2.2.1. Corporate social responsibility

In 1962, neoliberal economist and future Nobel Prize laureate Milton Friedman [FRI 62] famously declared what many took to be a self-evident truth: “there is one and only one social responsibility of business – to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits” (p. 133). He captured a sentiment that was widespread in both economic thinking and business practice and which was neither controversial nor contentious. Interestingly, he added a caveat that is less well remembered and less frequently quoted: “… so long as it [business] stays in the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition, without deception or fraud” (p. 133).

Friedman’s [FRI 62] perspective was rooted in a particular understanding of the purpose of economic activity, the sovereignty of the marketplace, and a minimalist role for government and other regulatory institutions that might wish to curb or restrain market enthusiasm. His central ideas focused on a narrow definition of agency and a strict interpretation of the corporation’s fiduciary duty towards its shareholders. His position resonated strongly with many involved in the marketplace and corporate world. The quoted passage originally appeared in Capitalism and Freedom, published in 1962, and it was a reiteration of normative neoliberal ideology, not a defense of that ideology or a reaction to a competing approach.

However, several years later, when the same article was reprinted in The New York Times Magazine, the climate had changed significantly [FRI 70]. There was now a clear sense that Friedman’s words were a challenge to – indeed, more a rebuttal of – nascent ideas that were beginning to surface about the firm’s broader obligations towards society, ideas that were pejoratively characterized as an “ideology of social responsibility”. In the event, Friedman’s admonition did little to stop the growing re-evaluation of the corporate role in civil society. It failed to check the increasing scrutiny of corporate agendas and practices. It certainly did not prevent an ongoing and more expansive reassessment of the relationship, responsibilities, and obligations that corporate players had to the wider society – a society through which those corporations were created and in which they were sanctioned to operate.

Through the 1970s, there was an increasing volume of articles in the academic literature that advanced CSR agendas, even although the construct remained fuzzy and was presented in different ways and from different perspectives [ADI 73, ELB 70, KEI 78]. In his extensive analysis of the academic literature, Montiel [MON 08, p. 257] noted that this early wave of interest in CSR focused almost exclusively on social issues – as opposed to environmental and ecological ones – and that this social perspective dominated the literature well into the 1990s, when it was overtaken by an increasing interest and concern for newer constructs such as corporate social performance, corporate sustainability and environmental management. It was during the 1970s, however, that Carroll [CAR 79] proposed what has become the most cited definition of CSR: “the social responsibility of business encompasses the economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary expectations that society has of organizations at a given point in time” (p. 500).

This definition provides a number of functions and clarifies a number of issues:

• – it identifies responsibility along four significant but separate domains: economic, legal, ethical and discretionary. The latter domain (discretionary) refers to acts of sharing and beneficence initiated by the business for the benefit of those who reside beyond the firm and who are not directly impacted by its actions – acts such as philanthropy and community enrichment;
• – it implicitly recognizes that corporate responsibility is a reaction, a reciprocated response, to legitimate expectations that arise in society and beyond the corporation. That is, corporate responsibility is an obligation demanded by others and not an option that originates within the corporation or which is defined by it;
• – it anticipates that the exact nature and specific extent of corporate responsibility are contextual – the existence of the corporation’s responsibility is enduring but how that responsibility will manifest itself, what it will include, and what it will not include, will shift over time and change under altered circumstances.

Corporate responses to social expectations and demands for responsibility are contextually shaped. Likewise, the precise manner and extent to which corporations will engage with their stakeholders (shareholders, employees and community members) will differ under different circumstances. Different socially embedded systems of understandings and practice will produce different expressions of CSR. For example, the expression of CSR is impacted by national culture, normative economic models, corporate governance assumptions and political institutions and norms. This has produced wide variations in how CSR is conceptualized and in how it is expressed – variations that have led to its distinct but inevitable fuzziness [AGU 06, GJØ 09, GUP 17, PRE 16]. This conceptual and operational fuzziness exists in the corporate world but it is perhaps even more pronounced in the academic world, leading Sandra Waddock [WAD 04] to observe of CSR that “parallel and sometimes confusing universes exist within the scholarly domain, not to mention between scholarship and the world of practice” (p. 5).

Further, local understandings mediate not only how CSR is conceptualized but the manner in which corporations identify their perceived stakeholders, respond to CSR challenges, and engage with these stakeholders. For example, in the U.S. many observers identify an explicit conceptualization of CSR in which corporate efforts tend to be clearly identified, specifically defined and forcefully articulated. However, there is a more implicit approach to CSR in Europe and Japan, where corporate responsibility tends to be more nuanced, embedded within the corporation itself and tacitly assumed in the efforts of corporations and recognized in the actions of their governance bodies [FIL 14, KUM 19, MAT 08].

Voegtlin and Greenwood [VOE 16], in their systematic review and conceptual analysis of CSR and HRM, acknowledged the slippery and tenuous nature of all definitions. They also sought to underscore the contextual malleability that confronts those trying to understand CSR, noting that “although we resist the temptation to provide a conclusive definition of CSR, we would be remiss to not make explicit our understanding of CSR … a shifting political contest between business, government and civil society actors over governance of the corporation” (p. 182).

This “inconclusive” definition is useful but limited. It identifies business, government and civil society as the main actors in the CSR enterprise. It recognizes CSR as essentially a political contest and, in doing so, tacitly understands business as a direct political contributor [RAS 14]. It further envisages CSR as a dynamically unfolding process rather than a stable or static equilibrium. However, it does little if anything to identify the salient issues and anticipated outcomes. Perhaps more focused – and making the conceptual bridge between CSR and corporate sustainability – is the definition offered by Aguinis [AGU 11]: “context-specific organizational actions and policies that take into account stakeholders’ expectations and the triple bottom line of economic, social, and environmental performance” (p. 855).

2.2.2. Corporate sustainability

Compared with CSR, the conceptualizations and considerations of corporate sustainability (CS) developed somewhat later. Ideas and concerns about sustainability – from an environmental and ecological perspective at least – had slowly gained a place in American public awareness and social commentary during the early 1960s, following the publication of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring [CAR 62]. The book had a profound impact, focusing widespread attention on the environmental damage caused by pesticides (particularly DDT) and ultimately leading to these agents being restricted or banned [BOU 13, PAR 17].

The notion of global sustainability was also vividly brought to public attention in 1972 by the release of a photograph of the earth taken from the Apollo 17 space mission. The photograph – which was the first time those on earth were able to see their planet from space – showed a small, beautiful and fragile globe that was undivided by national or geopolitical boundaries. This was the iconic Blue Marble image [WUE 12]. Perhaps more than the growing environmental rhetoric, ecological concerns and Cold War belligerency, this single image captured minds and galvanized interest about our shared global future [STE 17]. Despite these early beginnings, however, sustainability concerns and responses only gained significant traction within business and corporate communities towards the close of the 1980s.

Many commentators see CS as coming to the fore in 1987 with the publication of the report from the World Commission on Economic Development: Our Common Future [WOR 87]. This document – often referred to simply as the Brundtland Report in honor of the commission’s chairman Gro Harlem Brundtland – sought to raise awareness of global sustainability. It also proposed tentative long-term environmental strategies for achieving sustainable development by the beginning of the new millennium. The Brundtland Report argued that corporate or development activities could only be deemed sustainable if their present levels of needs and consumption could be met “without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (p. 43).

In the years that followed, Montiel [MON 08] observes that CS has taken two separate pathways. In one, it became increasingly and perhaps exclusively focused on ecological concerns, which many observers identified as providing the primary future resources that were in danger of being compromised [SHR 95, STA 95]. There was, however, a second pathway through which sustainability was deemed possible. This pathway, more in line with the Brundtland Report, was broader and embraced multiple dimensions: economic, social, and ecological [BAN 05, GLA 95]. It was reflected in the work of Elkington [ELK 97], who is credited with coining the term “triple bottom line”, an idea that was subsequently expanded and elaborated on in his 1997 book, Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business. This perspective sought to measure and evaluate CS performance against a framework of the 3Ps – people, profit and planet – reflecting a triple concern for social, economic, and environmental issues.

Commenting on the subsequent trajectory and impact of the triple bottom line project, Elkington [ELK 04] conceded that progress had been slow but that this was only a beginning and that “developing this comprehensive approach to sustainable development and environmental protection will be a central governance challenge – and, even more critically, a market challenge – in the 21st Century” (p. 16). Whether – or to what degree – that challenge is met by corporate governance, or by significantly altered market forces, remains an open question with many researchers and corporations reporting that there is no unequivocal relationship between levels of corporate profits and sustainability initiatives [KAP 10, PAN 14, MAR 09].

It should be appreciated that CS is inherently an ambiguous term that can be viewed from two different, but arguably connected, perspectives [IOA 19, LO 07]. From the first – what might be considered a macro-level perspective – sustainability is framed against the larger (global-centered) aims and outcomes associated with CSR. Here, the central issues are how the corporate community perceives and responds to common sustainability challenges in ethical, economic and political terms. At a macro level, corporate responsibility and corporate obligations are directed to a broad base of legitimate societal stakeholders. This seems to be the present dominant understanding of CS. As such, according to many scholars and commentators, it has merged with CSR to the extent that its present similarities and commonalities outweigh its prior historical difference and separation [ASH 18].

But there is also a second perspective of CS – what might be thought of as a micro-level perspective – that relates to how individual firms secure their own continuing futures (firm-centered). Here, the considerations are likely to be predominantly economic with ongoing value-increasing and wealth-creating strategy for shareholders being central. It might be argued these two levels of sustainability are compatible and complementary: the results of micro-level sustainability efforts naturally aggregating into macro-level outcomes. However, this logic is problematic and there is no clear evidence that it holds. It is more than likely that there is – as with many economic models – a disconnection between micro and macro levels of activity such that the aggregation of the individual parts (micro) is not the same as the observable whole (macro) [DYL 16, LAN 18].

A firm-centered understanding of CS – rather than a macro ecologically-centered one – seems more realistic for the corporation and more probable for its leaders. It makes CS not an isolated concern but one that is compatible with, and integral to, the broader CSR enterprise. Fundamentally, as Carroll [CAR 79] has observed, “before anything else, the business institution is the basic economic unit in our society … it has a responsibility to produce goods and services that society wants to sell them at a profit” (p. 500).

2.3.1. A short evolutionary history of HRM

Given its history, it is hardly surprising that HRM has come to mean different things to different people. It has been considered an integral function of general management activities in the manufacturing and service sectors: “omnipresent in all employment relationships, regardless of the type of economy, size of the enterprise, title of person doing the bossing, or particular approach used to acquire, control, and coordinate the labor” [KAU 08, p. 3].

At times, HRM has been seen in a more focused way: a separate component of the organizational structure, performing a distinctive function for management – best understood as a staff, advisory, or facilitating function – that involves a series of distinct activities such as employee recruitment, selection, training and development, evaluation and performance appraisal. For example, Wright and McMahan [WRI 92] understood HRM within organizations as performing four interlocking activities: “(1) the determinants of decisions about HR practices, (2) the composition of the human capital resource pool, (3) the specification of the required human resource behaviours, and (4) the effectiveness of these decisions given various business strategies and/or competitive situations” (p. 298).

A third reconfiguration of HRM, which emerged in the 1980s, contrasted its presently understood purposes with those it was considered to have had in the early decades of the 20th Century. Then, it was argued, the management of human resources was seen in terms of the bureaucratic activities connected with “personnel management” generally, and with the negotiating and bargaining side of industrial relations. The key issues were employee control, efficiency (in terms of cost reduction and containment), and labor union interface – all rather routine, low profile and non-strategic in nature. It should be noted that this historical “low” in the profile, power and influence of the HRM function is vigorously contested. Many scholars and observers see “new” HRM – with its heightened levels of power and influence – as the result of a project to reshape image, enhance professional prestige and capitalize on prevailing managerialism [KAU 12, KAU 14, MUE 05].

In the 1980s, there was a broad and relatively successful effort to rebrand HRM as a more active, responsive and strategic corporate player. Now, it was argued, the HRM function in the firm sought to make those firms and their employees “a source of long-term competitive advantage through a strategic approach that emphasizes human capital investment, employee involvement, an integrative alignment of labor management practices, and mutual gain reward systems” [KAU 08, p. 4].

By its nature, and implicit in its name, HRM deals with people but it construes them not as human beings but as “human resources” or “human capital”. Throughout the last 30 years – particularly with a recognition that increased organizational productivity often correlated with HRM, a prevailing resource-based view of the firm, and the growing awareness of the strategic dimension of HRM [HUS 95, MAH 92, WRI 94] – many commentators felt that the “human” dimension of HRM had been lost or at least forgotten.

Indeed, economist Gary Becker [BEC 96], in his Nobel Prize speech, noted that “human capital is so uncontroversial nowadays that it may be difficult to appreciate the hostility in the 1950s and 1960s toward the approach that went with the term […] demeaning because it treated people as machines” (p. 10). Some years later, Wright and McMahan [WRI 11], reflecting on this and on their earlier definition of HRM that had embodied a strategical perspective, observed that although the original hostility towards the notion of human capital had faded, there was still a risk “that strategic HRM researchers may similarly treat human capital as a form of capital owned and controlled by the firm. To do so would miss the complexity of the construct and continue to ignore the ‘human’ in strategic HRM” (p. 102).

Some reviewers consider that the intentions of HRM over the last few decades – and its attempts to reposition itself in the corporate world – may be admirable but that its promises and enthusiasm overtake its results. Ulrich [ULR 11], celebrating the fiftieth anniversary of the founding of the journal Human Resource Management, noted the gap between promise and results and asked: “Should we do away with HR? […] There is good reason for HR’s beleaguered reputation. It is often ineffective, incompetent, and costly: in a phrase, it is value-sapping” (p.128).

In a similar vein, Kaufman [KAU 12], reviewing the previous 30 years, gave HRM a “failing grade” so far as its performance was concerned. Others, [DIP 07] identify more specific problems such as the failure of research findings to percolate into the HRM world, with Cascio and Aguinis [CAS 08] noting the “serious disconnect between the knowledge academics are producing and the knowledge that practitioners are consuming” (p. 1,062). Commenting on this pervasive gap that exists between academic and practitioner understandings, Vosburg [VOS 17] tells the joke of the academic and practitioner who walk into a bar: “this is a very short joke since it turns out they sit at different ends of the bar and never speak. It’s also not very funny; more of a sad allegory…” (p. 1).

These criticisms are helpful in moving beyond what are often overly optimistic claims and rhetorical exuberance to better consider how HRM practice can actually contribute value to organizations and their employees. Whatever its perceived shortcomings, HRM provides powerful mechanisms through which organizational cultures, climates, and attitudes can be perpetuated and reproduced. HRM also provides a vehicle through which collective attitudes can be reformulated and changed.

2.4.1. Instrumental CSR-HRM

Instrumental CSR-HRM understands that the corporate HRM function is designed to contribute to the overall operation of the organization, which is generally understood in classical neoliberal economic outcomes: maximizing profit, adding to corporate value, and increasing shareholder wealth. From this understanding, other broader social or economic outcomes – such as environmental stewardship or global sustainability – are appreciated as valid but are determined to be beyond the corporation’s remit. These broader social and economic goals, it is assumed, will be addressed independently by others, by market forces and by governmental intervention. The corporation remains passive, neutral and agnostic regarding these broader social and economic outcomes; instead, it focuses on what it can do and on what it construes to be its central and legitimate fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders [JEN 02].

In this CSR-HRM alignment, the activities and priorities of the HRM function are instrumental in realizing the corporation’s primary objectives. The extent to which CSR is recognized and responded to – within the corporation and within its HRM practices – revolves around its impact on the firm’s performance, strategic advantage or brand image [BOE 10]. In instrumental HRM, policies, procedures and practices are created to cultivate what have been termed “the micro-foundations of CSR” at the level of individual workers and organizational members. Efforts are designed to shape employee attitudes towards, and acceptance of, the corporation’s engagement with CSR. Among other things, research in this area has tried to elucidate “the underlying psychological processes (i.e. mediators), as well as contingencies (i.e. moderators) of CSR and its outcomes” [MOR 13, p. 813].

In considering the human resource practices employed in instrumental CSR-HRM, Voegtlin and Greenwood [VOE 20] are of the opinion that an appreciation and understanding of CSR enhance practice “insofar as they contribute to organizational goals and economic performance” (p. 190). Specifically, instrumental CSR-HRM is, and can be, employed “to improve recruiting practises [sic] to attract the best talent, to motivate employees and increase their commitment to organizational goals, and to train employees in CSR to avoid reputational penalties” (p. 190). These improvements and outcomes are again directed towards enhancing corporate, economic, and financial performance and less concerned with, or directed towards, the firm’s social performance.

2.4.2. Social integrative CSR-HRM

This second CSR-HRM nexus is characterized by a quite different understanding of the nature and purpose of the corporation – a corporation that is created, authorized and sustained by the society within which it is embedded and within which it operates and prospers. The firm has an economic mission but that mission is moderated by – but also responsive to and responsible for – the ambient community and outer world within which the firm operates. From this perspective, “the purpose of the firm and the capitalist system within which it operates, when viewed rightly, [is] the creation of value for all stakeholders” [NOL 10, p. 40, emphasis added].

This is the fuller and more expansive understanding of CSR and CS that was outlined previously in this chapter. There, it was suggested that CSR and CS overlap because both focus on the creation of corporate and economic value that could be shared to provide “meaningful benefit to society and the environment, all whilst balancing and integrating social, environmental, and economic components [where] sustainability implies the notion of both internally – and externally facing responsibility and a temporal focus that encompasses both short-term and long-term views” [ASH 18, p. 676].

From these common and shared perspectives of CSR and CS, the triple bottom line is regarded as an emblematic, albeit conceptually flawed, measure of corporate performance and outcomes. CSR and CS have a normative understanding of the corporation as an enterprise that will not purposefully harm or damage its multiplicity of stakeholders. Efficient performance and profit optimization are desirable but they must be balanced against the ethical duty of care, the creation of negative externalities and the negative impact of performance on stakeholders.

From a social integrative perspective, HRM is conceptualized in a more flexible and adaptive way – integrating and advocating a broader CSR within the organization. Rather than seeing HRM practice in narrow instrumental terms, it is regarded as a vehicle through which broader CSR awareness can be stimulated and brought to bear in the firm’s performance. There is often a conspicuous corporate commitment to sustainability concerns and “green” management – reflected in the utilization of green-operational-management, green-supply-chain-management, green-human-resource-management and green-human-capital [DUM 17, LON 18].

So far as employees and organizational participants are concerned, HRM is relational rather than transactional. The thrust of HRM activity is cultivating motivation and considering the inclusion of different stakeholder perspectives. HRM engagement is primarily focused on developing personal and work identities, contributing to the employee’s sense of meaning and meaningfulness in the workplace, and providing opportunities for employees to engage with the wider social and environmental worlds that are not limited by corporate boundaries. Employees are valued and respected as human beings rather than regarded as human resources [GLA 16, LEP 17, MIR 12].

Voegtlin and Greenwood [VOE 20] note that social integrative CSR-HRM approaches have great appeal for many corporations and for many HRM practitioners. They offer a wide range of connections and provide opportunities to confront and reconcile different stakeholder problems. However, despite these positive characteristics, this approach to a CSR-HRM relationship is “based on somewhat idealistic assumptions about unitary interests between workers, employers and other stakeholder groups. An inherent danger of a strong focus on shared value creation lies in the appeal for practitioners to decouple these activities from the more unsustainable core-business practises [sic], thereby drawing the attention away from the ‘real’ problems by doing ‘alibi CSR’” [VOE 20, p. 192].

2.4.3. Political CSR-HRM

The third approach capitalizes on the growing political nature of CSR, including the role of the corporation in society and issues regarding the extent, legitimacy and impact of corporate power structures on other stakeholders. Given the power differentials that exist, firms are regarded as corporate citizens with ethical obligations and social responsibilities [BAE 14, SCH 14]. The recognition of a multiplicity of stakeholders is challenging and even more difficult is the reconciliation of their different claims against the firm.

It seems expedient that in this context HRM might choose to adopt a critical perspective. Considering what critical HRM might look like – and how it might engage with the organization and its members – Delbridge and Keenoy [DEL 10] contrast it with what they see as the “moribund and limited nature of mainstream” HRM which has focused, with mixed results, on improving corporate efficiency and performance. These authors recommend that a more open, reflective and critically aware approach needs to be taken in order “that HRM might be better contextualized within the prevailing socio-economic order of capitalism; that managerialist assumptions and language may be denaturalized and challenged; and that voices excluded in mainstream HRM may be heard” (p. 800).

A critical HRM approach requires a fundamental reconsideration of the traditional employment relationship and needs a more open dialogue with, and the support of, other disciplinary areas – such as sociology, psychology, economic, management theory, organizational behavior and political science – in order to develop contemporarily relevant ways of managing the working relationship. Critical HRM is called upon to take a more informed, nuanced and leading role in the CSR-HRM interface.

It is also called upon to utilize it critical awareness in confronting the new challenges and opportunities presented by the changing nature of work and the changing relationship that this produces between employees and employers. These shifting relationships and expectations have characterized the last 40 years and will undoubtedly become more prominent and urgent in the years ahead – altered expectations about employee rights and benefits; limited conditions of employment; the transformation of the workplace; the erosion of many traditional jobs through automation, computerization and artificial intelligence; and the dawning of the Fourth Industrial Revolution with all of its economic, social and political implications [FRE 13].

Summarizing their political CSR-HRM approach, Voegtlin and Greenwood [VOE 20] consider it to be the most exciting and potentially fruitful direction for HRM, especially in terms of research and analysis. Certainly, political CSR-HRM is conceptually rich and makes connections and linkages with multiple areas of interest that have traditionally resided outside the HRM remit. Its richness, interconnectedness, and relentless spirit of enquiry may well be crucial in dealing with the ever-changing organizational and social worlds. Currently, however, political CSR-HRM is only a nascent force that lacks full conceptual development. It is perhaps more of an aspiration and a work in progress than a present reality. Nevertheless, it may well hold “the possibility of exploring the social and political embeddedness of HRM – relationships between stakeholders in the management of ‘human resources’ both internal and external to the firm; shifting institutional arrangements and balances of power between corporations, governments and civil society […]” [VOE 20, p. 194].

2.5.1. Recruitment and selection practices

There seems to be a positive correlation between the public image that a corporation projects and the kinds of applicants who seek employment with it. Corporations that project a strong and credible commitment to CSR through their public relations efforts, brand imaging, and placement and interaction with related stakeholders, tend to interest and attract potential talent who also rate CSR highly [GUL 13, REN 13, STO 16].

In a world where organizations are increasingly expending considerable efforts and resources in order to reach and attract highly talented individuals, it is critically important that the organization is visible to these potential employees – that its mission and ethos are clearly evident and well promoted in the conventional and social media that might be relevant to new recruits. Obviously, if that clear messaging and direct signaling is not encountered then the organization will remain invisible to interested talent who value social responsibility and sustainable practices. An awareness of, and a commitment to, CSR and CS is not only a distinctive property of the corporation: it is a philosophy and ethical commitment espoused by many individuals in and beyond the workforce. These are the individuals that the CSR-responsive organization probably wants to hire, because they will be able to readily reconcile personal (non-work) and professional ideals and ideologies if they are hired [VAN 04].

Research indicates that it is the prospective recruit’s perception of the organization’s CSR commitment – the “perception of goodness” – that is important in the recruitment/application phase, rather than an objectively measured and independently validated commitment [GLA 13]. Of course, once hired, these individuals will come to their own informed determination of the strength and depth of the corporate CSR commitment. HRM should ensure that the organization’s public persona is carefully reviewed and audited so that its commitment to CSR is clearly portrayed and that it presents an attractive option for potential recruits. If the CSR impression is weak or has a low impact, HRM might consider working proactively with those in the organization who publicize and promote the corporate image or brand image [BRO 06, FAL 11, PUN 18].

Selection practices – which might include combinations of tests, personality inventories, work samples, group performance, assessment centers, etc. – are varied and chosen to meet the specific needs of the job and the organization. In making these choices, the HRM department has undoubtedly prepared a careful job analysis and identified the relevant knowledge, skills, and abilities that are required. The resulting cluster of selection instruments and approaches originates from the organization; however, once enacted, the selection process becomes visible to candidates who can be expected to scrutinize it with care. Candidates who experience the selection process inevitably make inferences about the organization, about what and who it values, and about how it understands those whom it includes and excludes.

The aim of HRM should be for all candidates – irrespective of whether they are hired or rejected – to have a positive experience. It seems obvious that a positive candidate experience benefits those who are hired. However, a positive experience is equally important for those who are not selected because it increases the chance that they will return to the labor pool with at least a favorable attitude toward the organization – an attitude that they may communicate to others within that potential hiring pool [ZHA 17].

Although it may take different forms, the personal interview is a universal feature of selection systems. The interview provides those who represent the organization with the direct face-to-face opportunity to meet candidates, holistically assess their attitudes and dispositions, and share some of the defining cultural values of the organization with them. In terms of process and dynamics, there is a great deal going on in the interview and yet they tend to be relatively short. Depending on the experience of the interviewer the hire/reject decision might be made within the first few minutes [FRI 16].

Selection interviews are moments of anticipation that can develop into acts of confirmation if the interviewer decides that the candidate might realistically “be one of us”. Selection interviews provide a very deep insight – although an insight that might not be obvious to interviewer or interviewee – as to how significant decisions are actually made within the organization and, as such, have received considerable attention in the research literature [AND 92, BOL 13, BUC 00, DIP 97, SIL 76].

However, as with all assessment and selection processes, interviewees are not neutral: they inevitably become involved in the dynamics. They form their own understandings about what it would be like to be employed by the organization. They come to their own conclusions about the organization and its projected values, concerns, and CSR perspectives even if these conclusions are incomplete or inaccurate. Thus, it might be advantageous, for candidates and the organization, if HRM is represented at selection interviews. At one level, many of those who conduct selection interviews lack an appreciation of equal employment legislation, perceived bias, and the potential inappropriateness of the questions that they pose. HRM representatives can make sure that these issues do not arise or that they are professionally dealt with if they do. At a second level, HRM can make sure that significant matters of organizational culture and values, such as CSR, are brought to the table [DIP 05, SCH 12].

2.5.2. Training and development practices

The generally accepted meaning of training is “a planned intervention that is designed to enhance the determinants of individual job performance” [CAM 01, p. 278]. The reasons for training – as well as the training methods utilized and the anticipated outcomes of the training program – are obviously contextual and vary with the needs and interests of the organization. Training is designed to increase worker proficiency, performance and the value of the organization’s human capital. Training is orchestrated by HRM but it is often not directly supervised by them. It is imperative that HRM is directly involved in training programs and works closely with trainees to ensure that the training delivered is appropriate, effective and perceived as valid and useful by those who are involved.

Schmidt [SCH 07] defined training satisfaction as “how people feel about aspects of the job training they receive. Job training satisfaction is the extent to which people like or dislike the set of planned activities organized to develop the knowledge, skills, and attitudes required to effectively perform a given task or job” (p. 483). There is a growing appreciation that training satisfaction increases employee self-value and esteem, contributes positively to employee attitudes, boosts job satisfaction and reduces employee turnover [MEM 16, SCH 07, TRU 11].

It remains unclear whether such positive outcomes are the result of the training initiatives per se or whether the training programs serve as vehicles through which pre-existing organizational identification and organizational commitment are further advanced and solidified. In the latter case, it may well be that training satisfaction contributes to greater organizational commitment and organizational citizen behavior on the part of the employee through a process of social exchange and a norm of mutual reciprocity between employee and employer [BEN 17]. With training satisfaction, as with satisfaction developed though employee development programs, “in addition to the belief that one will personally benefit from development, the belief that the organization will benefit may motivate development activity” [PIE 09, paragraph 4].

Training opportunities may arise that are specifically geared towards organizational participants acquiring greater knowledge, skills, and abilities about CSR and CS. Obviously, these kinds of training opportunities provide HRM with the direct possibility of highlighting the relevance and importance of CSR to the organization. However, in most organizations it is more likely that direct exposure to CSR and CS will come through employee development programs rather than employee training [FEN 08, GAR 10].

The distinction between training and development can often be blurred. However, employee development generally focuses on the long-term growth of the individual, the gradual acquisition and consolidation of knowledge, and the development of competency sets that will prove useful – if not necessary – to deal with potential work-related situations and issues in the future. Development recognizes the need for personal growth, increasing responsibility within the organization, and career advancement. As an HRM strategy, employee development is predicated on recognizing organizational participants as long-term assets who have the capacity of appreciating in value over time. It suggests of an ongoing relationship in which the organization prepares employees to meet organizational change [STA 18].

Employee development can be viewed as an expression of “internal” CSR. Value, consideration, respect, mutual dependency and mutual obligation are all recognized by the corporation, with respect to its closest and most obvious stakeholder – the employee. There might be explicit CSR content in employee development programs; however, despite the specific content of the development program it is important for HRM to recognize that their social responsibility is encapsulated and demonstrated in the process of providing employee development programs.

It has been argued that the social responsibility that corporations engage in has two dimensions: “an external one in which organizations can affect stakeholders as business partners or suppliers and strive to become more involved in the community and participate in the social costs of whatever affects the community, and an internal dimension in which companies are responsible towards their own employees, maintaining a fair attitude towards the latter’s problems, aspirations, and quality of life” [OBR 18, pp.1–2, emphasis added].

From such a perspective, HRM development initiatives are manifestations of an internally directed CSR. The HRM department might consider accentuating this by making sure that those who engage in development programs – whatever the particular focus or content of the program – appreciate that employee development is an integral part of the organization’s CSR commitment. It might also be helpful for the HRM function to recognize that the perceived quality and value of these programs (including the employee satisfaction derived from them) will be used by employees as an index of the organization’s appreciation of, and commitment to, CSR.

2.5.3. Motivation, performance and appraisal

Encouraging and directing performance is a managerial function rather than one assumed by HRM; nevertheless, HRM practitioners are often consulted on such matters and when they are, it will become evident if their input is grounded in CSR and socially responsible HRM perspectives [BAR 19, SHE 11a].

Moves to increase employee performance, productivity and output are frequent in most corporate environments; indeed, they may be perpetually present in some. Taking a broader picture, improved productivity and increased output are critical issues for most firms in the manufacturing and service sectors: their existence and long-term viability often depends on these outcomes. However, corporate drives to increase performance and output are often met with employee discontent, reluctance, or resistance.

Employee pushback is understandable and management has either to negotiate a productive way forward or, depending on context, to exercise its power and authority to resolve the issue. Tensions are inevitably created when increased productivity or performance is required. These tensions often focus on a critical understanding of the nature of the employee-employer relationship and the power imbalances embedded in it. These tensions can often be reduced when employees recognize themselves, and are recognized as stakeholders in the corporation with shared interest, mutual responsibilities and common benefits.

The extent to which employees regard themselves, and are regarded as stakeholders lies at the core of internal CSR. Employee confidence in the process and their subsequent performance are likely to be higher if HRM is able to communicate socially responsive and responsible solutions and policies. Indeed, as in all other areas of practice, socially responsive and responsible HRM can significantly promote organizational CSR among the workforce, increase organizational identification, strengthen organizational commitment and improve job satisfaction [BOM 19, DES 18, GUE 11, JAM 15, KUN 15, SHE 11b].

Employee appraisal can potentially be a contentious issue for employees and management. Performance appraisal has traditionally been the prerogative of the employee’s supervisor; however, it is increasingly common for appraisals to be more extensive and to originate from multiple sources – managers, peers, clients, suppliers, etc. – leading to what is usually termed “360 degree” assessment. The form and substance of employee appraisals and assessments, however, are normally detailed in HRM policies and procedures. This provides HRM with the opportunity to incorporate socially responsible approaches in the appraisal process.

Appraisal is a direct engagement between employee and the organization: it is also a direct engagement between a recognized stakeholder and the corporation. Although designed to focus on the person being appraised, all appraisal systems implicitly reveal the concerns, motivations and philosophies of the appraiser. This engagement and interaction allow the organization, mediated by HRM input, to demonstrate its CSR commitment in a very direct manner. In particular, the inclusion of a direct CSR element, as part of employee appraisals, can substantially enhance the effectiveness of the appraisal and clearly communicates the value that the organization places on its own sustainability and its social responsibility [SHE 11b, SU 17].

2.5.4. Rewards, compensation and benefits

Perhaps the most direct internal meeting of corporate claims and organizational participant perceptions of social responsibility come through HRM policies on employee compensation and benefits. It is through those meetings that organizational participants can consider and assess the degree to which the corporation really places importance and value on those who are impacted by its activities. Employees, considered as internal and immediate stakeholders in the enterprise, will inevitably test CSR claims and deeds. They will also test the underlying principles and outcomes of the social exchange dynamics that are central to CSR.

Employee rewards for participation can be intrinsic or extrinsic. Intrinsic rewards are derived from engagement in the organization and might include positive corporate identification and a sense of belonging, perceptions of career advancement, a feeling of improved status, engagement in meaningful work and job satisfaction. Employees place their own personal value on these participation outcomes; however, employee perceptions of value can be influenced by the attitude of the organization, the emphasis that it places on these outcomes, and the ways in which it directs employee attention to these elements in their work situation [BRU 17, STU 13, STU 16].

Recent research indicates that employees evaluate their companies on four CSR domains: customer-orientated, environment-orientated, philanthropy-orientated and employee-orientated. However, employees only experience a positive sense of organizational pride and job satisfaction – both are intrinsic employment rewards – based on their evaluation of the corporation’s employee-orientated CSR. They may well come to positive evaluations of these other CSR domains, but the corporation’s “true attitude” towards social responsibility and sustainability are rated on the ways in which they (the employees) are dealt with as stakeholders [SCH 20]. In their evaluations of the corporation’s multiple social responsibility responses, it seems that, as McShane and Cunningham [MCS 12] have suggested, employees use the maxim: “To thine own self be true.”

The same maxim might also be considered when employees evaluate the extrinsic rewards – wages, salaries, bonuses and other pecuniary benefits – that they receive for their performance within the organization. The picture is far from clear, but it is not evident that employees in CSR orientated organizations receive greater compensation or rewards than those in non-CSR enterprises. This might be surprising given the general understanding that CSR is associated with better performance and higher value creation, even although the correlation between CSR and financial performance, while usually positive, is modest [MAR 09, PAN 14].

Some argue that employees do not necessarily receive an extrinsic CSR premium but that this is compensated and accepted because they do earn intrinsic benefits as discussed previously [NEW 20, JUN 16, NYB 17]. Others argue that not all stakeholders benefit equally under CSR and that there is a “disconnection between our understanding of CSR drivers and CSR impacts […] between CSR financial and social consequences” [CRI 15, p. 112].

It falls on HRM to provide an explanation if organizational CSR financial consequences fail to coincide with anticipated social consequences in terms of employee compensation. The task of HRM might be complicated by another growing trend in employee remuneration: executive compensation and CSR-related bonuses. Employees might perceive these executive contracts and bonuses as legitimate compensation for achieving CSR standards – a perception that would further sensitize employees to the value and “goodness” associated with CSR and sustainability efforts generally. However, executive rewards and bonuses might also be perceived as yet another example of the difference that exists between stakeholder, the bias with which corporations acknowledge and respond to some stakeholders and not others, and the fragmented and often incoherent ways in which the supposed benefits of CSR are distributed. Such employee perceptions might be further influenced by the ways in which financial and CSR information is frequently manipulated to ensure that executive rewards and bonuses are paid [CAI 11, FRA 17, IKR 19, LI 19].