Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-9nwgx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-23T18:12:20.977Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the Positives of Peripheral Corporate Social Responsibility

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 January 2015

Mariah Yates  and
Elaine Hollensbe
Mariah Yates*
Affiliation:
University of Cincinnati
Elaine Hollensbe
Affiliation:
University of Cincinnati
*
E-mail: yatesmc@mail.uc.edu, Address: Department of Management, Carl H. Lindner College of Business, University of Cincinnati, 2925 Campus Green Drive, Cincinnati, OH 45221
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Although we support the primary embedded–peripheral categorization proposed by the focal article authors, (Aguinis & Glavas, 2013), in this commentary, we explore the implications of privileging embedded over peripheral corporate social responsibility (CSR) and identify benefits of the latter that we believe have been overlooked or underplayed. The benefits of peripheral CSR that we outline below can, in fact, contribute substantially to overall CSR efforts over and above those of embedded CSR.

Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 6 , Issue 4 , December 2013 , pp. 368 - 372
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2013

References

Aguinis, H., & Glavas, A. (2013). Embedded versus peripheral corporate social responsibility: Psychological foundations. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 6(4), 314–332.Google Scholar
Bartel, C. A. (2001). Social comparisons in boundary-spanning work: Effects of community outreach on members' organizational identity and identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 379–413.Google Scholar
Boccalandro, B. (2009). Mapping success in employee volunteering: The drivers of effectiveness for employee volunteering and giving programs and Fortune 500 performance. Boston, MA: Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship.Google Scholar
Grant, A. M. (2007). Relational job design and the motivation to make a prosocial difference. Academy of Management Review, 32, 393–417.Google Scholar
Grant, A. M. (2012). Giving time, time after time: Work design and sustained employee participation in corporate volunteering. Academy of Management Review, 37, 589–615.Google Scholar
Grant, A. M., & Sonnentag, S. (2010). Doing good buffers against feeling bad: Prosocial impact compensates for negative task and self-evaluations. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 111, 13–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hackman, J. R., Oldham, G., Janson, R., & Purdy, K. (1975). A new strategy for job enrichment. California Management Review, 17, 57–71.Google Scholar
Heine, S. J., Proulx, T., & Vohs, K. D. (2006). The meaning maintenance model: On the coherence of social motivations. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 88–110.Google Scholar
Kaifeng, J., Lepak, D. P., Jia, J., & Baer, J. C. (2012). How does human resource management influence organizational outcomes? A meta-analytic investigation of mediating mechanisms. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 1264–1294.Google Scholar
Marquis, C., Glynn, M. A., & Davis, G. F. (2007). Community isomorphism and corporate social action. Academy of Management Review, 32, 925–945.Google Scholar
Rosen, S., Mickler, S. E., & Collins, J. E. (1987). Reactions of would-be helpers whose offer of help is spurned. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 288–297.Google Scholar
Thompson, C. A., & Prottas, D. J. (2006). Relationships among organizational family support, job autonomy, perceived control, and employee well-being. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11, 100.Google Scholar
Wood, E. (2007). What about me? The importance of understanding the perspective of non-managerial employees in research on corporate citizenship. In denHond, F., deBakker, F. G. A., & Neergaard, P. (Eds.), Managing corporate social responsibility in action: Talking, doing and measuring. Aldershot, England: Ashgate.Google Scholar