staw, B. M., & Kramer, R. M. (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 24, pp. 181122). Boston, MA: JAI Press.Google Scholar
Maignan, I., & Ralston, D. A. (2002). Corporate social responsibility in Europe and the U.S.: Insights from businesses self-presentations. Journal of International Business Studies, 33, 497514.Google Scholar
Rupp, D. E. (2011). An employee-centered model of organizational justice and social responsibility. Organizational Psychology Review, 1, 7294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rupp, D. E., Ganapathi, J., Aguilera, R. V., & Williams, C. A. (2006). Employee reactions to corporate social responsibility: An organizational justice framework. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 537543.Google Scholar
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 11241131.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van den Bos, K., & Lind, E. A. (2002). Uncertainty management by means of fairness judgments. In Zanna, M. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 34, pp. 160). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Van den Bos, K., Lind, E. A., Vermunt, R., & Wilke, H. A. M. (1997). How do I judge my outcome when I do not know the outcome of others? The psychology of the fair process effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 10341046.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van den Bos, K., Vermunt, R., & Wilke, H. A. M. (1997). Procedural and distributive justice: What is fair depends more on what comes first than on what comes next. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 95104.Google Scholar