WHY AND WHEN PERCEIVED CSR AFFECTS ETHICAL BEHAVIOUR

ETHICAL EMPLOYEES:

WHY AND WHEN PERCEIVED CSR AFFECTS ETHICAL BEHAVIOUR

Master Thesis, MSc, Human Resource Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business

June 2019

Milan Dario Sebastiaan Sprenger de Rover S2396726

m.d.s.sprenger.de.rover@student.rug.nl

Supervisor: Dr Laetitia B. Mulder

My sincere thanks go to Dr Laetitia Mulder. Throughout the process she showed the patience, dedication, and genuine interest of a rock star supervisor. Her support made the experience infinitely less stressful and more educational.

I am also grateful to Bianca Wezenberg, HR manager at Enexis, who took a considerable risk by trusting a student she had met only twice with the time of some 200 of her

colleagues, not to mention the great lengths she went to herself to ensure our data would be

collected in time.

Abstract …….……….……….……... 1

Introduction …….……….……... 2

Theoretical Contribution ………...………. 3

Practical Contribution ………...………... 4

Theory ………….

………...………. 5

Method …….………

…...………...……….… 9

Participants and Design ………...……… 9

Procedure ……….… 10

Manipulation and Measures ………

………... 10

Results …….……...…..………

……… 14

Assumptions …..……….… 14

Preliminary Analysis ………..… 14

Main Analysis ………

……….….. 16

Exploratory Analyses …………

……… 20

Discussion ………….…

………..……… 22

References ………...………... 27

Appendix – Survey in Full ……...………...………….…… 33

List of Tables Table 1 ………... 15

Table 2 ………..………. 16

Table 3 ………..………. 18

Table 4 ………..………. 19

Table 5 ………..………. 21

Ethical Employees: Why and When Perceived CSR affects Ethical Behaviour

Abstract

As corporate social responsibility considerations take an increasingly central role in the operation of large businesses, scholars have been facilitating corporate decision-making by investigating the types of returns that companies can expect on their investment in CSR. Although a number of recent publications have examined the effects of CSR specifically on employees, we know little about the impact that employees’ perceptions of their company’s CSR can have on their

willingness to behave ethically, and still less about potential mediators and moderators of this relationship. This study hypothesises that perceived CSR has a positive effect on willingness to behave ethically, and that this effect is mediated by perceived meaningfulness of work. It also tests the hypothesis that empathy and universalism moderate the effect of perceived CSR on meaningfulness of work. In contrast to existing correlative scholarship on this topic, the present study tests these claims using a manipulation. At the start of our survey, the CSR efforts of the participating company were made salient to only half of respondents, to enable examination of the effects of CSR salience on all other variables. Contrary to expectation, findings indicate a negative effect of CSR salience on willingness to behave ethically. This might be explained by a vicarious licensing mechanism. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

Keywords: perceived CSR, ethical behaviour, meaningfulness of work, empathy, universalism

Introduction

Over the past few years, the advent of the so-called ‘purpose economy’ has been a much-

discussed topic (see e.g. Hurst, 2018 for an overview). The term is used to indicate the trend that consumers increasingly put pressure on corporations to produce their goods and services in ethically sound ways (e.g. respecting the labour rights of workers in Bangladeshi clothing factories), while at the same time employees are increasingly concerned about the societal purpose of the companies they work for, and of the work they do. In particular, the millennial generation as a whole is often characterised as caring to an unprecedented extent about the ethical value of work and consumptive choices (e.g. Smith & Aaker, 2013; Lou, 2017). In order to appeal to the next generation of employees, human resources professionals have been quick to recognise the importance of improving and leveraging their companies’ positive societal impact (Downing, 2006). Such efforts to consider and improve a company’s impact on the world at large are often referred to as ‘corporate social responsibility’ (CSR), which constitutes another core element of the purpose economy and its incumbent trends.

Notwithstanding the ubiquity of these trends, relatively little is known about the actual effects that perceived CSR may have on employees’ motivation and compliance with their company’s ethical standards. Moreover, there is limited scholarly understanding of the particular characteristics of employees that may influence these primary relationships. In order to address these deficits in our understanding of the relevance of CSR for HR, my research is designed to find a preliminary answer to following research question: Does a positive perception of a company’s CSR lead to increased willingness to behave ethically among employees, and if so, how can we explain this relationship, and for which kinds of employees is it strongest? My research explores the increased meaningfulness of work as the main potential explanation of this relationship, and it examines empathy and universalism as the most likely employee

characteristics that influence this relationship.

Theoretical Contribution

The last decade has witnessed the publication of a small number of studies dedicated to the effects of companies’ CSR efforts on employees. We know that there are strong correlations between perceived CSR and employee motivation, creativity, performance and attachment to firm (e.g. Hur, Moon, & Ko, 2018; Shen & Benson, 2016). Although we have a reasonable grasp of the various positive effects CSR can have, the first contribution of the present study is that it examines the effect of perceived CSR on employees’ willingness to behave ethically. Beyond a single exploratory study which linked perceived CSR specifically to employees’ pro-

environmental behaviour (Tian & Robertson, 2017), this effect has not yet been investigated. It is worth doing so, because CSR is rapidly becoming more influential in managerial decision-

making (Rao & Tilt, 2016), so studying the different effects of CSR on organisations is key to understanding how CSR-related considerations could (and potentially should) factor into the decision-making processes of modern corporations. An important contribution of the present study in this respect is that it uses an experimental research design. This will allow us to claim greater certainty regarding any observed effects of CSR than we are able to on the basis of the abovementioned existing studies, since those all used correlational methods.

Secondly, investigating meaningfulness of work as a mediator of the relationship between perceived CSR and employees’ willingness to behave ethically means that this study will also expand our understanding of the reasons why perceived CSR has the effects on employees that it does. Though some existing scholarship has explored meaningfulness of work as a potential effect of perceived CSR (e.g. Mirvis, 2012), no studies to date have investigated its role as a mediator of the effects of perceived CSR on other outcomes.

Lastly, examining empathy and universalism as potential moderators of the relationship

between perceived CSR and meaningfulness of work will improve our grasp of the particular

employee characteristics that influence the effects of CSR. In terms of our understanding of these

traits themselves, we already know that higher scores on empathy and universalism are associated with a tendency to behave ethically (e.g. Trevino, Den Nieuwenboer, & Kish-Gephart, 2014;

Brown, Sautter, Littvay, Sautter, & Bearnes, 2010; Mencl & My, 2009), but not how these traits interact with perceived CSR and meaningfulness of work. Moreover, since these traits are not usually studied in combination with contextual variables, the present study will help us chart their influence on concrete behavioural outcomes in a practical context.

Practical Contribution

My research will help answer two practical questions that HR professionals and strategic

executives are faced with today. The first of these concerns the extent to which investing in CSR is beneficial to a company. This has been a hotly debated topic among business leaders and scholars alike, because CSR efforts can prove highly expensive while the returns on these

investments are often not immediate and can be hard to measure (e.g. Sprinkle & Maines, 2010).

Improving our knowledge of the concrete positive effects of CSR on employee behaviour will enable managers to make more informed decisions about the value that investing in CSR could have for their company.

The second question my research will help practitioners answer is how companies can

best leverage their CSR efforts to actually achieve this expected ‘return on investment’. Is it

useful, for instance, for a company to (repeatedly) communicate its CSR efforts to its own

employees so that they will be more motivated? (Du, Bhattacharya, & Sen, 2010). My research

will help answer this and related questions, while at the same time exploring for which types of

employees the effects of CSR are strongest. Companies who know or expect that their workforce

contains many employees with these characteristics will know that investing in CSR will be

especially impactful to them, and vice versa.

Theory

Figure 1 - Conceptual Model

The above conceptual model is a visual representation of the expected relations between the core concepts I investigate in this study. Firstly, this model represents the expectation that employees’

perceptions of their company’s CSR is related to their willingness to behave ethically. In accordance with Arnaud (2006), ‘willingness to behave ethically’ will here be understood as an individual’s willingness to help their peers, to do what is right for society and humanity, and to refrain from putting their own interests before those of others. Arnaud’s definition was chosen because it represents a comprehensive, society- and empathy-related view of ethical behaviour, which differentiates it from other, more narrow definitions. These often define ethical behaviour exclusively according to its impact on a business, as in “fair and honest actions that enable (…) long-term relationships with customers” (Román & Munuera, 2005) or “values defined by the company, in line with what’s necessary for company success.” (Duh, Belak, Milfelner, 2010).

On an intuitive level, it seems reasonable to assume that employees who think their

company is highly ethical are more likely to behave ethically themselves. Scholars have found

strong correlations between perceived CSR and behaviours that are closely related to – or even

part of – ethical behaviour, like compassion at work and intrinsic motivation (Hur, Moon, & Ko,

2018). What is more, a recent study discovered that higher perceived CSR had a positive effect

on extra-role helping behaviour (Shen & Benson, 2016). Like compassion at work and intrinsic

motivation, extra-role helping is thus another behaviour type related to ethical behaviour which has been shown to be correlated with CSR perceptions. Further, Tian and Robertson (2017) examine perceived CSR as an antecedent of “employees’ pro-environmental behaviour.” The article reports that perceived CSR predicted pro-environmental behaviour among employees, and that this relation was explained in part by organisational identification. In sum, then, the findings of these three existing studies taken together appear to suggest the existence of a positive

correlation between perceived CSR and employees’ willingness to behave ethically.

As touched on above, previous research has suggested organisational identification as a possible explanation of the positive influence of perceived CSR on employees’ willingness to behave ethically. While I use organisational identification as a control variable, I examine meaningfulness of work as my main explanation (as represented by the conceptual model), for reasons detailed shortly. Meaningfulness of work will be understood as the extent to which employees feel that the company they work for, and the work they do themselves, has a societal purpose beyond simply generating profit (Bunderson & Thompson, 2009).

There are two psychological arguments to be made for the idea that meaningfulness might mediate the relation between perceived CSR and ethical behaviour. Firstly, since job

meaningfulness depends so strongly on employees’ sense of “making a difference in the world”

(Bunderson & Thompson), having a higher perception of the efforts of one’s company to

contribute to society (perceived CSR) is bound to have a positive effect on the meaningfulness of one’s job. Further, based on the way we have defined meaningfulness of work, when we say that employees have a high sense of the meaningfulness of their work, this implies that they identify themselves as people who make a valuable contribution to the welfare of others and society. This active identification with ethical goals in turn makes it likely that employees will want to behave in accordance with their self-image of being a meaningful contributor to society. Existing

research on the effects of (moral) identity and behaviour corroborates this. Two studies conducted

by Reynolds and Ceranic (2007) showed that “those who viewed themselves as moral individuals pursued the most extreme alternatives (e.g. never cheating …) – a finding that affirms the

motivational power of a moral identity.” Moreover, a 2011 paper based on a laboratory as well as a field experiment suggests that initial prosocial behaviour functions as a signal of a prosocial identity, which in turn predicts that the individual will continue to behave in line with this prosocial self-image (Gneezy, Imas, Nelson, Brown, & Norton).

Secondly, an equally compelling line of reasoning would suggest that employees who perceive their work as meaningful are likely to behave more ethically out of a sense of reciprocity. Employees who are thankful to their company for providing them with a sense of meaning and purpose are arguably more prone to behave in ways that accord with their company’s ethical standards, even if it is not in their own direct interest. This argument is supported by research into reciprocation behaviour, which has found that employees who

reported high identification with their company and high perceived organisational support tended to reciprocate by performing at a level beyond what was expected of them (Hekman, Bigley, Steensma, & Hereford, 2009). We also know that meaningfulness of work increases

organisational citizenship behaviour among employees (Michaelson, Pratt, Grant, & Dunn, 2014;

Demirtas, Hannah, Gok, Arslan, & Capar, 2017), and that it is positively related to job

engagement and to employees’ commitment to the goals of their organisation, including goals related to ethical conduct (Jung & Yoon, 2016; Scroggins, 2008).

Based on these psychological arguments and the existing scholarship on the antecedents and effects of meaningful work, I hypothesise that employees are more willing to behave

ethically due to their higher perception of their company’s CSR efforts because of their increased perception of the meaningfulness of their work.

The third main assumption represented by the conceptual model above maintains that the

relation between perceived CSR and meaningfulness of work is stronger when an employee’s

empathy and universalism are high. Here, empathy will be taken to mean a person’s “emotional involvement in the fortunes and misfortunes of others” (Davis). Universalism is understood in accordance with Schwartz (1992), as “understanding, appreciation, tolerance, [and] protection for the welfare of all people and for nature.” The common denominator of universalism and empathy is that people who score high on these traits attach greater importance to the well-being of others (Schwartz). For such people, their perceived meaningfulness of their work is therefore also likely to be determined to a greater degree by the impact their work has on the well-being of others.

Consequently, it is reasonable to assume that the effect of an increased perception of CSR on employees’ perception of the meaningfulness of their work is likely to be stronger for employees with high empathy and universalism.

This reasoning is supported by existing research on empathy and universalism. It has been found that the effect of perceived CSR on loyalty and affective commitment is stronger when employees’ empathy is high (Markovic, Iglesias, Singh, & Sierra, 2018). Further, the study by Tian and Robertson (2017) cited above also showed that the positive effect of perceived CSR and employee pro-environmental behaviour was moderated by employees’ scores on empathy.

Similarly, the positive relationship between perceived organisational justice (conceptually akin to perceived CSR) was found to be stronger for people whose personal values were oriented towards the well-being of others (Lipponen, Olkkonen, Myyry, 2004). It appears, then, that both empathy and universalism have on numerous occasions been shown to moderate the positive effects of perceived CSR in a way that is analogous to the expected interaction I argued for in the preceding paragraph.

The arguments and scholarship addressed above enable me to formulate the main

hypotheses I will investigate. It is important to note that ‘perceived CSR’ is formulated as ‘CSR salience’, in deference to the fact that the data for this variable were gathered using an

experimental design that manipulated the (short-term) salience of the company’s CSR efforts.

Hypothesis 1: There is a positive relation between CSR salience and employees’ willingness to behave ethically.

Hypothesis 2: The positive relation between CSR salience and employees’ willingness to behave ethically is mediated by employees’ perceptions of the meaningfulness of their work.

Hypothesis 3: Empathy and Universalism interact with CSR salience such that the positive relationship between CSR salience and meaningfulness of work is stronger when empathy and universalism are high than when empathy and universalism are low.

Lastly, this study will also test the following moderated mediation:

Hypothesis 4: There is a positive influence of CSR salience on ethical behaviour that is

mediated by meaningfulness of work, and this mediation effect is stronger when empathy and universalism are high than when they are low.

As a final note, besides the main mediator, three potential alternative explanations will be explored, alongside three exploratory dependent variables. The three explorative mediators are exemplary leadership, employees’ trust in their organisation, and organisational identification.

The explorative DVs will be job engagement, staying intentions, and work stress.

Method Participants and Design

The study was conducted at Enexis, a Dutch utility firm of around 4300 employees which provides the physical electricity networks for different regions of the Netherlands.

178 participants started the survey, 20 of whom failed to finish all questions, leaving a total

sample of 158 (M age = 44.7, SD = 12.1, 24.3% female). This number still exceeded the necessary

sample size I had estimated beforehand.1 Of the participants, 28% indicated they had some management responsibilities (managing one colleague or more). About one quarter of participants works at the national headquarters, about 50% at local offices, while the final quarter works outside ‘in the field’ performing physical work. The study was set up as a survey with a

manipulation, in which participants were randomly assigned to one of the two conditions (CSR salience: high or low).

Procedure

After participants gave informed consent, demographic questions were asked (age, gender, tenure, leadership). After this the manipulation took place. Next, the willingness to behave ethically was measured, followed by job engagement, staying intentions, work stress, meaningfulness of job, exemplary leadership, trust, organisational identification, the manipulation check, and finally empathy and universalism.2

Manipulation and Measures Manipulation

In the CSR salience condition, respondents were presented with 9 statements containing positive information about the company’s CSR, and asked to indicate for each statement the extent to which they were previously aware of this information on a three-point scale (1= ‘I was

completely aware of this’, 2= ‘I’ve heard about this once or twice’, 3= ‘I had never heard of this before’). The statements, created in cooperation with the company’s senior HR partner, were as follows:

1 To establish this estimation I conducted a power analysis based on the effect sizes found in similar studies (Hur, Moon, & Ko, 2018; Lee, Park,

& Lee, 2012). The required sample size yielded by the analysis was 128.

2 These last two variables were measured this late because Enexis predicted that some of its employees (specifically technical staff) might be

taken aback by them if they were confronted with personality-based questions early on in the survey.

Did you know that…

1. Thanks to the innovations of Enexis in the field of heat networks and sustainable gas, some customers are already emitting 50% less CO2?

2. Together with market partners and government bodies, Enexis is investing in sustainable gas to ensure that the Netherlands will attain a leading position in creating a sustainable gas network?

3. Enexis provides over 2.8 million customers with reliable electricity?

4. Enexis perceives it to be its societal duty to contribute to the energy transition?

5. Enexis uses its data, knowledge, and experience to support municipalities in attaining the Dutch government’s climate goals?

6. Enexis contributes to the shift towards electric vehicles by advising municipalities on the optimal placement of charging stations?

7. Ensuring the safety of Enexis employees was set to be the highest priority in the Business Strategy for 2019?

8. Enexis also reduces its own CO2 emissions, for example through the placement of additional charging stations for the electric cars of employees, and by providing electric cars that employees can share?

9. Enexis is working on a pilot in which 13 zones in its service area will go completely gas- free?

In the CSR non-salience condition participants were not presented with anything related to the

company’s CSR, and they moved straight from the demographics to the measurement of the first

variable.

Measures

For each of the below measures, participants indicated the extent of their agreement with each statement on a five-point Likert scale (1 = fully disagree, 5 = fully agree).

Perceived CSR (the manipulation check) was measured using the twelve items proposed by Lee, Park and Lee (2012).4 Examples of items are “Our company helps solve social

problems” and “Our company plays a role in society that goes beyond the mere generation of profits.” (Alpha = .90.)

Empathy was measured using the seven items proposed by Davis (1983).5 Examples of items are “When I see someone being taken advantage of, I feel kind of protective toward them”

and “Other people's misfortunes do not usually disturb me a great deal.” (Alpha = .88.)

Universalism was measured using the six items proposed by Schwartz (1992). Examples of items on this measure are “I think it is important that every person in the world is treated equally” and “I strongly believe that people should care for nature.” (Alpha = .71.)

Meaningfulness of job was measured using the five items suggested by Bunderson and Thompson (2009). Examples of items are “The work that I do is important” and “What I do at work makes a difference in the world.” (Alpha = .87.)

Willingness to behave ethically was measured using a set of nine items adapted from Arnaud (2006). The statements are all the same, except for being reformulated to the first person singular (e.g. ‘people I work with would feel…’ was changed to ‘I would feel…’). Examples of items (after the reformulation) are “I would feel that I have to help a peer even if that person were not a very helpful person” and “I feel it is better to assume responsibility for a mistake.” (Alpha = .69.)

3 All measures can be found in full in the questionnaire in the appendix.

4 The benefit of this measure over comparable measures (e.g. Hur, Moon & Ko, 2018; Waldman, Sully, Washburn & House, 2006; Übius & Alas, 2009; Turker, 2009) is that it manages to cover a more comprehensive set of aspects of CSR in fewer items (philanthropic CSR, ethical CSR, and environmental CSR), as well as having a very high Cronbach’s alpha (.96).

5 A large number of other measures were considered (Baron-Cohen & Weelwright, 2004; Baldner & McGinley, 2014, Spreng et al., 2009; Lee,

2009; Bonino et al., 1998, Jolliffe & Farrington, 2006), but Davis’ measure was chosen for its brevity and consistent reliability.

Job engagement was one of the three exploratory dependent variables. It was measured using the nine items of the Utrecht Work Engagement Survey (Schaufeli, Bakker, & Salanova, 2006). Examples of items are “My job inspires me” and “When I get up in the morning, I feel like going to work.” (Alpha = .91.)

Staying intentions was one of the three exploratory dependent variables. It was measured using the three items created by Gellatly, Meyer and Luchak (2006). Examples of items are “If I have my way, I will be working for this organization one year from now” and “I rarely think of quitting my job.” (Alpha = .83.)

In compliance with the wishes of the company at which the survey was conducted, staying intentions were also measured using the measure they use for the same variable in their yearly employee survey. The measure can be found in full in the questionnaire in the appendix.

Work stress was one of the three exploratory dependent variables. It was measured using the six items proposed by Alves et al. (2004). Examples of items include “My work demands too much effort” and “My work often involves conflicting demands.” (Alpha = .71.)

In compliance with the wishes of the company at which the survey was conducted, work stress was also measured using the measure they use for the same variable in their yearly employee survey. The measure can be found in full in the questionnaire in the appendix.

Exemplary leadership was one of the three alternative mediators, based on the reasoning that CSR efforts set an example of ethical behaviour for employees to follow. There is no existing measure of employees’ perceptions of exemplary ethical leadership by their organisation as a whole. For this reason I devised a measure consisting of five items. Example items are: “My organisation sets an example of how I should behave” and “I feel inspired by the values carried out by my organisation.” (Alpha = .85.)

Trust was one of the three alternative mediators, based on the reasoning that the trust

instilled in employees by the company’s CSR efforts might make employees feel at ease to act

ethically even if it is not in the company’s direct interest. It was measured using the three items proposed by Meglino et al. (1988) as adapted by Schweiger and DeNisi (1991). Examples of items are “I believe I can trust the company I work for” and “The company I work for is honest in its dealings with employees.” (Alpha = .88.)

Organisational identification was one of the three alternative mediators, based on the reasoning that CSR efforts might increase employees’ identification with the company, which in turn increase their resolve to behave in accordance with its ethical goals. It was measured using a shortened, nine-item version (Tan & Lau, 2012) of a canonical measure introduced by Mowday, Steers and Porter (1979). Examples of items are “I find that my values and this organisation’s values are very similar” and “I really care about the fate of this organisation.” (Alpha = .86.)

Results Assumptions

I tested the normality of the errors of the dependent variable (ethical behaviour) and found that both the Kolmogorov-Smirnov and the Shapiro-Wilk tests were insignificant, so normality may be assumed. Secondly, to check for outliers I assumed the common definition (any data larger than Q3 + 1.5 times the interquartile range, or smaller than Q1 – 1.5 times the interquartile range), and found no outliers in the dataset for any of the variables.

Preliminary Analysis

Table 1 below provides descriptive statistics and intercorrelations for all study variables.

Table 1 – Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations

6 For Manipulation, 0 = CSR not salient, 1 = CSR salient.

7 For gender, 0 = male, 1 = female.

Variables M

SD 1.

Manip.

2.

Perc.CSR 3.

EB 4.

Meaning 5.

Emp.

6.

Univ.

7.

Age 8.

Gender 9.

Tenure 10.

Leader.

11.

Trust 12.

OI

13.

EL

14.

WE

15.

SI 1. Manipulation/CSR

salience ⁶

.49 .50 1

2. Perceived CSR 3.67 .59 -.01 1

3. Ethical behaviour 4.20 .54 -.16

.23

1 4. Meaningfulness of

work

3.67 .75 -.02 .48

.25

1

5. Empathy 4.15 .62 -.07 .24

.22

.30

1

6. Universalism 3.46 .54 -.08 .05 .23

.06 .43

1

7. Age 44.65 11.97 -.05 -.16

-.10 .01 .05 .11 1

8. Gender7 1.74 .44 .04 -.17

-.15

-.01 -.17

-.25

.20

1

9. Tenure 14.66 13.34 .05 -.19

-.16

-.04 .11 .11 .70

.14

1

10. Leadership .28 .45 .04 .11 .08 .20

.01 -.13 -.19

-.05 -.17

1

11. Trust 3.57 .81 .06 .60

.26

.29

.03 .04 -.05 -.09 -.19

-.05 1 12. Organisational

identification

3.56 .62 .00 .67

.21

.54

.21

.11 .04 -.11 -.06 -.06 .61

1 13. Exemplary

leadership

3.65 .67 .01 .70

.11 .38

.11 .00 .01 -.09 -.01 -.01 .54

.59

1

14. Work engagement 3.84 .68 -.07 .40

.31

.49

.19

.05 -.01 -.10 -.11 -.02 .26

.59

.34

1

15. Staying intention 4.08 .86 -.08 .32

.07 .29

.05 -.03 .06 -.13 .02 .13 .31

.52

.36

.46

1 16. Work stress 3.44 .56 .03 .42

.27

.27

-.04 -.07 -.11 -.04 -.19

.01 .52

.47

.48

.40

.23

Notes. N = 158. +p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01.

To test whether the manipulation of CSR salience actually increased participants’

perceptions of their company’s CSR, an independent samples t-test was performed with the CSR salience manipulation as grouping variable and perceived CSR as test variable. This showed no significant effect of the manipulation on perceived CSR (t = -1.07, p = .89). On the other hand, the correlation between CSR salience and ethical behaviour (DV) is

marginally significant (R = -.16, p =.05).

The correlation between CSR salience and the main mediator (meaningfulness of work) is insignificant (R = -.02, p = .82), but the mediator’s correlation with perceived CSR is significant (R = .48, p < .001). Meaningfulness of work is also significantly correlated with the main DV, ethical behaviour (R = .25, p = .002). It therefore appears that meaningfulness of work may be found to mediate the relation between perceived CSR and ethical behaviour, but not the relation between CSR salience and Ethical behaviour.

Main Analysis

In order to test for an effect of CSR salience on ethical behaviour, a regression analysis was performed with IV CSR salience and DV ethical behaviour. Table 1 showed that gender and tenure correlate significantly with ethical behaviour, so they are used as covariates.

Table 2 depicts the results of this analysis.

Table 2 – Results of regression for DV ethical behaviour

Variables B (SE) t p

CSR salience -.08 ⁺ (.04) -1.85 .07

Gender -.07 ⁺ (.04) -1.58 .12

Tenure -.08 (.04) -1.74 .08

Notes. N = 158. +p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01. For CSR salience, 0 = CSR not salient, 1 =

CSR salient. For gender, 0 = male, 1 = female.

Hypothesis 1 proposed that there would be a positive relation between CSR salience and employees’ willingness to behave ethically.8 The regression analysis suggests a marginally significant negative relation between CSR salience and ethical behaviour, controlled for gender and tenure. This suggests that CSR salience decreased ethical behaviour, which is the opposite of what was predicted. It is worth noting that when the regression is performed using perceived CSR as IV instead of the manipulation (N = 158), we observe a significant relation (p = .02) with a positive sign (B = .10), with both covariates insignificant. However, this analysis only establishes correlation, not causation.

Hypothesis 2 posited that the positive relation between perceived CSR and employees’

willingness to behave ethically would be mediated by their impression of the meaningfulness of their work. The correlation table already showed that CSR salience does not correlate with meaningfulness of work, making a full analysis redundant. I therefore substitute the perceived CSR measure for the CSR salience manipulation as IV, in order to enable a correlational (i.e.

not causal) test of this hypothesis. To test the mediation proposed in hypothesis 2, a mediated regression analysis was performed with perceived CSR as IV, ethical behaviour as DV, meaningfulness of work as mediator variable, and controlling for gender and tenure. Table 3 presents the results of this test.

8 In spite of the insignificant correlation between the manipulation and the manipulation check in the correlation table, it is still relevant to

test hypothesis 1 using CSR salience as IV, because I discovered that when we use only the data of participants who completed the survey in

under 10 minutes, the correlation between the manipulation and the manipulation gains in significance (from p = .89 to p = .19). This

suggests that the manipulation did have some short-term effect, and since the main DV was measured directly after the manipulation, this

makes it relevant to test hypothesis 1 in its original form.

Table 3 – Results of mediated regression for DV Ethical behaviour Outcome variable: Meaningfulness of work

Variables B (SE) t p

Perceived CSR .50** (.07) 6.78 < .001

Gender .07 (.07) .97 .34

Tenure .04 (.07) .54 .59

Outcome variable: Ethical behaviour

Variables B (SE) t p

Perceived CSR .05 (.05) 1.07 .29

Meaningfulness of Work .10* (.05) 2.19 .03

Gender -.07 (.04) -1.64 .10

Tenure -.05 (.04) -1.21 .23

Indirect effect perceived CSR: B = .09, SE = .04; LLCI = .02, ULCI = .17.

Notes. N = 158. +p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01. For gender, 0 = male, 1 = female.

The first section of the table reports a significant correlation between perceived CSR and the

proposed mediator, meaningfulness of work (the A-path). Both controls are found to be

insignificant. The second section shows that the proposed mediator significantly predicts

ethical behaviour (the B-path). We also see that perceived CSR is no longer a significant

predictor of ethical behaviour after controlling for meaningfulness of work. Finally, the

confidence interval of the indirect effect (LLCI .0081, ULCI .1016) does not include 0. These

findings are consistent with the conclusion that meaningfulness of work fully mediates the

relation between perceived CSR and ethical behaviour, controlled for gender and tenure. The

R-squared of the mediated model tells us that approximately 11% of the variation in ethical

behaviour is accounted for by the predictors. Having higher perceived CSR is associated with

approximately 5% higher ethical behaviour scores, as mediated by meaningfulness of work.

Hypothesis 3 predicted that empathy and universalism would interact with CSR salience such that the positive relationship between CSR salience and meaningfulness of work would be stronger when empathy and universalism are high than when empathy and universalism are low. In order to test this hypothesis, a moderated regression was performed using standardised variables, with CSR salience as IV, meaningfulness of work as DV, empathy and

universalism as moderators, and controlling for gender and tenure. Table 4 presents the results of this analysis.

Table 4 – Results of moderated regression for DV meaningfulness of work.

Variables B (SE) t p

CSR salience .00 (.12) .01 .99

Empathy .25 (.09) 2.64 .01

CSR salience x empathy .04 (.13) .27 .79

Universalism -.02 (.10) -.18 .86

CSR salience x universalism -.07 (.13) -.55 .58

Gender .04 (.06) .59 .55

Tenure -.06 (.06) -.93 .35

Notes. N = 158. +p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01. For gender, 0 = male, 1 = female.

We find a significant effect of empathy on ethical behaviour. There was no interaction between CSR salience and empathy, nor between perceived CSR and universalism.

We conclude that the present dataset provides no evidence that the relation between perceived

9 Because empathy and universalism were found to correlate significantly, separate moderation analyses were conducted for each variable to ensure that they did not cancel out each other’s variation. Both interactions were found to be insignificant independently as well (empathy: B = -.00, p = .99; universalism: B = -.03, p = .81).

10 The same results are found when performing the analysis with perceived CSR as IV instead of CSR salience (interaction with empathy: B

= .02, p = .56; interaction with universalism: B = .02, p = .79).

CSR and ethical behaviour is moderated by either empathy or universalism. Both covariates are also found to be insignificant.

Finally, hypothesis 4 proposed that there would be a positive influence of CSR salience on ethical behaviour that would be mediated by PMP, and that this mediation effect would be stronger when empathy and universalism are high than when they are low. Since no

correlation was found between CSR salience and meaningfulness of work, and no moderation of the relation between perceived CSR and meaningfulness of work either, no further testing of this hypothesis is required to conclude that the present dataset offers no evidence in support of a moderated mediation.

Exploratory Analyses Main Effect Moderators

It also seems worthwhile investigating whether the proposed moderators might moderate the

relationship between CSR salience and ethical behaviour, instead of the relationship between

CSR salience and meaningfulness of work. To test this, a moderated regression analysis was

performed, with CSR salience as IV, ethical behaviour as DV, empathy and universalism as

moderators, and controlling for gender and tenure. Only empathy has a significant main effect

on ethical behaviour (B = .16, p = .01). There was no interaction between CSR salience and

universalism (B = .14, p = .12), while there was a marginally significant interaction between

CSR salience and empathy (B = -.17, p = .06). The conditional effects of CSR salience on

ethical behaviour for low, mean, and high values of empathy are reported in Table 5.

Table 5 – Conditional effects of CSR salience on ethical behaviour

Empathy B (SE) t p

1 SD below the mean -.01 (.11) -.07 .94

At the mean -.15 (.08) -1.77 .08

1 SD above the mean -.33 (.13) -2.54 .01

Notes. N = 158. +p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01.

We see that for people low in empathy, the CSR salience manipulation did not affect ethical behaviour. The sign and relative strength of the effect at 1 SD above the mean suggest that the higher people scored on empathy, the stronger the negative effect of CSR salience on ethical behaviour scores was.

Alternative Mediators

The correlation table showed that all three alternative mediators (exemplary leadership, trust, organisational identification) are not significantly correlated with CSR salience, but

significantly correlated with perceived CSR. Trust and organisational identification are also significantly correlated with ethical behaviour, while exemplary leadership is not. Therefore, to test trust and organisational identification as alternative mediators, a mediated regression analysis was performed using perceived CSR as IV, ethical behaviour as DV, and trust, organisational identification and meaningfulness of work as mediators, while controlling for age and tenure. There was no effect of organisational identification on ethical behaviour (B = .06, p = .27), so we conclude that the dataset provides no evidence for mediation by this variable.

There was a significant effect of perceived CSR on trust (B = .59, p < .001), and a

marginally significant effect of trust on ethical behaviour (B = .09, p = .09). Upon inclusion of

trust into the model, perceived CSR becomes an insignificant predictor of ethical behaviour.

The indirect effect of trust was marginally significant (90% LLCI .03, ULCI .12). These results suggest that the dataset appears to contain some preliminary evidence for Trust as a potential mediator of the relationship between perceived CSR and ethical behaviour. Lastly, it is worth noting that even when controlling for three other mediators, meaningfulness of work is still found to mediate the relation between perceived CSR and ethical behaviour. In this analysis, there was an effect of perceived CSR on meaningfulness of work (B = .63, p < .001), as well as an effect of meaningfulness of work on ethical behaviour (B = .07, p = .03), and the 95% confidence interval of the indirect effect did not include 0 (lower limit .01, upper limit .18).

Alternative dependent variables

The correlation table showed that none of the three alternative DVs (work engagement, staying intentions, work stress) was significantly correlated with CSR salience. However, each of these alternative DVs was significantly correlated with perceived CSR. They were therefore tested as DVs in a regression analysis with perceived CSR as IV, controlling for gender and tenure. Significant correlations with perceived CSR were found for each of the three alternative DVs (work engagement: B = .26, p < .001; staying intentions: B = .28, p <

.001; work stress: B = -.23, p < .001). The signs of the effects can be interpreted as suggesting that participants who scored higher on perceived CSR also tended to score higher on work engagement and staying intentions, and lower on work stress.

Discussion

I expected to find that higher CSR salience would positively impact employees’ willingness to

behave ethically, and that this effect would be due to increased perceptions of meaningfulness

of work (hypotheses 1 and 2). Contrary to these expectations, the present study found that people who are made acutely aware of the CSR of their company appear to be less willing to behave ethically, while no effect at all was found of CSR salience on meaningfulness of work.

Further, I expected that the effect of CSR salience on meaningfulness of work would be stronger for employees who scored high on empathy and universalism (hypothesis 3), but neither of these proposed influences was confirmed by the dataset. The same is true for the expectation that the explanatory power of meaningfulness of work would be stronger for employees high in empathy and universalism (hypothesis 4). On the other hand, however, sufficient evidence was found to conclude that salient CSR decreases employees’ willingness to behave ethically more strongly for people high in empathy.

In the context of our existing knowledge, these findings are noteworthy for several reasons. Firstly, they add to the existing literature in that they test a causal relation between CSR salience and a broad range of behaviours associated with ethical behaviour – where previous research has only made use of correlative methods, and only investigated a single aspect of ethical behaviour at a time, like compassion at work (Hur, Moon, & Ko, 2018), extra-role helping behaviour (Shen & Benson, 2016), and pro-environmental behaviour (Tian

& Robertson, 2017). Secondly, it is meaningful that the sign of the main is negative, while

existing literature has hitherto reported exclusively positive effects of Perceived CSR. If the

current study had only used a correlative method without a manipulation, the results would

have been perfectly aligned with those of previous research. This is because a significant

positive effect was found for perceived CSR on ethical behaviour, as well as a significant

mediation of this effect by meaningfulness of work. However, it is important not to dismiss

the results of the manipulation in the present study only because they contradict existing

studies, especially since the correlative nature of those studies makes them vulnerable to

misrepresentations to which a manipulation is immune. The negative main effect and

moderation found in this study emphasise the importance of caution when publishing information about CSR: certain methods of doing so might prove counterproductive. This finding opens up an important new critical dimension vis-à-vis the exclusively positive effects of perceived CSR reported until now.

How might we explain this counterintuitive finding? One potential explanation draws on existing literature on moral licensing. Kouchaki (2011) reviews five studies into a

phenomenon she terms “vicarious moral licensing,” and finds that individuals who are part of groups that signal virtuous behaviour are more likely to behave unethically themselves, probably because they feel that the morality of their group vindicates their own occasional immoral actions. This is exactly the context created by the manipulation, so this effect could help explain the negative effect of the manipulation on participant’s willingness to behave ethically. It also offers a plausible explanation for the unexpected negative effect of the moderator: more empathetic people might well be more susceptive to vicarious moral licensing, since the first step of vicarious moral licensing is to recognise and understand the moral actions of others.

Besides this potential explanation of the counterintuitive findings, it is also worth

considering the manipulation itself in this regard. Because the manipulation consisted of ‘Did

you know…?’-statements regarding the company’s CSR, designed to make participants

engage with the information rather than passively read it, we also have data on the extent to

which participants were already familiar with the information contained in the manipulation

statements. The mean score of the nine statements indicated that participants were already

very familiar with the information provided in the manipulation. It might therefore be argued

that participants may have been annoyed to be presented with information that they were

already intimately familiar with, and perhaps they even experienced the statements as an

attempt by the company to manipulate their perception of it – which of course it was. This

annoyance may in turn have contributed to their lower scores on the items of the subsequent variables, like willingness to behave ethically.

Future research

Future research should determine whether making CSR information salient can indeed be as harmful to employees’ ethical behaviour as this study suggests, or whether the negative effect found here was mostly due to the nature of this particular manipulation. Since it may have been a shortcoming of the manipulation that it repeated familiar information to participants, future manipulations may achieve different results by presenting participants with new information about their company’s CSR efforts. If the negative effect is still substantiated, however, we should next map the precise conditions under which providing information about a company’s CSR is likely to negatively influence ethical behaviour. We might investigate, for instance, how often information can be repeated before it starts to engender

counterproductive effects, and whether or not it helps if the company is transparent about its aims in publishing and repeating the information.

Next, in spite of the fact that no effect was found of CSR salience on meaningfulness of work, further investigation into the explanatory role of meaningfulness of work is justified because it was found to explain the effect of perceived CSR on ethical behaviour, even controlling for three other potential mediators, one of which was the established mediator organisational identification (Tian and Robertson, 2017). Trust should be a part of that analysis as well, since it was found to explain the effect of perceived CSR on ethical behaviour alongside meaningfulness of work.

Lastly, the effects found in the exploratory analysis of perceived CSR on staying

intentions, work stress, and work engagement means that these variables are good candidates

for further examination as effects of perceived CSR through a manipulation-based study.

Practical implications

The manipulation used in this study consisted of a quite explicit communication of the company’s CSR efforts. Since this communications was found to have no effect on most variables, and even a negative effect on employees’ willingness to behave ethically, then it seems unlikely that using similar communications will have strong positive effects elsewhere.

CSR managers should therefore recognise that simple repetition of familiar information regarding the company’s CSR efforts is unlikely to (positively) influence the behaviour or attitudes of their employees. It is too early to determine the cause of the negative impact of the manipulation in this study. If it was due to employees’ annoyance at being presented with information that they perceived as repetitive or even manipulative, managers should consider being more transparent about the motivations behind their communications. If it was less to do with this particular manipulation and more with an underlying psychological mechanism like vicarious licensing, then managers should emphasise the importance of individual

responsibility, and ensure each employee’s individual engagement with the company’s ethical

goals rather than taking a generalised approach. This could be achieved by prioritising face-

to-face contact with employees (e.g. through CSR-related workshops) over corporate-level

communications.

References

Akdoğan, A. A., Arslan, A., & Demirtaş, Ö. (2016). A strategic influence of corporate social responsibility on meaningful work and organizational identification, via perceptions of ethical leadership. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 235, 259-268.

Alves, M. G. D. M., Chor, D., Faerstein, E., Lopes, C. D. S., & Werneck, G. L. (2004). Short version of the" job stress scale": a Portuguese-language adaptation. Revista de Saúde Pública, 38(2), 164-171.

Arnaud, A. (2006). A new theory and measure of ethical work climate: The psychological process model (PPM) and the ethical climate index (ECI). ProQuest: Ann Arbor.

Baldner, C., & McGinley, J. J. (2014). Correlational and exploratory factor analyses (EFA) of commonly used empathy questionnaires: New insights. Motivation and Emotion, 38(5), 727-744.

Baron-Cohen, S., & Wheelwright, S. (2004). The empathy quotient: an investigation of adults with Asperger syndrome or high functioning autism, and normal sex differences.

Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 34(2), 163-175.

Bonino, S., Lo Coco, A., & Tani, F. (1998). Empatia. Processi di condivisione delle emozioni.

Giunti: Firenze.

Brown, T. A., Sautter, J. A., Littvay, L., Sautter, A. C., & Bearnes, B. (2010). Ethics and personality: Empathy and narcissism as moderators of ethical decision making in business students. Journal of Education for Business, 85(4), 203-208.

Bunderson, J. S., & Thompson, J. A. (2009). The call of the wild: Zookeepers, callings, and

the double-edged sword of deeply meaningful work. Administrative science quarterly,

54(1), 32-57.

Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a

multidimensional approach. Journal of personality and social psychology, 44(1), 113.

Demirtas, O., Hannah, S. T., Gok, K., Arslan, A., & Capar, N. (2017). The moderated influence of ethical leadership, via meaningful work, on followers’ engagement, organizational identification, and envy. Journal of Business Ethics, 145(1), 183-199.

Du, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2010). Maximizing business returns to corporate social responsibility (CSR): The role of CSR communication. International journal of management reviews, 12(1), 8-19.

Duh, M., Belak, J., & Milfelner, B. (2010). Core values, culture and ethical climate as

constitutional elements of ethical behaviour: Exploring differences between family and non-family enterprises. Journal of business ethics, 97(3), 473-489.

Downing, K. (2006). Next generation: What leaders need to know about the millennials.

Leadership in Action: A Publication of the Center for Creative Leadership, 26(3), 3-6.

Faragher, E. B., Cooper, C. L., & Cartwright, S. (2004). A shortened stress evaluation tool (ASSET). Stress and Health: Journal of the International Society for the Investigation of Stress, 20(4), 189-201.

Gellatly, I. R., Meyer, J. P., & Luchak, A. A. (2006). Combined effects of the three commitment components on focal and discretionary behaviors: A test of Meyer and Herscovitch’s propositions. Journal of vocational behavior, 69(2), 331-345.

Gneezy, A., Imas, A., Brown, A., Nelson, L. D., & Norton, M. I. (2012). Paying to be nice:

Consistency and costly prosocial behavior. Management Science, 58(1), 179-187.

Hekman, D. R., Bigley, G. A., Steensma, H. K., & Hereford, J. F. (2009). Combined effects

of organizational and professional identification on the reciprocity dynamic for

professional employees. Academy of management journal, 52(3), 506-526.

Hur, W. M., Moon, T. W., & Ko, S. H. (2018). How employees’ perceptions of CSR increase employee creativity: Mediating mechanisms of compassion at work and intrinsic motivation. Journal of Business Ethics, 1-16.

Hurst, A. (2016). The purpose economy, expanded and updated: how your desire for impact, personal growth and community is changing the world. Elevate Publishing.

Jolliffe, D., & Farrington, D. P. (2006). Development and validation of the Basic Empathy Scale. Journal of adolescence, 29(4), 589-611.

Jung, H. S., & Yoon, H. H. (2016). What does work meaning to hospitality employees? The effects of meaningful work on employees’ organizational commitment: The mediating role of job engagement. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 53, 59-68.

Kaptein, M. (2008). Developing and testing a measure for the ethical culture of organizations:

The corporate ethical virtues model. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The

International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 29(7), 923-947.

Kim, H. R., Lee, M., Lee, H. T., & Kim, N. M. (2010). Corporate social responsibility and employee–company identification. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(4), 557-569.

Kouchaki, M. (2011). Vicarious moral licensing: The influence of others' past moral actions on moral behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(4), 702-715.

Lee, S. A. (2009). Measuring individual differences in trait sympathy: Instrument construction and validation. Journal of Personality Assessment, 91(6), 568-583.

Lee, Y. K., Kim, Y., Lee, K. H., & Li, D. X. (2012). The impact of CSR on relationship quality and relationship outcomes: A perspective of service employees. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31(3), 745-756.

Lee, E. M., Park, S. Y., & Lee, H. J. (2012). Employee perception of CSR activities: Its

antecedents and consequences. Journal of business research, 66(10), 1716-1724.

Lipponen, J., Olkkonen, M. E., & Myyry, L. (2004). Personal value orientation as a moderator in the relationships between perceived organizational justice and its hypothesized consequences. Social Justice Research, 17(3), 275-292.

Lou, E. (2017). Why millennials want more than just work: the importance of your ‘double bottom line’. Forbes online. June 9.

Markovic, S., Iglesias, O., Singh, J. J., & Sierra, V. (2018). How does the perceived ethicality of corporate services brands influence loyalty and positive word-of-mouth? Analyzing the roles of empathy, affective commitment, and perceived quality. Journal of

Business Ethics, 148(4), 721-740.

Meglino, B. M., DeNisi, A. S., Youngblood, S. A., & Williams, K. J. (1988). Effects of realistic job previews: A comparison using an enhancement and a reduction preview.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(2), 259.

Mencl, J., & May, D. R. (2009). The effects of proximity and empathy on ethical decision- making: An exploratory investigation. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(2), 201-226.

Michaelson, C., Pratt, M. G., Grant, A. M., & Dunn, C. P. (2014). Meaningful work:

Connecting business ethics and organization studies. Journal of Business Ethics, 121(1), 77-90.

Mirvis, P. (2012). Employee engagement and CSR: Transactional, relational, and developmental approaches. California Management Review, 54(4), 93-117.

Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of vocational behavior, 14(2), 224-247.

Rao, K., & Tilt, C. (2016). Board composition and corporate social responsibility: The role of

diversity, gender, strategy and decision making. Journal of Business Ethics, 138(2),

327-347.

Reynolds, S. J., & Ceranic, T. L. (2007). The effects of moral judgment and moral identity on moral behavior: an empirical examination of the moral individual. Journal of applied psychology, 92(6), 1610.

Román, S., & Luis Munuera, J. (2005). Determinants and consequences of ethical behaviour:

an empirical study of salespeople. European Journal of Marketing, 39(5/6), 473-495.

Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and psychological measurement, 66(4), 701-716.

Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1-65). Academic Press.

Schweiger, D. M., & Denisi, A. S. (1991). Communication with employees following a merger: A longitudinal field experiment. Academy of management journal, 34(1), 110- 135.

Scroggins, W. A. (2008). Antecedents and outcomes of experienced meaningful work: A person-job fit perspective. The Journal of Business Inquiry, 7(1), 68-78.

Shen, J., & Benson, J. (2016). When CSR is a social norm: How socially responsible human resource management affects employee work behavior. Journal of Management, 42(6), 1723-1746.

Smith, E. E., & Aaker, J. L. (2013). Millennial searchers. New York Times, November 30.

Spreng, R. N., McKinnon, M. C., Mar, R. A., & Levine, B. (2009). The Toronto Empathy Questionnaire: Scale development and initial validation of a factor-analytic solution to multiple empathy measures. Journal of personality assessment, 91(1), 62-71.

Sprinkle, G. B., & Maines, L. A. (2010). The benefits and costs of corporate social

responsibility. Business Horizons, 53(5), 445-453.

Tan, S. L., & Lau, C. M. (2012). The impact of performance measures on employee fairness perceptions, job satisfaction and organisational commitment. Journal of Applied Management Accounting Research, 10(2), 57.

Tian, Q., & Robertson, J. L. (2017). How and when does perceived CSR affect employees’

engagement in voluntary pro-environmental behavior?. Journal of Business Ethics, 1- 14.

Treviño, L. K., Den Nieuwenboer, N. A., & Kish-Gephart, J. J. (2014). (Un)ethical behavior in organizations. Annual review of psychology, 65, 635-660.

Übius, Ü., & Alas, R. (2009). Organizational culture types as predictors of corporate social responsibility. Engineering Economics, 61:1, 90-99.

Wang, M. C., Lightsey, O. R., Pietruszka, T., Uruk, A. C., & Wells, A. G. (2007). Purpose in life and reasons for living as mediators of the relationship between stress, coping, and suicidal behavior. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 2(3), 195-204.

Waldman, D.A., Sully de Luque, M., Washburn, N., & House, R.J. (2006). Cultural and

leadership predictors of corporate social responsibility values of top management: a

GLOBE study of 15 countries. Journal of International Business Studies, 37, 823-837.

Appendix – Survey in Full

Privacy statement

Before starting this survey, Enexis would like you to know that participating in this survey will be completely anonymous. Your responses will be processed by a researcher who is unaffiliated with Enexis, and the reported results will not be traceable to individuals. If you do not want to participate in the research after all, or if you want to quit halfway through, this will not affect you in any way. If you want to withdraw permission to use your answers, you can do so without giving reasons and without consequences.

I. Demographics 1. What is your age?

a) [open question]

2. What is your gender?

a) Male b) Female

3. For how many years have you worked at Enexis?

a) [open question]

4. Where do you work?

a) At the headquarters or a supra-regional office.

b) At one of the local offices, and my work mainly takes place outside.

c) At one of the local offices, and my work mainly takes place inside.

d) Somewhere else, namely …’

5. Does your job involve managing other people?

a) Yes, it does

b) No, it doesn’t

II. Manipulation of perceived CSR

At this point, the total group of participants was randomly divided into two groups, without them noticing. The first 50% of participants was presented with positive information about Enexis’ CSR efforts, the other 50% proceed straight to the next step without any additional information. The information was presented in the form of statements. For each statement, participants were asked to indicate whether they were aware of the information previously by selecting one of three options (I was completely aware of this, I’ve heard about this once or twice, I have never heard of this before).

III. Main and exploratory DVs Willingness to behave ethically

6. I protect my own interests above other considerations 7. I expect of myself that I always do what is right for society.

8. I have a strong sense of responsibility to society and humanity.

9. I am very concerned about what is best for me personally.

10. My primary concern is my own personal benefit.

11. I am actively concerned about my peers’ interests.

12. I feel that I have to help a peer even if that person is not a very helpful person.

13. I feel it is better to assume responsibility for a mistake.

14. When necessary, I will take charge and do what is morally right.

Job engagement

15. At my work, I feel bursting with energy.

16. At my job, I feel strong and vigorous.

17. I am enthusiastic about my job.

18. My job inspires me.

19. When I get up in the morning, I feel like going to work.

20. I feel happy when I am working intensely.

21. I am proud of the work that I do.

22. I am immersed in my work

23. I get carried away when I am working.

Staying intentions

24. If I have my way, I will be working for this organization one year from now.

25. I am not planning to search for a new job in another organization during the next 12 months.

26. I rarely think of quitting my job.

Enexis’ own measure:

27. I look forward to working for Enexis for the coming 1 to 2 years.

28. In the past 3 months I have taken concrete action to find different work, or I plan to do so over the next 3 months:

A. No, I have not and I do not plan to B. Yes, within Enexis

C. Yes, outside of Enexis

Work stress

29. I have to work very fast.

30. My work demands too much effort.