Corporate social responsibility and value co-creation: exploring dynamic interactions between firms and employees

ii DIREITOS DE AUTOR E CONDIÇÕES DE UTILIZAÇÃO DO TRABALHO POR TERCEIROS Este é um trabalho académico que pode ser utilizado por terceiros desde que respeitadas as regras e boas práticas internacionalmente aceites, no que concerne aos direitos de autor e direitos conexos. Assim, o presente trabalho pode ser utilizado nos termos previstos na licença abaixo indicada. Caso o utilizador necessite de permissão para poder fazer um uso do trabalho em condições não previstas no licenciamento indicado, deverá contactar o autor, através do RepositóriUM da Universidade do Minho. Licença concedida aos utilizadores deste trabalho Atribuição-NãoComercial-SemDerivações CCBY-NC-ND https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ iii AGRADECIMENTOS Às minhas queridas orientadoras, Professora Minoo Farhangmehr e Professora Cláudia Simões, pelo seu compromisso com a superação e por serem uma inspiração. Pelo apoio académico e científico e amizade em igual medida. Agradeço a marca incontornável que deixam no meu percurso, a aprendizagem constante, a enorme compreensão e generosidade. À Escola de Economia e Gestão da Universidade do Minho e aos professores do Programa Doutoral em Marketing e Estratégia das Universidades do Minho, Aveiro e Beira Interior. Em particular, ao Professor José Carlos Pinho, enquanto director do núcleo de investigação que me acolheu numa primeira fase, e à Professora Ana Maria Soares, enquanto directora do Programa Doutoral na Universidade do Minho, pelo apoio e disponibilidade. À Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia, que proporcionou o apoio financeiro, permitindo a realização deste trabalho através de uma bolsa individual de doutoramento. Às empresas que disponibilizaram o seu tempo e recursos para colaborar com este estudo na fase de entrevistas, assim como a todos quantos se mostraram disponíveis para divulgar e preencher o questionário elaborado no decorrer da investigação, essenciais para este trabalho. A todos os colegas e amigos que contribuíram para o meu crescimento pessoal e académico durante esta fase. Aprendi muito com a imensa generosidade da Liliana Alves e a determinação do Eduardo Oliveira. À Ana Sousa por ser a companheira, orientadora informal e psicóloga acidental que, pela amizade e alegria, tornou este percurso numa festa. Aos meus pais pelo suporte familiar, pela preocupação e cuidado. À minha irmã Rita, em quem confio as minhas dúvidas existenciais e as outras. Ao meu marido Mário, que me contagiou com a ideia do doutoramento. Por ser paciência e sacrifício. Por ser colo e casa. As minhas conquistas são sempre nossas. A maior de todas aconteceu durante este episódio bélico e chama-se Júlia. iv STATEMENT OF INTEGRITY I hereby declare having conducted this academic work with integrity. I confirm that I have not used plagiarism or any form of undue use of information or falsification of results along the process leading to its elaboration. I further declare that I have fully acknowledged the Code of Ethical Conduct of the University of Minho. v RESPONSABILIDADE SOCIAL CORPORATIVA E CO-CRIAÇÃO DE VALOR: EXPLORANDO AS DINÂMICAS DA INTERACÇÃO ENTRE EMPRESAS E COLABORADORES RESUMO A relevância do estudo da Responsabilidade Social Corporativa (RSC) reflecte a necessidade de compreender o papel da empresa na sociedade contemporânea. uma vez que esta é tradicionalmente entendida e estudada como um fenómeno disseminado a partir da gestão de topo ao longo da estrutura interna da empresa, dirigindo-se aos consumidores, media, entre outros stakeholders externos. Considerar as interacções entre as partes interessadas no contexto da RSC é por isso fundamental para ampliar o espectro do conceito assim como a sua abrangência. Adicionalmente, a literatura sugere a necessidade de uma micro-análise do fenómeno de RSC, incluindo os colaboradores, que muitas vezes são arredados da discussão. Assim, a presente tese intersecta os conceitos de Responsabilidade Social Corporativa e Co-Criação de Valor (CCV) de forma a permitir um estudo aprofundado dos aspectos interactivos e dinâmicos da experiência de RSC entre as empresas e os seus colaboradores. O objectivo da tese é duplo. Primeiro, apresentar um entendimento aprofundado acerca do processo de co-criação de valor no enquadramento de RSC empresa-colaborador. Segundo, pretende apresentar evidências empíricas à sua dinâmica, considerando a adopção de um modelo específico de co-criação de RSC, adoptado da literatura de Serviço. Para isso, dois estudos foram desenvolvidos, dentro de uma abordagem mixed method. O primeiro é um estudo qualitativo, necessário para fornecer dados detalhados sobre como ocorre a co-criação de valor de RSC. O segundo é um estudo quantitativo, concebido para investigar a extensão do fenómeno e testar o modelo conceptual desenvolvido de cocriação de valor de RSC entre empresas e colaboradores. Os resultados revelam que há evidências empíricas para apoiar a ideia de RSC como uma construção co-criada, ao nível micro de análise. Existe um impacto ao nível do marketing interno sobre o qual as empresas devem agir, tendo em consideração o diálogo, o acesso e a avaliação do risco das iniciativas de RSC. PALAVRAS-CHAVE: Co-criação de Valor, Marketing Interno, Responsabilidade Social Corporativa, Serviço. vi CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY AND VALUE CO-CREATION: EXPLORING DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS BETWEEN FIRMS AND EMPLOYEES ABSTRACT The relevance of studying Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) reflects the need to understand the role of the firm in contemporary society. Addressing CSR as a co-created reality is a recent approach since it is traditionally seen and studied as a static phenomenon disseminated from the top management throughout the firm’s internal structure, to target consumers, media, and other external stakeholders. But considering the interactions among stakeholders in the CSR context is key to broadening the concept's spectrum and increase its scope. Furthermore, the literature suggests the need for a micro-level analysis of the CSR phenomenon, implying the inclusion of employees, which are often left out of the discussion. Thus, the aim of this thesis is the intersection of CSR and Value Co-Creation (VCC) to allow an in-depth study of the interactive and dynamic aspects of the CSR experience between firms and their employees. The objective of the thesis is twofold. First, it attempts to provide a deeper understanding of the CSR cocreation of value process in a firm-employee context. Second, it intends to present empirical quantitative evidence to its dynamics considering the adoption of a specific CSR co-creation model, emerged from the Service literature. To do so, two empirical studies were developed, within a mixed-method approach. The first is a qualitative study, necessary to provide in-depth insights on how CSR value co-creation occurs. The second is a quantitative study, conceived to investigate the extent of the phenomenon and test the developed conceptual model of CSR value co-creation between firms and employees. The findings reveal that there is empirical evidence to support the idea of CSR as a co-created construction at a micro-level of analysis. There is an internal marketing impact that firms should act upon, considering dialogue, access and risk assessment regarding CSR initiatives. KEYWORDS: Corporate Social Responsibility, Internal Marketing, Service, Value Co-Creation. vii INDEX 1. General Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Introduction......................................................................................................................... 2 1.2 Presentation of the Topic and Research Motivation............................................................... 2 1.3 Research Problem and Objectives ........................................................................................ 6 1.4 Expected Contributions ........................................................................................................ 9 1.5 Thesis Structure ................................................................................................................ 11 2. Literature Review ...................................................................................................................... 13 2.1 Introduction....................................................................................................................... 14 2.2 Corporate Social Responsibility .......................................................................................... 14 2.2.1 Notion, Scope and Relevance of Corporate Social Responsibility ................................. 15 2.2.2 Broadening the understanding of Corporate Social Responsibility ................................ 20 2.2.3 From External Dimensions to Internal Foundations of CSR: A Systematic Literature Review 24 2.2.4 Challenges of the Study of Employees and Corporate Social Responsibility.................. 35 2.2.5 Summary .................................................................................................................. 36 2.3 Value Co-Creation .............................................................................................................. 38 2.3.1 Value Co-Creation and the Service Logic Context ........................................................ 38 2.3.2 The Notion, Scope and Relevance of Value Co-Creation .............................................. 42 2.3.3 Understanding Value Co-Creation Experience ............................................................. 45 2.3.4 From Value Co-creation with Customers to the Internal Marketing Context .................. 48 xiv Table 4.12. Results of KMO and Bartlett tests. ................................................................................ 132 Table 4.13. Correlation matrix for final DAR scale variables. ............................................................ 132 Table 4.14. Rotated factor matrix for final DAR scale variables. ........................................................ 133 Table 4.15. Reliability statistics for final DAR scale variables. ........................................................... 135 Table 4.16. Summary of Goodness-of-fit measures. ......................................................................... 136 Table 4.17. Construct reliability, construct correlations and AVE analysis. ........................................ 137 Table 4.18. Results of KMO and Bartlett tests for PCSR. .................................................................. 138 Table 4.19. Correlation matrix for final PCSR scale variables. .......................................................... 138 Table 4.20. Rotated factor matrix for final PCSR scale variables. ...................................................... 139 Table 4.21. Reliability statistics for final PCSR scale variables. ......................................................... 140 Table 4.22. Summary of Goodness-of-fit measures. ......................................................................... 141 Table 4.23. Construct reliability, construct correlations and AVE analysis. ........................................ 142 Table 4.24. Summary of Goodness-of-fit measures. ......................................................................... 146 Table 4.25. Construct Reliability and AVE. ....................................................................................... 148 Table 4.26. Construct correlations and AVE analysis. ...................................................................... 148 Table 4.27. Summary of Goodness-of-fit measures. ......................................................................... 151 Table 4.28. Construct Reliability and AVE with second order constructs. .......................................... 151 Table 4.29. Construct correlations and AVE analysis with second order constructs. .......................... 151 Table 4.30. Summary of Goodness-of-fit measures. ......................................................................... 153 Table 4.31. Summary of the results of the hypotheses tests from H1 to H5. .................................... 156 Table 4.32. Summary of Goodness-of-fit measures to access DAR mediation. .................................. 159 Table 4.33. Summary of bootstrapping analysis estimates to access DAR mediation. ....................... 161 Table 4.34. Summary of Goodness-of-fit measures to access PART mediation. ................................ 163 Table 4.35. Summary of bootstrapping analysis estimates to access PART mediation. ..................... 164 Table 4.36. Chi-square differences in familiarity moderation of PCSR-DAR path. .............................. 166 xv Table 4.37. Summary of Goodness-of-fit measures to access PART mediation. ................................ 167 Table 4.38. Results of CSR Importance in a seven-point Likert scale. ............................................... 167 Table 4.39. Chi-square differences in gender moderation of DAR-PART path. ................................... 169 Table 4.40. Summary of Goodness-of-fit measures to access PART mediation. ................................ 169 Table 4.41. Chi-square differences in CSR responsibility moderation of DAR-PART path. .................. 170 Table 4.42. Summary of Goodness-of-fit measures to access PART mediation. ................................ 170 Table 4.43. Summary of the results of the totality of hypothesis tests. ............................................. 171 xvi LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS AVE - Average Variance Extracted CFA – Confirmatory Factor Analysis CSR – Corporate Social Responsibility EFA – Exploratory Factor Analysis GDL – Goods Dominant Logic GRI - Global Reporting Initiative MLE - Maximum Likelihood Estimation NGO – Non-governmental organization SDL – Services Dominant Logic SEM – Structural Equation Modeling WBCSD - World Business Council for Sustainable Development VCC – Value co-creation 1. GENERAL INTRODUCTION 2 1.1 Introduction This chapter provides an overall presentation of the theme under study, featuring Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and Value Co-Creation in a firm-employee relational context. The rational and scope for the study of CSR at the internal level are presented. The research problem emerged from the gap identified in the literature review and supported by the research background, as well as the main research questions and objectives developed, were highlighted. The expected contributions of the thesis are briefly addressed. Finally, at the end of the chapter, an overview of the global structure and organization of the thesis is provided. 1.2 Presentation of the Topic and Research Motivation The link between firms and society has been defined by the fast and profound transformations of the contemporary world. In recent history, business ethics and responsibilities have become a major concern for society (Wang, Tong, Takeuchi, & George, 2016). There is a continuous public debate to understand the role of firms regarding social and environmental issues. Firms’ behaviour is deeply scrutinized as media, consumers, employees, governments and Non-governmental organization (NGOs) are more alert than ever (Carroll & Shabana, 2010; Sabadoz, 2011). These stakeholders are seemingly willing to take part of the business activities more assertively. For that reason, along with practice (eg. Maon, Swaen, & Lindgreen, 2015), Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) research arena has become extremely popular in the past decades. CSR naturally has become a theme of discussion in the management and marketing literature since it represents an important challenge for business nowadays (Wang et al., 2016). In this study CSR is considered from an internal perspective as a co-created reality. The growing relevance of the study of CSR reflects the need to understand the role of the firm in the contemporary society. The idea of CSR has profoundly changed the traditional perspective of business where profit was the only and exclusive purpose to achieve (Carroll & Shabana, 2010). Indeed, the modern comprehension of private organizations typically agrees that CSR implies going beyond pure economic and financial objectives (McWilliams & Siegel, 2001). Although the topic is not new, the social role of the company is still a matter of great discussion both in theory and practice (Louche, Idowu, & Leal Filho, 2010; Salzmann, Ionescu-somers, & Steger, 2005). Faced with the fast-paced global economy world, this discussion has been amplified (Marwa, Keoy, Piew, Ling, & Hassan, 2011). For this reason, 3 the efforts of academia to understand CSR phenomenon have been increasing over the last decades (Vaaland, Heide, & Grønhaug, 2008a). The interest in investigating CSR goes beyond business, encompassing different academic fields. According to Sheehy (2015), CSR concerns both of economics and business researchers, but also law, exploiting the regulatory implications in CSR (Papasolomou, Kountouros, & Kitchen, 2012), political science and institutionalism (Rupp, Ganapathi, Aguilera, & Williams, 2006), and communication sciences (Zyglidopoulos, Georgiadis, Carroll, & Siegel, 2012), especially concerned with in the public sphere occupation of CSR (Pope & Wæraas, 2016). More recently other fields of knowledge present the same preoccupation, such as human resources, where CSR impact in human resources practices is a major issue of concern (Voegtlin & Greenwood, 2016). Therefore, the contributions that integrate different perspectives of CSR, provide new directions on how to approach CSR. Nonetheless, they also added noise to CSR conceptualization. For many years, management and marketing researchers have been pursuing a consensual definition of CSR (Dahlsrud, 2008; Godfrey & Hatch, 2007). However, as CSR has become more common in academic and business narratives, more difficult it seems to establish a unique conceptualization. It has not also been possible to achieve yet a consensus on its legitimacy and importance. Moreover, business actors have added important practical contributions to CSR that increase the fertility of the field. In fact, companies are increasingly willing to integrate social and environmental concerns into the development of their business (Wang et al., 2016). This interest can be partially explained by the attention that consumers, media and society at large currently attribute to the impact businesses have in their lives (Aguilera, Rupp, Williams, & Ganapathi, 2007; Carroll & Shabana, 2010; Sabadoz, 2011). Undeniably, many firms appear to encompass stakeholders’ worries in their business operations worldwide (Cai, Jo, & Pan, 2012). Despite the popularity of CSR today, many questions arise regarding the engagement of companies in socially responsible activities. The authenticity of CSR is often questioned (Wang et al., 2016). Moreover, the importance of the context to CSR success, as well as the role of the stakeholders in responsible business, are often examined (Aguinis & Glavas, 2012). Considering these issues, it is essential to broaden the spectrum of the CSR study to a new level of understanding, with new lenses and approaches. In this study, an interactional approach to the concept of CSR is adopted, based on the concept of Value Co-Creation (VCC). CSR is conceived as a shared phenomenon between the firm and concerned 4 consumers, media, stockholders, employees, governance, among other stakeholders. The support for this viewpoint is in the recent progress in CSR literature that emphasizes the collaborative profile of stakeholders handling social and environmental issues with organizations (eg. Biggemann, Williams, & Kro, 2014; Korschun & Du, 2013). Thus, a static vision of CSR needs to be challenged. Nevertheless, the understanding of CSR as a shared reality is very recent (eg. Bhattacharya, Sen, & Korschun, 2011b). CSR is traditionally understood and studied as a widespread phenomenon suggested from top management to the bottom of the firm structure (eg. Maon, Lindgreen, & Swaen, 2008; Vaaland, Heide, & Grønhaug, 2008b). The repercussions of CSR initiatives and programs are also essentially viewed outside the firm, targeting consumers, media, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and other external stakeholders. Metaanalysis of responsible business shows that the focus is mostly on the impact of CSR in the company image and reputation on consumers (Vaaland et al., 2008a). Thus, CSR is mainly understood as a unidirectional deliberation, from firms to society, as a response to media pressure and external expectations in general. Interactions between stakeholders and firms are often left aside in the study of CSR. However, the adoption of a sharing-responsibility vision is key to broadening the concept's spectrum and, ultimately, increasing its scope. It is therefore pertinent to consider the interactions among stakeholders in this domain to perceive their suitable role in the CSR equation, and therefore, in the creation of mutual value, i.e. value co-creation. Recent research supports the need of dialogues and interactions between firms and stakeholders as fundamental assets to value creation (Maas & Boons, 2010). Indeed, to promote the practices of value co-creation it is important to look and learn from the broad societal context in order to support the dynamic that occurs between firms and stakeholders (del Bosco, 2010). Firms need to know how to engage in this process of mutual creation of value with their stakeholders. Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004c) advanced that one of the implications of the study of co-creation is related to re-thinking of the resource’s management. Moreover, the reconceptualization of CSR as a shared phenomenon can benefit from deepen the analysis about how CSR co-creation occurs. This notion of Value Co-Creation is a relevant topic the CSR domain. Recent research have been adopting the value co-creation concept to issues such as sustainable development (eg. Kruger, Caiado, França, & Quelhas, 2018) and CSR (eg. Aquilani, Silvestri, Ioppolo, & Ruggieri, 2018; Iglesias, Markovic, Bagherzadeh, & Singh, 2018). The concept of value co-creation is related to the understanding that value 5 is not created exclusively by the firm but created together with the individuals inside and outside that are willing to participate in the co-creation process of products, services and experiences (Ramaswamy & Ozcan, 2018) Hitherto, studies of CSR which have approached the idea of co-creation of value assumed that CSR is a mean to achieve co-creation of value (Camilleri, 2012; Jamali, El Dirani, & Harwood, 2015). Thus, considering the perspective of co-creation of value through responsible business, CSR is mostly seen as a management instrument. As a management instrument, the main objective of performing CSR initiatives and programs is to achieve external value creation, related to economic profit and public relations’ strategic goals (Iglesias et al., 2018). Regarding the two concepts under study, CSR and co-creation of value, the fact that so far the research has taken an external perspective approach might restrict the contribution to the field (Glavas, 2016). Nevertheless, the process of co-creation itself is almost ignored. Conversely, the proposed perspective of CSR as a co-created construction between firms and society assumes that CSR is necessarily a reality cocreated between firms and its stakeholders. The responsibility does not stay exclusively on the top management firms’ side. The responsibility is shared, namely with their concerned consumers, media, stockholders, employees, governance, among others. Thus, it is important to understand the process of CSR as a co-created construction. The starting point of the present research is the understanding of CSR as an active construction between firms and society. The literature likewise suggests that the internal dimension of CSR is understudied and needs further development. There is support for CSR as an organizational process that values employees in its core (Bolton, Kim, & O’Gorman, 2011). However, so far there has been little discussion regarding the ordinary employees’ role in the responsible business context (Aguinis & Glavas, 2012; Glavas, 2016). Additionally, literature in the past years is claiming that it is fundamental to understand CSR beyond its external dimensions. Indeed, the focus of the attention should be throwing light on its internal foundations (Aguinis & Glavas, 2012). When considering the internal context, most of the times, only top management is considered (eg. Basu & Palazzo, 2008). There is a research gap regarding the internal CSR dynamics and less is known about the role of employees in the responsible business. Nevertheless, there is a recent growing body of literature that recognizes CSR practices and policies relevant to the development of firms’ internal environment (eg. Glavas, 2016; Haski-Leventhal, Roza, & Meijs, 2017; Kim, Rhou, Uysal, & Kwon, 2017). Beyond management and marketing literature, also 6 organizational behaviour theories (Bauman & Skitka, 2012; Rupp et al., 2006; Rupp, Shao, Thornton, & Skarlicki, 2013) as well as human resources field of knowledge (eg. Jamali et al., 2015) have devoted rising attention to the theme. The contributions of academia in the late years were fruitful regarding the internal dimension of CSR and its importance. Especially in order to understand CSR performance of the firm (Hansen, Dunford, Boss, Boss, & Angermeier, 2011; Kim, Lee, Lee, & Kim, 2010), and in combination with other stakeholders’ perspectives (Maignan & Ferrell, 2004). However, employees, as an internal stakeholder, are mostly strictly viewed as recipients of firms’ initiatives and programmes of social and environmental responsibilities (Aguinis & Glavas, 2012). The employees have a very low active role in CSR. This affects the conceptualization of employees as active stakeholders in CSR. According to Jamali et al. (2015), the internal dynamics of the firm are indeed what truly can differentiate CSR. The referred emergent body of literature regarding internal perspectives of CSR reflects the importance of going beyond consumers on the study of CSR. However, focusing on employees is a difficult theoretical task and a practical challenge. Although the employees constitute part of the firm and reveal a high level of interdependency, they are also separate entities and can be addressed separately, as shown by the stakeholder theory applied to CSR contexts (Clarkson, 1995). The result-oriented nature of the existing approaches, in which external outcomes of CSR are expected to enhance the organizational performance, although relevant are still narrow. Thus, literature faces many issues and challenges regarding this topic, too. To face the challenges above presented, the present study investigates CSR specifically as a cocreated reality between firms and their employees. 1.3 Research Problem and Objectives According to the research background, the lack of analysis regarding CSR dynamics and the role of the employees in the co-creation process is an important issue to overcome. In the present study it is argued that CSR can be a co-created reality between firms and their employees. Nevertheless, the effective willingness of employees to become part of the process, partially suggested by the literature (Aguinis & Glavas, 2012), is one of the fundamental aspects that this investigation wants to verify. The starting point of the present study is the following research question: 7 Q1: How is CSR value co-created between firms and employees? The focus of the study encompasses the relevance of employees as co-creators of value in a CSR scenario. It aims to understand how firms and employees co-create value within the organizational context they are inserted in, regarding responsible business efforts. The importance of the context, specifically the environment and culture embedded in the organization and at the individual level, will condition the CSR value propositions of both firm and employees. The creation of mutual value only happens if direct interactions occur, which corresponds to the CSR value co-creation experience itself. Considering the previous lines, the present study suggests that CSR value co-creation experience can be studied as an integrated construct. The proposed definition of CSR value co-creation experience is supported by Ramaswamy (2011) and Ramaswamy and Ozcan (2018) definition of value creation as well as the contributions o McColl Kennedy, Vargo, Dagger, Sweeney, and van Kasteren (2012) on customer value co-creation (VCC). Therefore, the CSR value co-creation experience can be understood as the process by which value is the result of the intersection between the firm CSR value proposition and the employee CSR value proposition, in a given platform of interaction. The outcomes of these interactions can be the creation of: i) internal value to the firm; ii) internal individual value for the employee; iii) external value to the firm; and iv) value for the embraced cause. Although the understanding of how the phenomenon occurs is a challenging task, it was essential to highlight the extension of CSR value co-creation experience between firms and employees. Therefore, the second research question of the study is: Q2: To what extent is CSR value co-created between firms and employees? 14 2.1 Introduction The Literature Review chapter is divided into three main sections. The first addresses one of the main constructs under study, which corresponds to Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). A reflection on its notion, scope and relevance is first provided, as well as a perspective on its evolution throughout the time. The literature review also focuses on broadening the CSR understanding and finally, an outlook departing from CSR external dimensions to its internal foundations is proposed. The second section focuses on the other main construct of the study which corresponds to Value CoCreation (VCC). Its definition and relevance are explored, and the Service Logic context is provided. The interaction as the basis for VCC is highlighted and the value co-creation experience is also addressed. The idea of platforms of interaction is likewise explored. The last section is devoted to the presentation and development of the conceptual model of Corporate Social Responsibility Value Co-Creation. To provide the specific context for the model, the internal marketing broad context is introduced and then the focus is on the contributions of VCC to understand CSR as a relational process. The arguments for a CSR value co-creation process between firms and employees are enlightened. In the end, the conceptual model of this study is presented. 2.2 Corporate Social Responsibility Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is not a new theoretical avenue for academia. Firms are part of the modern society and its rights and duties are naturally a major issue of concern. The interest of study the firms’ responsibilities beyond legal requirements is evident in literature since de middle of the 1900s (Frederick, 1960). Indeed, CSR has been studied for decades, by several theoretical lenses and approaching distinctive features of the construct. The theoretical material surrounding the concept is therefore extensive. Many disciplines considered CSR as a matter of interest and relevance, such as economics, business, law, political science and institutionalism, as pointed out by Sheehy (2015). Despite so many contributions, or due to so many contributions, the evolution of CSR as a field of study within organizational studies is complex (Dahlsrud, 2008). Different approaches to the concept as well as the inclusion of stakeholders other than customers, such as the employees, have been a very recent approach. Definitely, the evolution of studies on internal CSR witnessed a fast-growing increase in the last years (Morgeson, Aguinis, Waldman, & Siegel, 2013). 15 2.2.1 Notion, Scope and Relevance of Corporate Social Responsibility The notion of business having social and environmental responsibilities towards society is not new at a conceptual level (Aguinis & Glavas, 2012; Dahlsrud, 2008). It exists since the beginning of the modern world where transactions became the centre of human activities. Several authors have devoted their time discussing if the company and its decision-makers should be occupied with social well-being beyond the profitability of the business and the owners and stockholders’ demands (eg.: Friedman, 1970; Mulligan, 1986). Several social sciences disciplines adopted Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) as a topic of concern. With their own lenses, concepts and definitions. Inevitably, the literature on this topic provided a miscellaneous of completely different perspectives (van Marrewijk, 2003). To have at least a suitable starting point regarding the meaning of CSR, several authors point out Bowen’s book Social Responsibilities of the Businessman (Bowen, Bowen, & Gond, 2013), originally published in 1953. It is usually highlighted as one of the first systematic contributions to the topic. The pioneering author explained CSR as to: “ Pursue [of] those policies, to make those decisions, or to follow those lines of action which are desirable in terms of the objectives and values of our society ” (p.6). Nevertheless, the roots of CSR can be found in earlier debates, as shown by Husted (2015). In his research of CSR practices, the author emphasizes the need to go back to the 1800s and to several parts of the world, beyond the USA, to fully understand the concept’s history. The author argues that the early CSR discussions and practices are still relevant: “ My hope is that the retelling of these stories from the past may spur my contemporaries to search more broadly for alternatives and think more freely in the discovery and creation of solutions to the social and environmental problems of business in our day ” (p. 138). The author argues that the problems that businessman faced in the past are not so different from nowadays. The early experiences represent a freer attempt to respond to the social and environmental problems surrounded the firms’ activities. One example provided by the author is the story of Robert Owen, which in 1810 conducted a social experience at New Lanark Mill, in the United Kingdom. After some structural changes regarding the fair treatment of workers, he concluded that CSR had important returns to the firm (50 to 100 percent of the money invested). Besides these considerations regarding the history of CSR, it was in the mid-20th century that the boom of CSR studies happened. Since then, a lot of contributions emerged, particularly in the 1970’s (Carroll & Shabana, 2010). Not only literature provided many definitions, but also several organizations provided their own conceptual understanding of CSR. In Table 2.1 we present a non-exhaustive list of the most 16 relevant definitions found in the literature based on Dahlsrud (2008)'s work. It is important to notice that, according to the author, the definitions have not changed substantially over time. Table 2.1. Definitions of CSR. Author (Year) Definition Davis (1973, p. 312) Corporate Social Responsibility refers to the firm's consideration of, and response to, issues beyond the narrow economic, technical, and legal requirements of the firm. Carroll (1979, p. 499) The social responsibility of business encompasses the economic, legal, ethical and discretionary expectations that society has of organisations at a given point in time. Jones (1980, p. 59) CSR is defined as the notion that corporations have an obligation to constituent groups in society other than stockholders and beyond that prescribed by law or union contract, indicating that a stake may go beyond mere ownership. Kilcullen and Ohles Kooistra (1999, p. 158) CSR is the degree of moral obligation that may be ascribed to corporations beyond simple obedience to the laws of the state. Piacentini et al. (2000, p. 459) CSR is the voluntary assumption by companies of responsibilities beyond purely economic and legal responsibilities. McWilliams and Siegel (2001, p. 117) Actions that appear to further some social good, beyond the interests of the firm and that which is required by law. Mohr, Webb, and Harris (2001, p. 47) The company's commitment to minimizing or eliminating any harmful effects and maximizing its long-run beneficial impact on society. van Marrewijk (2003, p. 102) In general, corporate sustainability and CSR refer to company activities – voluntary by definition – demonstrating the inclusion of social and environmental concerns in business operations and in interactions with stakeholders. Source: List based on Dahlsrud (2008). The presented definitions about CSR contributed to the contemporary view of the construct. One of the key aspects is the idea that CSR encompasses firms going beyond legal and economic requirements (eg. Davis, 1973; Jones, 1980). It is understood that the legal and economic aspects are already mandatory, so firms must be concerned with additional social issues. Therefore, the way firms face those social issues must be voluntary. Which leads to another key aspect: the voluntary essence associated to CSR (eg. Piacentini, MacFadyen, & Eadie, 2000; van Marrewijk, 2003). This is relevant to frame CSR as independent and not formal answer to social concerns. It is also relevant to notice that in some references the term ‘social’ implicitly includes several facets related to stakeholders’ concerns. While in other 17 definitions it is relevant to detail which responsibilities are included, for example social, environmental, economic, legal, among others (eg. Carroll, 1979; van Marrewijk, 2003). Indeed, Carroll (1979) provided one of the most widespread definitions of CSR, that includes economic, legal, ethical and discretionary responsibilities. Those responsibilities are organized in a pyramid format as shown in Figure 2.1 highlighting the weight of economic responsibilities above the other ones. As the author portrays, the CSR pyramid intends to be a metaphor, stressing the importance of the different components which in the end represent CSR as a holistic idea. This means that the firms must be focused on being profitable, obey the law, being ethical and finally, act like a good corporate citizen (Carroll, 1991, p. 43). Figure 2.1. The Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility. Source: Carroll (1991, p. 42). Beyond the academic definitions, CSR guidance documents of institutional organizations are active providers of CSR insights to its definition. For this purpose, the widespread definition of European Commission (CEC, 2002, p. 3) is one of the most cited according to Dahlsrud (2008). Although recently reformulated to a more simplified definition of CSR (EC, 2011) 1 , the former definition adds some 1 Since 2011, the Commission has defined CSR as “the responsibility of enterprises for their impact on society”. PHILANTROPIC Responsibilities Be a good corporate citizen. Contribute to resources to the community, improve quality of life ETHICAL Responsibilities Be ethical Obligation to do what is right, just, and fair. Avoid harm. LEGAL Responsibilities Obey the law Law is society's codification of right and wrong. Play by the rules of the game. ECONOMIC Responsibilities Be profitable The foundation upon which all others rest. 18 important features to the CSR concept such as interactions and volunteerism: The definition of CSR provided by the European Commission reflected the importance of interactions in its core. This is a widespread definition, used both in academic and professional environments. “ A concept whereby companies integrate social and environmental concerns in their business operations and in their interactions with their stakeholders on a voluntary basis ” (CEC, 2002, p. 3). On the top of the non-academic definitions, the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) is also often referred in the literature (cited by Camilleri, 2012, p. 34). The organization devoted to sustainability addresses CSR as: “The continuing commitment by business to behave ethically and contribute to economic development while improving the quality of life of the workforce and their families as well as of the local community and society at large” . Beyond the academic and organizational and governmental definitions, Angus-Leppan, Metcalf, and Benn (2010) refer that another major problem of CSR conceptualization is the variety of names addressing CSR’s notion. CSR is viewed as an “ambiguous and complex umbrella term of contested meaning ” which gives rise to some identity problems (p.190). CSR has been mixed with other important concepts identified in the literature such as corporate responsibility, corporate sustainability, sustainable development, corporate citizenship, sustainable entrepreneurship, Triple Bottom Line, business ethics (e.g. AngusLeppan et al., 2010; and van Marrewijk, 2003). Although sometimes only a semantic deviation is underlined, such diversity leads to misconceptions of the notion of CSR. Additionally, it is usual to find references to CSR in firms’ websites, reports and other sources of organizational information. Norms and indices encompassing CSR proliferated in recent years (Maas & Boons, 2010). For example, in a recent survey of global trends in sustainability reporting and policy 2 provided an effort to gather the information of sustainability reporting, in which CSR disclosure is also included (Carrots&Sticks, 2016). Recently, the data collected in more than 60 countries showed that the number of formal reporting instruments dramatically increased. In 2016, the research found 400 sustainability reporting instruments in 64 countries versus 180 instruments identified in 44 countries in 2013’s report. This compilation of trends shows that only one third of the instruments is voluntary, and despite its variety, most of them only apply to large firms. Accordingly, frameworks such as United Nations 2 Produced jointly by KPMG International, Global Reporting Initiative, United Nations Environment Programme and The Centre for Corporate Governance in Africa. 19 Global Compact principals, norm ISO 26000, OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) Standards, often support most international initiatives regarding sustainability reporting. The KPMG Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting (KPMG, 2017) also corroborates the previous study highlighting the inclusion of non-financial information on reports as the new “normal” for firms’ financial reporting. The two mentioned surveys also underlie the existence of overlapping definitions considering the fragmented reporting scenario. We can conclude that this fragmentation also contributes to the discussion about the CSR concept. Moreover, many authors stressed the misunderstandings regarding the CSR concept (Carroll, 1999; Dahlsrud, 2008). As mentioned before, literature and practitioners present a massive number of definitions. According to van Marrewijk (2003), these definitions are often biased, offering increased chaos both for theory and practice. Nevertheless, the study of Dahlsrud (2008) reveals that possible misinterpretations derive not from the definition per se but from how CSR is socially constructed in a specific context. Dahlsrud (2008), in his content analysis, concluded that the overlaps between definitions are more abundant than what it is expected. The author provides an exhaustive analysis of definitions available in literature and established by important institutional organisms in the development of responsible business directives. Although almost forty definitions were examined, it was not found significant incongruences between them. Essentially, according to the author, the definitions provide a CSR phenomenological description without addressing specific contextual guidance to manage its challenges. “It is not so much a confusion of how CSR is defined, as it is about what constitutes the social responsibility of business ” (Dahlsrud, 2008, p. 6). Which ultimately does not represent a problem; otherwise, the concept would not be possible to be applied at large scale. According to the author, CSR should then be understood throughout a social construction approach, considering the specific context in which is applied. Thus, it is not possible to develop an unbiased definition. The existence of a single definition will not be useful to fit all the possible contexts. Table 2.1. shows several CSR definitions describing different aspects of CSR. This study adopts the definition of Mohr et al. (2001), and considers the inputs of the work carried out by Petkus and Woodruff (1992). The later considered the concept of CSR to include both avoiding harm and doing good. Since the departure of the notion of CSR present in this study is the understanding of business going beyond legal and economic requirements in a voluntary basis, it was important to find a pragmatic vision of the construct. The definition proposed by Mohr et al. (2001) is also broad enough to include different dimensions of CSR, such as social and environmental. It is a well stablished definition, 20 that considers both negative and positive impacts of firms in society. The definition also supports the idea of long run applied to responsible business, which is relevant to understand the value underneath CSR. Therefore, the adopted definition of the present study understands CSR as: “ The company's commitment to minimizing or eliminating any harmful effects and maximizing its long-run beneficial impact on society” . (Mohr et al., 2001, p. 47). 2.2.2 Broadening the understanding of Corporate Social Responsibility During the boom of management studies with CSR at its core, between the 1960s and 1970s, academia had become typically concerned with the financial impact of CSR in business (eg. Abbott & Monsen, 1979). As Margolis, Elfenbein, and Walsh (2007) noticed, almost 200 studies published since the 1970’s have focused on the link between social performance and financial performance of firms. Eventually, the focus evolved to questions regarding the possible existence of social obligations beyond firms’ profit objectives through CSR. The major objective then became to assess the legitimacy of business responsibilities and finally to pursuit a common definition of the concept (Vaaland et al., 2008a). Typically, according to Marwa et al. (2011), there is on the one hand, a normative case that corresponds to “the right thing to do so” of business (p. 156), and on the other hand, the business case that sustains that acting responsibly can generate financial and managerial returns. Additionally, it is interesting to notice that throughout the years scholars moved from a more restricted view of CSR as simply charity and philanthropy to a much more all-encompassing understanding including several aspects of marketing, recruitment, employee motivation and governmental policy (Fleming & Jones, 2013). Maignan and Ferrell (2004) went further and established that literature conceived CSR mainly as: i) a social obligation, ii) a stakeholder obligation and iii) as a managerial process. As a social obligation, it means that CSR is understood as a duty to society. Firms are obliged to answer society as at a general level, regarding its demands on how business should be conducted. As a stakeholder obligation, the inherent logic is the same of the social obligation. The firms have the duty to answer the stakeholders’ social demands. This implies to listen to consumers, stockholders, partners, among others, and act properly. As a managerial process, the idea of CSR is embedded in the managerial dynamics, and it is managed as any other management aspect of the firm, such as human resources, or marketing. Specifically, in what concerns to the marketing literature, the same authors consider that much more could be added. As they explained: “ They [marketing scholars] focused on the social duties attached to the marketing function and not on the overall social role of the firm ” (Maignan & Ferrell, 2004, p. 4). This 21 narrow perspective is also stressed by Vaaland et al. (2008a), and this condition appears to be a large obstacle to better understand CSR. For the purpose of the present study, the study of CSR as a managerial process and as a stakeholder obligation will be further analysed. As a managerial process, literature has strongly addressed CSR as a strategy to increase competitiveness, differentiation and innovation. The central aspect the strategic CSR is how firms can benefit from engaging in CSR activities, and in the meantime, social issues can be addressed. Indeed, the strategic approach to CSR comprehends the reinforcement of “ corporate strategy through social progress ” (Porter & Kramer, 2006, p. 84). Thus, the economic reasons (the business case) and risk management approaches of CSR are often behind the rationale of CSR engagement (Preuss, 2010). Porter and Kramer (2006) have strongly suggested that companies should take a strategic approach to CSR. This means that not only CSR activities are integrated into the global strategy of the firm but also that firms should be ready to anticipate social and environmental concerns. Conversely, responsive CSR activities are adopted to respond to society lower expectations, as a good corporate citizenship. More recently the authors have brought to the discussion the concept of shared value, which is also based on strategic CSR (Porter & Kramer, 2011). According to Maas and Boons (2010), CSR is strategic if integrated with the strategy of the firm and if the firm has the means to measure and monitor the value created for business, society and ecosystems. Guzmán and Becker-Olsen (2010) added that clear motivation, appropriate initiative (strategic fit), right timing and right communication are also essential to strategic CSR. A successful CSR strategy, according to van Marrewijk (2003), has to be context specific for each individual business, i.e. what are the specific CSR issues to be addressed and how to engage with the stakeholders. Nonetheless, one thing seems to be clear: the need for a “ more humane, more ethical and a more transparent way of doing business ” (van Marrewijk, 2003, p. 95). In 2010, Bhattacharyya (2010) presented the strategic perspective about CSR encompassing four different topics which prevailed in the literature, namely: i) firm internal and external stakeholders’ management perspectives; ii) firm activities perspective; iii) the strategic traits of strategic CSR and iv) the business gains by doing CSR (p. 83). First, the firm internal and external perspectives and stakeholder management presents CSR as influencing both internal and external stakeholders. Internally, CSR contributes to employees’ motivation and good management practice. Externally, CSR contributes to a good reputation and reduce risk. Second, the firm activities perspective discusses the concept of strategic CSR always through its practical activities. Third, the strategic traits of strategic CSR underlie the link 22 between CSR activities and the objectives, mission, vision and goals of the firm. Fourth, the business gains by doing strategic CSR perspective is related to the business benefits, such as : “helping a firm in following a generic strategy, developing strategic resources for the firm, creating new business opportunities and helping a firm manage stakeholder-related risks better” (p.86). More recently, studies have focused on other features of strategic CSR. One feature is the importance of implicit and explicit CSR (Matten & Moon, 2008). According to Angus-Leppan et al. (2010) firms can engage both in explicit and implicit CSR, and try to balance those extremes. Explicit CSR corresponds to the business case of CSR and it is intended to be publicized. The objective is to be rewarded by the different stakeholders surrounding the firm. Conversely, the implicit CSR is not meant to be publicized although staff engagement and commitment, for instance, can be reinforced. Moreover, Misani (2010) identified two different types of CSR related to how firms practice socially responsible business in order to overcome or not their rivals. Thus, the author introduced convergent CSR in opposition to divergent CSR. On one hand, convergent CSR corresponds to firms adopting pre-existing practices in the industry as well as collaborations between the firm and its rivals. It may be seen as an open-source type of CSR. Furthermore, divergent CSR views social performance as a mean to achieve competitive advantage. Firms are looking to develop unique CSR practices and keep them unreachable to their rivals. Indeed, according to previous literature, it is often stated that if a firm can get a financial return from CSR it is imperative to develop a unique CSR strategy, in order to achieve competitive advantage over its rivals. Since the study of the managerial dimension of CSR is a major question for scholars, literature has been providing some evidence regarding a positive return to business engaged in CSR (e.g. Becker-Olsen, Taylor, Hill, & Yalcinkaya, 2011; Carroll & Shabana, 2010; Sen & Bhattacharya, 2001; Sen, Bhattacharya, & Korschun, 2006). The cited authors refer that CSR efforts may be a differentiating factor for businesses and that improving CSR might enhance stakeholder’s perceptions, especially if perceived as coherent with the firm overall behaviour. For instance, literature provided evidence regarding consumers and their relationships with socially responsible brands (e.g. Ferrell, Harrison, Ferrell, & Hair, 2019; Xie, Bagozzi, & Grønhaug, 2019). Previous research has shown that stakeholders are becoming more aware to ethical, social, and environmental issues. This contributes to a positive support to socially responsible business or, on contrary, punishing the ‘bad’ companies. As Sen and Bhattacharya (2001, p. 126) highlighted, “ CSR initiatives can, under certain conditions, decrease consumers' intentions to buy a company's products ”. 23 Which means that consumers other stakeholders can be critical and judgemental regarding the firms’ CSR if perceived as fake. Nonetheless, much more could be added to this discussion, specifically in what concerns to broadening the spectrum of stakeholders. However, the impact of CSR variables on marketing outcomes for the organization, namely company image, reputation, sales, consumer purchase intentions or other marketing goals, is still one of the biggest concerns for researchers (eg. Hur, Kim, & Jang, 2016; Kim, 2019) . This seems to be narrowing a broader perspective about CSR. As Windsor (2013, p. 101) defended “A narrowly economic or instrumentalist conception is insufficient, and counterproductive for society and firm” . Therefore, it is important to provide new information not only regarding the marketing outcomes, but also the processes that involve the phenomenon. A parallel stream of research has also been concerned with all stakeholders that can affect or be affected by the organization’s activity, stressing the importance of trying to correspond to their expectations (Roeck & Delobbe, 2012). Not only consumers and managers, but also media and employees have been in the centre of several studies (Collier & Esteban, 2007; Maignan, 2001; Zyglidopoulos et al., 2012). The focus on stakeholders, with the background of stakeholder theory, became an important perspective regarding CSR research mostly in the past decade (Roeck & Delobbe, 2012). The CSR understanding also benefits from the scrutiny of what triggers the firm’s interest to engage CSR (Angus-Leppan et al., 2010; Haigh & Jones, 2006; Hemingway & Maclagan, 2004). As mentioned before, a narrower perspective of CSR, which comprehends the focus on the economic outcomes, needs to be challenged. Otherwise, it would lead the study of the motivations behind CSR to a minimum stage of development. Thus, commercial purposes should not be seen as the ultimate driver of CSR. Taking this view into account, and according to the empirical study carried out by Harwood, Humby, and Harwood (2011), new evidence could be added. In their study, several respondents (senior executives, directors or managers of several organizations) explained the main reason to engage CSR as the “ right thing to do ” (p. 289). This answer can be interpreted as business going beyond a limited instrumentalist motivation to CSR. One of the recommendations that emerged from Margolis et al. (2007) meta-analysis of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) was the necessity of scholars to go beyond the link between social performance and financial performance of firms. The problem was that most of the studies focused on the financial benefits instead of analysing the conditions that allow firms to create value through CSR, not only financial, but 30 Table 2.2. Summary of literature review considering CSR and employees (empirical journal articles). Reference Discipline1 Object Outcomes Mediators Moderators Vlachos, Panagopoulos, and Rapp (2014) OB Employees’ CSR judgements Affective commitment Performance on extra-role CSR specific behaviour NA Directive leadership Deliberate Strategy Vlachos, Panagopoulos, Theotokis, Singh, and Singh (2014) HR OB Employees’ CSR performance perceptions Customer-facing employees' behavioural outcomes NA Satisfaction with payment Satisfaction with the job itself Individualism Zhu, Hang, Liu, and Lai (2014) Mkt Mng Employee perception of organizational CSR efforts Employee loyalty Employee satisfaction Employee satisfaction Ditlev-Simonsen (2015) Mkt Mng Employees' perceptions of CSR activities Positive organizational support Affective organizational commitment NA NA Du et al. (2015) Mkt Mng Employees’ reactions to CSR Job satisfaction Turnover intention Ideological/development needs fulfilment CSR Proximity Newman, Nielsen, and Miao (2015) HR Employees’ perceptions CSR Job performance Organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB) NA NA Onkila (2015) Mkt Mng Employees’ emotions about CSR Emotional arguments about CSR NA NA Potocan and Nedelko (2015) Psychology Employees’ personal values and attitudes towards CSR Employees’ personal values and attitudes towards CSR NA NA Slack et al. (2015) Mkt Mng Employees’ CSR engagement Employees’ CSR engagement NA NA Supanti et al. (2015) Mkt Mng Managers’ perception of engaging CSR Employer-employee relationship Potential mediating role of positive emotions, social capital and task-related skills NA West et al. (2015) Mkt Mng Employees’ CSR perceptions Behavioural intentions Employee Trust and Distrust Individual-specific beliefs, i.e. social axioms Social Cynicism and Reward for Application Azim (2016) Mkt Mng Employees’ perception about firms’ external CSR Affective organizational commitment Job commitment and engagement Organizational commitment (affective and normative) NA 31 Table 2.2. Summary of literature review considering CSR and employees (empirical journal articles). Reference Discipline1 Object Outcomes Mediators Moderators Organizational citizenship behaviour Barakat et al. (2016) Mng Employees’ CSR perceptions Employees’ job satisfaction Employees’ commitment Organizational image NA Mory, Wirtz, and Gottel (2016) Mng Employees’ CSR perceptions Organizational commitment Affective Organizational Commitment NA Panagopoulos, Rapp, and Vlachos (2016) Mkt Mng Employees' CSR performance perceptions Employees' affective organizational commitment NA Employees volunteering De Roeck, El Akremi, and Swaen (2016) Mng Sheel and Vohra (2016) OB Employees’ CSR perceptions Employees’ CSR perceptions NA Employee volunteering Organizational cynicism Bravo et al. (2017) Mng Employees’ perceptions of brand identity management and CSR Employees’ commitment Brand performance Brand citizenship behaviour Perceived external prestige Organizational commitment Age Carnahan, Kryscynski, and Olson (2017) Mng CSR investment Employees’ turnover NA NA Chaudhary (2017) Mng Employees’ CSR perceptions Employees’ engagement CSR towards different stakeholders Gender Flammer and Luo (2017) Mng CSR impact in RH Employees’ engagement Mitigate adverse behaviour (e.g. absenteeism) NA NA Gao and He (2017) Mng Employees’ CSR perceptions Employees’ organizational citizenship behaviour Supervisor ethical leadership Perceived organizational distributive justice Haski-Leventhal et al. (2017) Mng CSR and employee social responsibility CSR engagement pattern of employees and employers NA NA McNamara et al. (2017) Mng Employees’ CSR perceptions Employees’ engagement Employees’ affective commitment NA Employees’ valuing of externally/internally-focused CSR activities Vlachos, Panagopoulos, Bachrach, and Morgeson (2017) OB Employees’ and managers CSR attributions Employees’ advocacy Employees’ causal attributions Manager’s organizational tenure 32 Table 2.2. Summary of literature review considering CSR and employees (empirical journal articles). Reference Discipline1 Object Outcomes Mediators Moderators Archimi, Reynaud, Yasin, and Bhatti (2018) Mng Employees’ CSR perceptions Employees’ cynicism Organizational trust NA De Roeck and Farooq (2018) OB Employees’ CSR perceptions Social and green behaviour Organizational identification Perceived ethical leadership Duthler and Dhanesh (2018) Com CSR communication Employees’ perceptions Employees’ engagement NA NA Kim, Woo, Uysal, and Kwon (2018) HMng Employees’ CSR perceptions Quality of working life Job satisfaction Overall quality life NA NA Ong et al. (2018) OB CSR efforts Employees' organizational citizenship behaviours Prosocial motivation Task significance Park et al. (2018) HMng Employees’ CSR perceptions Work engagement Innovative behaviour Intention to stay Work engagement NA Rupp et al. (2018) OB Employees’ CSR perceptions Employees’ engagement NA CSR-specific relative autonomy Individualism Rosati, Costa, Calabrese, and Pedersen (2018) Mng Employees’ attitudes towards CSR Employees’ attitudes towards CSR NA NA Sharma and Tewari (2018) Mng Institutionalization of CSR Employees’ CSR perceptions Employees’ perceptions of HR’s Involvement in CSR NA NA Tsourvakas and Yfantidou (2018) Mng CSR efforts Employees’ engagement Motivation Job satisfaction NA NA Youn, Lee, and Lee (2018) HMng Employees’ CSR perceptions Employees’ commitment Job satisfaction Employees’ CSR perceptions Wisse, van Eijbergen, Rietzschel, and Scheibe (2018) Mng Employees’ CSR perceptions Employees’ satisfaction NA Age (chronological and subjective) Zhou et al. (2018) OB Employees’ CSR perceptions Organizational pride Job satisfaction Affective commitment Organizational pride NA Appiah (2019) HMng Employees’ CSR community involvement Job satisfaction NA Gender (no moderating effect) 33 Table 2.2. Summary of literature review considering CSR and employees (empirical journal articles). Reference Discipline1 Object Outcomes Mediators Moderators Bouraoui, Bensemmane, Ohana, and Russo (2019) Mng Employees’ CSR perceptions Employees’ commitment Person-organization fit Organizational identification Perceived organizational support NA Liu, Shiue, Chen, and Huang (2019) Mng Employees’ CSR perceptions Employees’ engagement, Motivation Job satisfaction NA NA Ng, Yam, and Aguinis (2019) Psy Employees’ CSR perceptions Organizational pride and embeddedness, Decrease turnover NA NA Su and Swanson (2019) HMng Employees’ CSR perceptions Organizational trust Organizational identification Well being Green behaviour Organizational trust Organizational identification NA Notes: Whenever a parameter was not observed and/ was not reported by the authors is marked as Not Available (NA). 1The Disciplines acronyms correspond to: Mkt = Marketing; Mng = Management; OB = Organizational Behaviour; HR = Human Resources; HMng = Hospitality Management; Psy = Psychology; Com = Communication Source: elaborated by the author. 34 Table 2.3. Summary of literature review considering CSR and employees (conceptual papers). Reference Discipline1 Object Outcomes (suggested) Mediators (suggested) Moderators (suggested) Rupp et al. (2006) OB Employees’ perceptions of CSR Emotions, attitudes, and behaviours Employees' justice perceptions Instrumental, relational, and deontic motives/needs Organizations’ social accounts Glavas and Godwin (2013) Mkt Mng Employees' perceived corporate social responsibility image Employee's organizational identification Salience of CSR to employee NA Godkin (2015) Mkt Mng Mid-management role in CSR Employees’ engagement NA NA Donia and Sirsly (2016) Mkt Mng Employees’ attributions of CSR ( genuine vs greenwashing CSR) Employee attitudes and behaviours NA Employee moral identity Employee self-interest Cycyota et al. (2016) Mng Employee volunteerism NA NA NA De Roeck and Maon (2018) Mng Employees’ responses to CSR Employees’ attitudes and behaviours Organizational performance Employees’ perceptions of internal/external CSR Organizational identification, pride and trust Overall Justice Perceived external prestige Perceived organizational support NA Notes: Whenever a parameter was not observed and/ was not reported by the authors is be marked as Not Available (NA). 1The Disciplines acronyms correspond to: Mkt = Marketing; Mng = Management; OB = Organizational Behaviour; HR = Human Resources; HMng = Hospitality Management; Psy = Psychology; Com = Communication. Source: elaborated by the author. 35 2.2.4 Challenges of the Study of Employees and Corporate Social Responsibility One of the major challenges that the study of employees and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) faces is the difficulty in distinguishing between ‘internal CSR’ and ‘external CSR’. CSR initiatives and programs are often considered together, without a defined typology considering its distinctive features. Kim et al. (2010) characterized internal CSR as activities including employees’ welfare and business ethics, and external CSR (or corporate citizenship) as the involvement with charity and non-profit organizations. However, the boundary between external and internal CSR is not that clear and studies on employees’ perspectives can also benefit from analysing external CSR. Indeed, external CSR activities also influence employees’ perspectives on CSR (Brammer, Millington, & Rayton, 2007). Little is known about the image that the employees hold about the firms’ image or its perceived external prestige. According to Brammer et al. (2007) studies that analysed employees and overall CSR concluded that it is easier to attract new employees for firms which support responsible business. This translates into a willingness to make an effort to become part of the company as well as to be more committed, as they are prouder of the company they work with. In line with this investigation, are other contributions focused on the employee acquisition and retention based on CSR perceptions (e.g. Bhattacharya, Sen, & Korschun, 2008). However, research stresses that these assumptions require further attention and deeper investigation (eg. Panagopoulos et al., 2016). A second issue is related to the main topics regarding employees’ perceptions and attitudes towards CSR. Research agenda on internal CSR encompasses two levels: organizational and individual. At the organizational level, meaning that the outcomes of engaging in CSR are directly related to the firms’ performance. Studies in this field have mostly been concerned with the relationship between CSR and employees’ commitment (Brammer et al., 2007; Maignan, Ferrell, & Hult, 1999; Rego, Leal, Cunha, Faria, & Pinho, 2010), and identification to the firm (Berger, Cunningham, & Drumwright, 2006; Collier & Esteban, 2007; Rodrigo & Arenas, 2008). Indeed, literature focusing on employees’ commitment and identification presenting CSR as a driver to establish a positive relationship between the employees’ perspective and firms’ responsibilities. In most cases, observations suggest an improvement concerning time, energy and dedication that employees devote to firms (Maignan & Ferrell, 2004). Previously, Maignan et al. (1999) stated that corporate citizenship might be an important tool for internal marketing as it can promote motivation, keep the employees informed and create bonds. Other studies focused on the employee engagement (Caligiuri, Mencin, & Jiang, 2013) and participation (Chen & Hung-Baesecke, 36 2014). Fewer studies contemplate the individual level, which can be related to the personal value created for the employees. Those studies include concerns regarding the overall well-being of the employees related to CSR (Aguilera et al., 2007) or the fulfilment of psychological needs (Bauman & Skitka, 2012). However, the literature suggests that further investigation at individual-level is necessary (Glavas & Godwin, 2013). A third issue comprises the necessity to throw light on the lack of knowledge about the antecedents of CSR employees’ perceptions (Rupp et al., 2006), as well as the role of individual differences moderating the effects of CSR. The fourth issue relies on broadening the understanding of internal CSR considering the individual perceptions and, most important, their behaviour, about CSR initiatives (Kim et al., 2010). The emphasis on the participation on CSR activities rather than access the employees’ opinions could also leverage the discussion on internal CSR. A fifth issue is related to the conceptualization of CSR by employees. Employees rarely have the opportunity to describe or even identify their own definition of CSR (Maignan, 2001). Related to this topic is the assumption that employees are familiar or even interested in social responsibility achievements of firms (Kim et al., 2010). Future research should evaluate the accuracy of these assumptions. Regarding the main issues and challenges that can be found in past literature, although contributions on employees’ and CSR study are evolving in several streams of literature, much more could be added. Employees can also be considered as being beneficiaries of organisation’s internal CSR while also being part of the firms’ effort to embrace CSR for other stakeholders. As explained by Camilleri (2012, p. 111), employees are in the end double agents, which explains their importance to firms’ CSR. 2.2.5 Summary In this section the construct of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) was addressed taking into consideration five main issues. First, a reflection on its notion, scope and relevance was provided. The lack of consensus regarding a single definition was overcome with the insights provided by different literature perspectives. The prominence of CSR in the modern narrative of business was supported by the relevance both in practice and theory. Nevertheless, new perspectives on the study of CSR are required to understand the dimensions of this complex construct that involves so many societal layers. Second, a deeper analysis on the theoretical evolution of the CSR was employed, from a more instrumentalist perspective to a broader perspective. It was especially relevant to notice the differences 37 and the complementarities between stakeholders’ approach and managerial approach to CSR, to conduct to a value creation approach. Additionally, in order to broad the CSR understanding, a reflection on the main objections of CSR provided by literature, was considered. Fourth, the claims of academia to deepen the internal dimensions of CSR were also reflected in a state of the art regarding CSR and employees’ insights from literature. Fifth, finally the results from the state or art provided support to a reflection regarding the challenges of study employees and CSR. The analysis of the issues and challenges referring to this topic then culminated in relevant insights about CSR and employees. After the presentation of the first main construct of the study, the next section will be focused on the second main construct: Value Co-Creation. 38 2.3 Value Co-Creation The present study relies on the idea of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) as a co-created reality. To support this perspective, it is essential to focus on the concept of Value Co-Creation (VCC). As explained by one of the pioneering authors of co-creation of value in management context, the new paradigm of value lays on the idea of firms and customers creating value simultaneously (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004a). The creation of value typically accounts for the firm developing valuable products and services inside its boundaries. Then, those products and services are offered to the market and consumers receive the value created. In the context of VCC, the value-in-exchange perspective loses its importance to a new unique value-in-use or value-in-context perspective. Both firms and consumers are involved in value creation. The conceptual basis of VCC is grounded in the firm–customer dyad. This is the starting point to adopt and adapt VCC to a different theoretical framework and context such as CSR. Furthermore, VCC is also grounded within the service logic context, which will be discussed to provide an overall dimension of the concept. This theoretical background encompasses a new understanding of value creation and marketing (Vargo & Lusch, 2008b), but also includes contributions from the studies about social construction, which will be next described. 2.3.1 Value Co-Creation and the Service Logic Context Service Logic as a formal perspective to conceive value creation and marketing can be tracked back to Vargo and Lusch (2004) study’s contributions. In their work, the authors advocate for a new view of service. In fact, as noticed by Grönroos (2011) that was the first time that service as a sub-discipline reached mainstream academia. The interest in the “new dominant logic” allowed the adoption of value creation and value co-creation features described by the authors (Vargo & Lusch, 2008b). Indeed, resources such as services and products do not have value embedded in its features. Value is co-created with customers when used, in a specific context, where firm and customers interact. The importance of services in marketing literature was specially highlighted during the 50s of last century. With the emergence of services marketing as a discipline, services – often intangible, were fundamentally different assets from goods - often tangible. Thus, earlier studies were frequently concerned with the analysis of those differences (Vargo & Lusch, 2004). At the same time, the previous goods dominant logic did not answer services marketing concerns. According to the authors, a new paradigm was urgently needed. Although recognizing the important efforts of services marketing scholars, the authors went 39 further regarding services conceptualization. They defended that the real issue was not regarding the differences between services and goods. Instead, the main issue is that all goods are indeed a service. Accordingly, marketing should go beyond the goods dominant logic (GDL) (Vargo & Lusch, 2004). This means that service becomes the fundamental basis of exchange, in opposite to a goods. Firms and customers actually exchange services for services, since products are mostly the physical evidence of the service process. Thus, in 2004, Vargo and Lusch proposed a “fundamental shift in worldview” of marketing by defending the service dominant logic (SDL). The prevailing view of GDL was mostly focused on tangible products produced by the firm which a priori determined its value. The possible intervention of the consumer in the process was not even considered. Therefore, marketing was above all concerned with trade and products’ distribution. This perspective left aside aspects such as interaction and the importance of people as the interface of the firm and the experience of the consumer. Vargo and Lusch (2004) went even further and considered that all firms are service firms. For that reason, marketing thought, and practice should be grounded in service logic principles and theories. The focus of exchange necessarily changes, as well as the role of customers. “ The central concept in S-D logic is that service – the application of resources for the benefit of another party – is exchange for service ” (Vargo & Lusch, 2011, p. 184). For the authors, services can then be defined as “The application of specialized competences (knowledge and skills) through deeds, processes, and performances for the benefit of another entity or the entity itself” (Vargo & Lusch, 2004, p. 2). According to the authors, the presented services’ definition was meant to address all kinds of business and industries. To better explain this perspective, Vargo and Lusch (2004) explained the concepts of operand and operant resources. According to the authors, operand resources are those resources “on which an operation or act is performed to produce an effect” (p.2). In other way, operant resour ces are those resources “which are employed to act on operand resources (and other operant resources)” (p.2). The focus is mostly on human skills and knowledge which are considered to be operant resources (Vargo & Lusch, 2011). The integration of consumer capabilities into the service process allows the integration of new inputs that ultimately will lead to value co-creation and even conduct to competitive advantages (Zhang & Chen, 2008). In this scenario, Vargo and Lusch (2004) proposed eight propositions to ground their theory. These propositions were then updated to ten foundational propositions (FP) to better understand SDL (Vargo & 46 To address the value co-creation experience, Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004c) suggested the idea of a conceptual model corresponding to the components of VCC. The DART model, introduced by the authors and further developed in other researchers’ works (e.g. Albinsson, Perera, & Sautter, 2011; Becker & Nagel, 2013; Mazur & Zaborek, 2014; Taghizadeh, Jayaraman, Ismail, & Rahman, 2016), became one important contribute to understand the elements encompassing co-creation of value and how businesses are involved in the phenomenon. The authors claim for a focus on the “ total co-creation experience ” (p. 23) and a deeper understanding of the process of co-creation through DART model. The DART model includes four building blocks of the co-creation experience between a consumer and a firm, namely: i) Dialogue, ii) Access, iii) Transparency iv) Risk assessment. According to the authors, to create a new dynamic of co-creation, the building blocks can be combined in different ways by the firms. Since the beginning of the 2000’s, Prahalad and Ramaswamy have been working upon this idea of the four building blocks of value co-creation (e.g. Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2000; Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2002; Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004a). The elements of the DART model will be next present in detail. The first building block is dialogue and it is related to mutual interactivity, deep engagement and propensity to act. This building block involves listening, empathic understanding and recognizing the emotional, social and cultural context of experiences. It requires having issues of interest between consumer and the firm, a forum in which the dialogue occurs, and explicit or implicit rules of engagement. Thus, the dialogue goes beyond sharing and implies new levels of understanding between consumers and firms, in which value from consumers’ perspective is also seen. The authors also refer that dialogue is related to the creation and maintenance of a loyal community (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004c). The second building block is access and it is related to information and tools provided by the firm to the customers. According to Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004c), this second building block can also include the access to desirable experiences and on-demand resources. Most of all, access can transform the capacity for self-expression (the consumer can become author, publisher and manager of the value creation process) (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004c). The third building block is transparency. Transparency refers to the symmetry of information between consumers and the firm and is also related to the trust between firms and consumers. As explained by Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004b), dialogue is not effective without access and transparency. The three building blocks are related and are crucial for a “meaningful dialogue” (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004b, 47 p. 9). It is not possible to assure a dialogue between firms and individuals without the guarantee of access and transparency to information by the consumers. The fourth building block is risk assessment and refers to the probability to harm the consumer. “ Can firms unilaterally manage risks in an environment of co-creation? On other hand, if consumers are active co-creators should they shoulder responsibility for risks as well ?” (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004c, p. 27). The question might be related to the loss of consumers have to face in a co-creation context (e.g. discomfort by also being in charge of value creation). According to Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004b), the understanding of risk-benefits is a personalized assessment (e.g. when the patient decide to change his own medication). The authors also underlined the advantages of the combination of the different building blocks. “ Combining the building blocks of transparency, risk assessment, access, and dialogue enables companies to better engage customers as collaborators ” (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004c, p. 31). The combination between the building blocks is presented in the following terms: access and transparency, dialogue and risk assessment, access and dialogue and transparency and risk assessment. Transparency and dialogue are not combined. “ They contribute to the debate, both technically and in terms of their expectations and views of value. In so doing, they are co-shaping the future ” (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004c, p. 27). In addition, “ consumers must trust the firms with which they engage in co-creation ” (p.33). Additionally, the authors highlight the importance of interaction between the consumer and the company as the virtual dimension “ where the co-creation experience occurs, where individuals exercise choice, and where value is co-created. Points of interaction provide opportunities for collaboration and negotiation, explicit or implicit, between the consumer and the company – as well as opportunities for those processes to break down ” (p.33). According to Albinsson, Perera, and Sautter (2016) the DART components are codependent conditions for the development of VCC. The DART model proposed by Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004c) also inspired some attempts to develop a scale to measure value co-creation. Accordingly, DART is one of the currently most complete frameworks (Mazur & Zaborek, 2014) as the model includes four building blocks of the co-creation experience between a consumer and a firm, namely, Dialogue, Access, Risk assessment and Transparency. As noticed by the literature, there is a lack of quantitative studies regarding this particular model (e.g.Mazur & Zaborek, 2014; Taghizadeh et al., 2016). The referred authors also underlined that the few qualitative attempts to study DART model, such as case study analysis, as insufficient. 48 Another pioneering attempt of developing a comprehensive measurement of value co-creation is attributed to Yi and Gong (2013). The authors proposed a customer value co-creation behaviour scale, specifically focusing on the customer involvement in value co-creation. The scale comprises two dimensions: the customer participation behaviour and the customer citizenship behaviour, with each dimension having four components. The customer participation behaviour includes information seeking, information sharing, responsible behaviour and personal interactions. The customer citizenship behaviour includes feedback, advocacy, helping and tolerance. In an initiative to illustrate the complete multidimensional theoretical nature of value co-creation, Ranjan and Read (2016) developed a measurement instrument including the two main dimensions of VCC, in align with theory: co-production and value-in-use. The co-production includes: knowledge, equity and interaction. The value-in-use includes: experience, personalization, and relationship. 2.3.4 From Value Co-creation with Customers to the Internal Marketing Context To provide a setting to the analysis for the present study, it is relevant to track its purpose within the internal marketing context. Payne and Holt (2001) suggested that the consumer has been the only key stakeholder of the value creation process. However, to increase the understanding of value-creation it is necessary to include other stakeholders. The internal marketing context is intrinsically related to the service logic context. According to Gronroos (1997, p. 331),“ if internal marketing is neglected, external marketing suffers or fails ”. Although the importance of internal marketing is not new, the concept was only introduced in literature in the late 1970s, emerging naturally within the new and integrative approach that focus the attention in long-term relationships in business, going beyond a transactional exchange perspective (Gummesson & Gronroos, 2012) and the ambition to deliver consistent high service quality (Rafiq & Ahmed, 2000). Kotler and Keller (2014) identify internal marketing as an element of the holistic perspective of marketing which embraces all the interdependencies of marketing environment. The authors define internal marketing as “ the task of hiring, training, and motivating able employees who want to serve customers well ” and it is a guarantee that the overall organization is adopting the marketing principles (p.19). Notwithstanding this starting point, much more could be added in terms of the components and outcomes of internal marketing. For example, in Kim, Song, and Lee (2016) analysis, the authors emphasized the components of internal marketing as: quality of welfare systems, training, compensation, communication, 49 and management support. The authors also identify that the literature has not only confirmed that internal marketing is positively related to business performance indicators but also with employees’ attitudes. This includes organizational commitment, job involvement, work motivation and job satisfaction. The importance of the employees’ psychological connection with the firm is one of the aspects that Kim et al. (2016) stress. As the authors explained, the firm will benefit from this connection and a good relationship with the employees will be assured. A deeper analysis of the concept of internal marketing can be found in Rafiq and Ahmed (2000). To clarify the several contributions of the literature, the authors developed a list including the key criteria often reported in internal marketing conceptualizations (p.453): 1. Employee motivation and satisfaction. 2. Customer orientation and customer satisfaction. 3. Inter-functional co-ordination and integration. 4. Marketing-like approach to the above. 5. Implementation of specific corporate or functional strategies. According to Rafiq and Ahmed (2000), a definition of internal marketing should include all the listed items. The objective was to broad the internal marketing to other areas of knowledge, other than the services context. The definition combines Rafiq and Ahmed (2000) previous works as well as Gronroos (1985) study’s contributions (Rafiq & Ahmed, 2000, p. 454): “ Internal marketing is a planned effort using a marketing-like approach to overcome organizational resistance to change and to align, motivate and interfunctionally co-ordinate and integrate employees towards the effective implementation of corporate and functional strategies in order to deliver customer satisfaction through a process of creating motivated and customer orientated employees .” In a similar perspective, the Nordic School refers to the employees as part-time marketers (e.g. Gummesson & Gronroos, 2012). The concept of part-time marketers, was firstly introduced by Gummesson (1991) and calls into attention the importance that non-marketing-people have to improve the firms’ marketing function. This concept refers to employees of a firm that influence customer experience at a certain point and are not part of the marketing and sales department. For Gronroos 50 (1997) this part-time marketers should be prepared for the marketing tasks as well, since marketing starts from the organizations inner and spreads to the outside environment. The author posits that it is beneficial for marketing to introduce an active marketing approach to the internal market of employees. In the same sense, Ballantyne (2003) suggests that internal marketing can create value not only for the organisation and its customers but also for its employees. The author presents a relationship-mediated theory to understand internal marketing as a relationship development strategy. The ultimate purpose of internal marketing is to promote the continuous renovation of knowledge to stay relevant in the market. The objective is to provide internal marketing with legitimacy. This perspective puts employees at a spotlight and extends its original functions to marketing through a learning process, although that might not be its core activity. The emergence of new internal knowledge as a result of learning activities might have consequences on the external market performance as well. 2.3.5 Summary In this section, the concept of Value Co-Creation (VCC) was addressed, considering the importance of its understanding regarding Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) as a relational process. First, the Service Logic Context was presented in order to frame the idea of VCC. The focus was on framing the VCC in the broader context of the new marketing paradigm. This allowed to go from the understanding of value as exchange to value-in-use, which is a key aspect of VCC. Second, the notion, scope and relevance were explored. The relevance of the interactions as the basis of VCC was emphasized. Third, the VCC experience was highlighted and the DART model was addressed to understand the components of the co-creation process. In the end, the internal marketing context was provided. After the presentation of the second main construct of the study, the next section will introduce the proposed model of Corporate Social Responsibility Value Co-Creation. 51 2.4 A Model of CSR Value Co-Creation To ground the idea of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) as a co-created reality in this study, contributions from Value Co-Creation (VCC) are considered, embedded in the Service Dominant Logic (SDL) perspective. As already mentioned, the applicability of SDL theory and concepts have been recently addressed to other scenarios and contexts, as for example the case of the study of Luca, Hibbert, and McDonald (2016). The authors found the service-oriented approach potentially relevant to explain contemporary social marketing and, consequently, social change. The interest in translating and adapting the SDL approach to different realities and areas of knowledge as the originally thought can be explained by the plasticity of its nature. It allows capturing the dynamic processes of human experiences in corporate contexts. Indeed, this approach to business provides a new understanding of value creation and marketing between firms and customers, going beyond strict exchange of goods (Vargo & Lusch, 2008b). The proposed interchangeability of the value co-creation concept offers the opportunity to question if value co-creation ideas can be applied to corporate social responsibility. This can be related to the attempt to broad the marketing ideas to a wider social spectrum. In the 1970s, Kotler and Zaltman defied the established knowledge about marketing questioning if marketing concepts and techniques could be applied to the social marketing activities (Kotler & Zaltman, 1971). A similar conceptual effort is now being done by scholars providing validation for value co-creation theoretical foundations to be extended to different academic contexts. In this study, value co-creation is understood as relevant beyond the fields of were the concept was developed, similarly to other authors (e.g. Jamali et al., 2015). However, as opposed to the view of Jamali et al. (2015), co-creation of value is not understood as an exclusively strategic phenomenon but also as a relational and social phenomenon. Moreover, value co-creation is considered beyond an unconscious and spontaneous process. Indeed, it is conceived as a conscious and explicitly process (Vargo & Lusch, 2008b), where interaction happens in order to create mutual value. The basis of the co-creation of value is therefore interaction (Grönroos, 2011). Grönroos (2011, p. 290) assumed that “ although customers are in charge of their value creation and fundamentally are the value creators, during direct interactions, provided that the firm makes use of the opportunities of such an interactive process, the firm also co-creates value with customers ”. These considerations should be taken into account in the context of firm and employees (similarly to other stakeholders), where their roles 52 create value, becoming convergent. Additionally, in the SDL, relevance is given to the points of interaction where value is co-created. As previously addressed, it is essential a deeper comprehension on what VCC experiences are, and for instance the focus should be on individuals and their co-creation experiences (eg. Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004b; Ramaswamy, 2009). The attention is on the importance of the co-creation experience as a personalized experience. According to the example provided by Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004c, p. 10): “ Value lies in the co-creation experience of a specific patient, at a specific point in time, in a specific location, in the context of a specific event ”. Based on the same argument, value is related to the co-creation experience of a specific individual, in a specific organizational context. According to the authors, co-creation goes beyond the exchange process and encompasses four stages. The four stages are dialogue (interactivity, deep engagement, propensity to act), access (information and tools), risk assessment (probability to harm the consumer) and transparency (equity between the parts involved) and constitute the DART model. The four building blocks of co-creation were already presented in a previous section of the study (see section 2.3.3). In the qualitative study carried out by Biggemann et al. (2014), the process of value co-creation was analysed considering the development of programs of social responsibility. The purpose was to achieve sustainability calling for the stakeholders’ participation. This constitutes an example of the VCC process and a visible outcome consists in the increase of transparency and trust in the firms’ day-to-day life. As Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004a, p. 7) mentioned, “ no matter how the future unfolds in terms of roles, rights, and responsibilities of companies and consumers, companies will have to engage consumers in co-creation of value ”. It is expected that this necessity can also be extended to other stakeholders, such as employees, and in different contexts – such as CSR. Furthermore, the present study considers the internal marketing context fundamental to understand how CSR is developed within the firm. The focus on the relationship development can be put into perspective regarding internal marketing insights, such as the participation in CSR activities. According to the analysis performed in the Literature Review chapter, it is possible to notice that individual outcomes directly related to employees (e.g. well-being, personal satisfaction, enjoyment) are often left aside, which also needs further investigation. The emphasis of the study encompasses the relevance of employees as co-creators of value in a CSR scenario. It aims at specifically understand how firms and employees can co-create value within the 53 organizational context they are inserted in, regarding responsible business efforts. The importance of the context, specifically the environment and culture embedded in the organization and at the individual level, will condition the CSR value propositions of both firm and employees. The creation of mutual value only happens if direct interactions occur, which corresponds to the CSR value co-creation experience itself. The outcomes of those interactions are the creation of internal value (to the firm and to the individual internal stakeholders), external value, and value for the embraced cause. The overall framework of the process of value co-creation between firms and employees is presented in Figure 2.5. As can be depicted by the dashed line, the present study efforts are concentrated in the CSR value co-creation experience and the internal value originated by the interaction between employees and the firm in a responsible business context. Figure 2.5. The overall framework of CSR value co-creation process between firms and employees. Source: elaborated by the author. Therefore, the premise of the study is that co-creation of value should be understood as value-in-socialcontext and that value is a social construction. The roles played by the actors involved are framed by the social context derived from the environment and cultural social aspects, as well as perceptions and behaviour in a co-creation context. 2.4.1 The CSR Value Co-Creation Experience Between Firms and Employees The study of CSR can benefit from changing its emphasis from the firm to the firm-employee dynamic as a co-created experience. The idea of experience is relevant because it impels to action (McColl Kennedy et al., 2012), going beyond perceptions and attitudes. Therefore, and taking into account Ramaswamy (2011) proposed definition of value creation as well as the contributions of McColl Kennedy et al. (2012) on customer VCC, in the context of the present study CSR value co-creation is: the process by which value Environment/Culture/Context Employees CSR value proposition Firm CSR value proposition Interaction/ CSR Value Co-creation experience Internal Value (Organizational and Individual) External Value (external stakeholders involved) Value for the cause (Community/Society; Environment) 54 is the result of the intersection between the firm CSR value proposition and the employee CSR value proposition, in a given platform of interaction. CSR value can be understood in three different perspectives, considering the outcomes of the interactions between the businesses’ parts involved. Therefore, CSR value is translated into: i) internal value (to the firm and to the employees), ii) external value, and iii) value for the embraced cause (community/society; environment) (see Figure 2.5). As the previous literature highlighted, CSR is traditionally viewed and studied as a top-down reality, from top management and then spread across the organization. The present study advances that there is preliminary indication in the literature to consider firm and employees as value co-creators in a CSR context. Thus, it is determinant to understand how firms and employees actively participate in the process of value co-creation, regarding responsible business. Thus, it is important to understand: (i) how the initiatives/programs of CSR are put into practice; (ii) which are the stakeholders involved – specifically employees – and how they are involved in the design and implementation of CSR initiatives/programs; (iii) how does the interaction between them occur; (iv) how the CSR co-creation process happens; (v) what is the relevance of this involvement. The different aspects above mentioned were in the centre of the research problem developed in the present study. The focus of the study encompasses the relevance of employees as co-creators of value in a CSR scenario. It aims at understanding how firms and employees can co-create value within the organizational context they are part of. The importance of the context, specifically the environment and culture embedded in the organization will condition the CSR value propositions of both firm and employees. The creation of mutual value only happens if direct interactions occur, which corresponds to the CSR value co-creation experience itself. The first main objective of the study is to provide a deeper insight of how the CSR co-creation process occur between firms and employees, considering both value propositions. To address this objective, three specific objectives were designed. 55 1. First, to explore the context of the firm regarding CSR to frame the employees’ role regarding this topic. 2. Second, to access the perceptions that firms’ managers hold about the dynamics between firms and stakeholders – specifically employees - regarding CSR efforts. 3. Third, to examine how the interactions between firms and employees occur, analysing how value propositions are presented and what platforms of interaction are involved. Figure 2.6. presents a general framework of the experience of value co-creation between firms and employees, based on the value-in-use creation model proposed by Grönroos and Ravald (2011). The authors’ model also displays the interactions at its core, having in one side the production value creation and in the other side the customer value creation. The CSR value co-creation experience model proposed includes the firm CSR value proposition and simultaneously the employee CSR value proposition. The core of the interaction between both propositions correspond to the CSR value co-creation experience. Figure 2.6. CSR VCC experience between firms and employees. Firm CSR value proposition Employee CSR value proposition Interactions CSR value co-creation Source: elaborated by the author. The second main objective of the study is related to the identification and investigation of the experience of CSR co-creation between firms and employees, providing empirical quantitative evidence to its dynamics. The purpose is to take into consideration the adoption of a specific CSR co-creation experience model, that was already presented, the DART model (see section 2.3.3). It is intended to verify the suitability of applying the DART model to the CSR context, providing empirical quantitative evidence. To achieve the second objective, two specific objectives were designed: 62 CSR Participation Enjoyment Employees’ participation enjoyment is the emotional result of the CSR participation in firms’ CSR experiences. Similarly to Chan et al. (2010), the focus is on the attention in the intrinsic aspects of the co-creation experience. Thus, as employees have an active role in CSR experience, it reveals important to address the personal enjoyable experience. As mentioned by Davidson (2018), there are several definitions of enjoyment in literature based on distinct psychological and philosophical roots. In an attempt to provide a unique definition of this key construct, the author developed a scale to access enjoyment universally (i.e. across different conceptual domains). The scale developed by Davidson (2018) has five dimensions, namely: i) pleasure, ii) relatedness, iii) competence, iv) challenge/improvement and engagement. A total of 25 items were developed in order to compare enjoyment between people or within people across different activities. After testing the proposed model, the author corroborated the following definition for enjoyment: “ a positive feeling, when engaged in a pleasurable and challenging activity, which allows for skill improvement, makes you feel connected to others, and makes you feel proficient with the activity” (p.158). Although a more general conceptualization of enjoyment is useful, the enjoyment construct has also been specifically studied in the customer value co-creation and service arenas (eg. Chan et al., 2010). Accordingly, customers are willing to participate in service delivery and find joy and happiness for the involvement in service’s activities. Chan et al. (2010) argue that the enjoyment construct has also studied regarding several aspects as human interactions, in respect to activities such as music, games, among others. The idea of study the participation enjoyment is to address the experiential nature of an activity, which is considered to be rewarded for itself (Chan et al., 2010, p. 124). Taking these considerations into account, the definition of CSR participation enjoyment is based on the authors definition. Chan et al. (2010, p. 124) adapted a definition of enjoyment to the context of customer and employee participation in service: “ Customer (employee) participation enjoyment” as a psychological construct that measures a customer’s (an employee’s) level of positive affective experience as a result of his or her (his or her customer’s) participation during the service process that reflects generalized feelings of pleasure, enjoyment, and fun. ” 63 To answer the purpose of the study, the previous definition for the CSR context is adapted, only considering the employees’ enjoyment. Therefore, employee’s CSR participation enjoyment is as a psychological construct that measures an employee’s level of positive affective experience as a result of his or her participation during the participation in CSR activities that reflects generalized feelings of pleasure, enjoyment, and fun. Familiarity with CSR and Importance of CSR The familiarity that the employees present regarding the notion of CSR is considered as it plays a crucial role, since it represents the “ employees’ level of awareness and familiarity with their organizations’ CSR programs ” (Du et al., 2015, p. 326). In the present study, the same conceptualization of familiarity is adopted. The importance attributed to CSR has been studied considering different stakeholders. Literature shows that there is varying importance on CSR initiatives (Korschun et al., 2014). This variation is in line with the personal values of the individuals regarding CSR, that culminates in different responses to firms’ CSR initiatives. In the context of the authors’ study, which is focused on the frontline employees, CSR importance is defined as “ the extent to which a frontline employee considers CSR to be of significance in defining his/her self-concept” (p.9). The definition of CSR importance in the context of the present study is adapted to include ordinary employees, as the extent to which an employee considers CSR to be of significance is his/her self-concept. 2.4.4 Hypotheses Development After introducing the conceptual and operational model, the hypotheses to be tested are presented. The rationale behind the hypotheses formulation is explained considering the relationships of the constructs that were previously conveyed, namely: CSR perceptions (PCSR), CSR value co-creation experience (DART), CSR participation, CSR participation enjoyment. Additionally, mediating effects of CSR value cocreation experience and CSR participation are also assessed, likewise, the moderating effects of familiarity with CSR and the attributed importance of CSR. The hypothesis development also considered the multigroup differences regarding gender and CSR responsibilities role. The hypotheses are next present in detail. 64 CSR Perceptions and CSR Value Co-Creation Experience The perceptions that employees hold about CSR activities correspond to their view about the commitment that their firms have towards a social cause. The study of CSR employees’ perceptions is one of the main topics that theory has addressed in the past (eg. Rupp et al., 2013; Shin, Hur, & Kang, 2016; Zhu et al., 2014). Literature has provided evidence for a positive relation between CSR employees’ perceptions and perceptions of organizational justice (Rupp et al., 2006), organizational commitment (Boddy et al., 2010), organizational identification (Glavas & Godwin, 2013), job satisfaction (Du et al., 2015) among other organizational outcomes. Therefore, it is expected that employees’ perceptions of the firm CSR are positively related to the CSR Value Co-Creation Experience. Hence, it was expected that: Hypothesis 1: Employees’ perceptions of CSR have a positive relationship with employees’ CSR Value Co-creation experience. CSR Value Co-Creation Experience and CSR Participation The proposed model includes the CSR value co-creation experience. It is expected to provide a conceptualization and measurement of the readiness of the CSR experience environment considering corporate social responsibility value co-creation as a construct formed by four components: Dialogue, Access, Risk Assessment and Transparency. Although it is the first time that the DART model is translated into a firm-employee CSR environment, past research had provided empirical evidence regarding the DART importance in organizational contexts. For instance, DART was found to be positively related to shared responsibility (Albinsson et al., 2016), partially related to customers’ trust (Becker & Nagel, 2013), and positively related to innovation strategy (Taghizadeh et al., 2016). The context of co-creation is therefore understood as having a relevant role in employees’ CSR participation. Value co-creation impels to action (McColl-Kennedy, Hogan, Witell, & Snyder, 2016), and, therefore, it is expected that a CSR value co-creation experience is positively related to employees’ participation in the firm’s CSR. Hence, it was expected that: Hypothesis 2: CSR value-co-creation experience has a positive relationship with employees’ participation in CSR initiatives. 65 CSR participation and CSR participation enjoyment In recent years, literature have focused its attention on the enjoyment concept in the business context. Since it is “ a positive feeling, when engaged in a pleasurable activity ” (Davidson, 2018, p. 159), it was found relevant to study considering organizational impacts, similarly to other constructs that translate personal results of interactions, such as pride and satisfaction (McShane & Cunningham, 2012). Indeed, according to Davidson (2018) it was already found in the literature, evidence to a positive relationship between career satisfaction and performance. Since the positive connection with the firms can be improved by a better-quality of the positive feelings associated to the firm and its activities, it is expected that employees’ CSR participation in firms’ CSR activities is positively related to employees’ CSR participation enjoyment. Hence, it was expected that: Hypothesis 3: Employees’ participation in CSR initiatives has a positive relationship with employees’ CSR participation enjoyment. CSR Perceptions, CSR participation and CSR participation enjoyment Literature suggests that the employees’ perceptions of CSR have a positive relationship with several organizational dimensions, such as identification to the firm, commitment and engagement, among others (see section 2.2.3). Several outcomes of positive perceptions have been explored in the literature, including participation (Chen & Hung-Baesecke, 2014). For that reason, it is expected that employees’ perceptions of the firm CSR are positively related to employees’ CSR participation in the CSR and also positively related to employees’ CSR participation enjoyment. Therefore, it was expected that: Hypothesis 4: Employees’ perceptions of CSR have a positive relationship with employees’ participation in CSR initiatives. Hypothesis 5: Employees’ perceptions of CSR have a positive relationship with employees’ CSR participation enjoyment. 2.4.4.1 Mediation Hypotheses A specific case of relationships between constructs that was considered is mediation. According to Hayes (2009), “ mediation refers to a sequence of causal relations by which X exerts its effect on Y by influencing intervening variables ” (p.415). The mediation analysis will be presented in detail in section 3.4.3.4. 66 Nevertheless, the rationale for the study of the mediation effects of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) value co-creation experience and CSR participation are next presented. The mediating effects of CSR value co-creation experience One of the core constructs of the advanced model of this study is CSR value co-creation experience. Departing from the DART model, and considering the rationale of the Service Logic Context, to the best of our knowledge the mediating effects of the DART constructs have not been investigated (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004a). Moreover, there is not enough evidence for the mediating effects of the employees’ involvement in CSR regarding employees’ perceptions and its consequences in terms of firms’ internal marketing. Indeed, related concepts such as involvement or engagement in CSR are usually studied as outcomes of CSR, since CSR is typically seen as an exclusive responsibility of the top-management (e.g. Godkin, 2015). Nevertheless, a recent study found a mediator between employees’ perceptions and their involvement in the firm (Chaudhary, 2017). This relationship was found to be positively mediated by the employees’ perceptions of CSR initiatives towards different stakeholders. This result might indicate that CSR perceptions, organizational and internal marketing outcomes might be mediated by a more active role of the employees in the process. Therefore, it is expected that higher levels of employees’ CSR perceptions lead to higher levels of CSR employees’ participation, through the experience of CSR cocreation between firms and employees. Therefore, it was expected that: Hypothesis 6: CSR value co-creation experience mediates the influence of employees’ CSR perceptions on employees’ participation in CSR initiatives. The mediating effects of CSR participation Likewise, the previous mediating effect presented, the construct of CSR participation was considered. As a behavioural aspect of the topic under study, CSR participation was advanced as a possible mediator between employees’ CSR perceptions and the emotional dimension regarding CSR participation, which corresponds to the employees’ participation enjoyment. Although literature typically focused on individual attitudinal CSR constructs as mediators (e.g. identification, satisfaction, among others), the fact is that action-oriented constructs are often left aside (Farooq, Payaud, Merunka, & Valette-Florence, 2014; Zhu et al., 2014). Nonetheless, the potential role of tasked-related skills regarding CSR should also be approached. Making a parallel to the employees’ perceptions of firms’ CSR performance, it is expected 67 that higher levels of employees’ CSR perceptions lead to higher levels of CSR employees’ participation enjoyment, through the effective CSR participation. Thus, it was expected that: Hypothesis 7: Employees’ participation in CSR initiatives mediates the influence of employees’ CSR perceptions on CSR employees’ participation enjoyment. 2.4.4.2 Moderation Hypotheses Besides mediation, moderation as a specific case of relationships between constructs was also considered. According to Hayes (2009), moderation describes a situation in which “ X’s effect on Y varies as a function of some third variable M, the moderator variable ” (p.415). In the present study, two moderating effects were analysed. The moderation analysis will be presented in detail in section 3.4.3.4. Though, the rationale for the study of the moderation effects regarding the familiarity of the employees with the Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) initiatives of the firm and the attributed importance to CSR are presented below. The moderating effects of Familiarity Recent literature contributions provided evidence for a moderating effect of the proximity with the concept of CSR and the employees’ reactions to CSR and organizational related constructs, such as job satisfaction and turnover intention (Du et al., 2015). The construct of proximity reported by Du et al. (2015), also includes a familiarity dimension, which is explored in the context of the proposed model of this study. Considering this insight, it was hypothesized that the effect of employees’ CSR perceptions in CSR value co-creation experience will increase if a third variable intersects the relationship, namely the degree of familiarity with CSR. Therefore, it was expected that: Hypothesis 8. Familiarity with the CSR concept moderates the effect of employees’ CSR perceptions in CSR value co-creation experience. The moderating effects of CSR Importance The effects of CSR importance have been recently explored by the literature, particularly as a mediator construct. Glavas and Godwin (2013) adopted the term “salience of CSR to the employee”, but also the “task significance advanced” by Ong et al. (2018) indicated that there is an impact of the importance of 68 CSR in the relationships established between employees and firms in the context of responsible business. Moreover, Korschun et al. (2014) found that there is a variation regarding the importance that employees place on CSR. Indeed, as the CSR importance increases a series of organizational and marketing outcomes become stronger. For that reason, it was hypothesized that the effect of employees’ CSR perceptions in CSR value co-creation experience will increase if a third variable intersects the relationship, namely the degree of importance regarding CSR. Therefore, it was expected that: Hypothesis 9. Importance attributed to CSR moderates the effect of employees' CSR perceptions in CSR value co-creation experience. 2.4.4.3 Multi-Group Hypotheses In addition to the raised previous hypotheses it was considered relevant to contemplate the hypothesis of differences between distinct relevant groups regarding the relationship between two constructs: CSR value co-creation experience and employees' CSR participation. The literature suggests that there are differences between gender regarding CSR, considering perceptions of employees (e.g. Rosati et al., 2018) and consumers (e.g. Hur et al., 2016) regarding responsible business. However, there is also evidence for a not significant impact of gender regarding CSR perceptions (e.g. Chaudhary, 2017; DitlevSimonsen, 2015). Additionally, the different type of employees approached – employees with and without a CSR management role – was also relevant to address in a multi-group analysis. Thus, it was possible to suggest that there are also differences between employees that have CSR responsibility roles and employees without CSR responsibility roles. Therefore, two hypotheses were formulated: Hypothesis 10. The positive effect of CSR value co-creation experience in employees' participation in CSR initiatives is higher for women than for men. Hypothesis 11. The positive effect of CSR value co-creation experience in employees' participation in CSR initiatives is higher for employees with CSR responsibility roles than for employees without CSR responsibility roles. 2.4.5 Summary In this section, the study’s model of CSR value co-creation between firms and employees, regarding internal value was presented. The key concept of CSR relies on the interaction and collaboration with 69 stakeholders, and the role that employees assume on this relationship must be analysed. The understanding of employees’ perspective of CSR can benefit from a broad knowledge about the importance of the relationships between employees and the firm, as indicated by the service logic context. The internal marketing context was highlighted, since the within-firm marketing outcomes are central to the developed model. The rationale and the objectives of the study where stressed in order to frame the conceptual model as well as the operational model. In the end, the hypotheses originated by the literature review analysis and the conceptual model development efforts were presented. Table 2.4 summarizes the hypothesis development. Table 2.4. Summary of the hypotheses. Hypotheses H1 Employees’ perceptions of CSR have a positive relationship with employees’ CSR Value Co-creation experience. H2 CSR value-co-creation experience has a positive relationship with employees’ participation in CSR initiatives. H3 Employees’ participation in CSR initiatives has a positive relationship with employees’ CSR participation enjoyment. H4 Employees’ perceptions of CSR have a positive relationship with employees’ participation in CSR initiatives. H5 Employees’ perceptions of CSR have a positive relationship with employees’ CSR participationenjoyment. H6 CSR value co-creation experience mediates the influence of employees’ CSR perceptions on employees’ participation in CSR initiatives. H7 Employees’ participation in CSR initiatives mediates the influence of employees’ CSR perceptions on CSR employees’ participation enjoyment. H8 Familiarity with the CSR concept increases the positive effect of employees’ CSR perceptions in CSR value co-creation experience. H9 Importance attributed to CSR increases the positive effect of CSR perceptions in CSR value cocreation experience. H10 The positive effect of CSR value co-creation experience in employees’ participation in CSR initiatives is higher for women than for men. H11 The positive effect of CSR value co-creation experience in employees’ participation is higher for employees with CSR responsibilities than for employees without CSR responsibilities. Source: elaborated by the author. 3. METHODOLOGY 71 3.1 Introduction The Methodology section presents the steps developed to answer: i) the research questions and objectives of the study, and ii) to test the hypotheses that emerged from the conceptual model. Firstly, the overall research design of the study is presented and discussed. Then, the two empirical studies, one quantitative and the other qualitative are described. The technical specificities regarding the collection of data, the scales and methods used to approach data in each study are advanced. 3.2 Research Design The approach to empirical research adopted for this study is based on a mixed methods approach combining a qualitative study and a quantitative study. According to Denscombe (2008), considering mixed methods as a research paradigm has its roots in the 1990s, coexisting along quantitative and qualitative methodological and research paradigms. The mix-method approach involves to gather and analyse data using more than one different techniques or different kinds of inquiry designs in the same study (Greene, Kreider, & Mayer, 2005). The authors confirm that the advantages of using mixed methods are well documented as the number of studies adopting this approach is increasing. A synthesis of the advantages of combining both quantitative and qualitative data can be found in Creswell, Plano Clark, Gutmann, and Hanson (2003) work. The combination of different methods will allow a more complete and detailed understanding of the social phenomenon under study, neutralizing possible limitations of the use of the methods individually. In the context of the present study, the key advantages associated with the mixed methods methodology are related to the different levels of analysis proposed, as explained next. Hence, the present study adopts the classic perspective of using different techniques such as narrative/qualitative and numerical/quantitative to approach the research problem. As previously mentioned, the objective is to obtain two complementary data sources to understand the phenomenon of CSR value co-creation. Indeed, the complexity of the phenomenon deserves a more complete analysis, with different perspectives and lenses. The first study is qualitative and is designed to achieve detailed data from the firms regarding the Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) value co-creation process. The second study is quantitative and is designed to obtain data to understand the extension of the CSR cocreation process from the employees’ perspective. The respective empirical designs of each study will be next presented in two different sections: 3.3 Empirical Study I and 3.4 Empirical Study II. 78 (Malhotra, 1999). The questionnaire construction is complex and requires a set of procedures so the questionnaire can serve its purpose and collect data that allows the researcher to understand the phenomenon under study (Johnson & Turner, 2003). The online questionnaire was preferred instead of paper-and-pencil questionnaire, mostly due to its practicality (Reynolds, 2006). A questionnaire is usually composed by questions and several measurement scales developed or adapted for a specific context. The process of the instrument development of the present study is next presented. A literature review was conducted in order to find relevant measurement scales that could be adopted and/or adapted and applied to the present study. The refinement process to adapt the measurement scales to the study context is complex. However, it was important to have a solid starting point, as the perspective of the topic under study is knew. Contributions from Services literature especially concerned with quantitative evaluations of value co-creation were considered (e.g. Albinsson et al., 2016). Quantitative measures of CSR, considering perceptions (e.g. Glavas, 2016) and behaviours (Chi Kin, Kimmy Wa, & Lam, 2012) towards responsibilities of firms, were also gathered. The measurement scales for each of the different variables will be further presented in the following sections. The respondents were introduced to the questionnaire as a study referring to the experience of employees in Corporate Social Responsibility. No further information regarding the co-creation theme was provided. The idea was to reduce possible misconceptions about the instrument developed. The participants were asked to transmit their personal experience in this context. To the respondents, the anonymity and confidentiality were assured as well as the voluntary basis of the participation. The questionnaire was designed to be filled-in in ten to fifteen minutes and to have three groups of questions. It begins with an introductory set of questions and ends with demographic questions. The middle group corresponds to the questions related to the main constructs. These questions will be further detailed, and includes measurement scales regarding CSR value co-creation experience, employees’ CSR perceptions, employees’ CSR participation, employees’ CSR participation enjoyment, among others. 3.4.1.1 Introductory questions The introductory questions were designed to provide a context regarding the firms’ CSR, including screening questions. First of all, the definition of CSR adopted in the study was presented, namely: “ Corporate Social Responsibility is defined as the activities and policies a firm develops in order to 79 maximize the positive effects and minimize the negative effects that it has in society ” (Mohr et al., 2001). The definition was followed by some examples of CSR activities such as “voluntary initiatives, philanthropy, environmental protection programs, among others”. The objective was to provide a common basis of understanding, to assure that the respondents understood CSR as defined in this study. After that, a screening question appeared in the questionnaire, inquiring if the respondent considered that the firm in which he/her works have CSR initiatives. Only the questionnaires with a positive answer proceeded. Thus, negative answers resulted in the end of the questionnaire The familiarity with the initiatives was also assessed, and the second screening question appeared. This second screening question is related to the participation or not in the firms’ initiatives. This is a one-item scale supported by (Du et al., 2015) proposed to control for non-participants. Only the positive questions proceed in the main questionnaire. For the negative responses, respondents are addressed to an additional section where the possible motives for non-participation were presented as well as an openended question to describe what could be done in collaboration with the firm to have a positive participation in CSR initiatives. The questionnaire ended at this point for those respondents. 3.4.1.2 Demographic questions Demographic questions were designed in order to gather information about respondents’ characteristics as well as the respondents’ firm features. This section is divided into three major dimensions. Firstly, general demographic questions related to the respondent profile are assessed. Namely, gender, age, nationality, civil status, number of children and level of education. Secondly, firm’s demographic questions were also reported. Those include firm’s headquarters location, nature of the firm, sector of activity, size (number of employees and volume business), and markets in which it operates. Thirdly, employees’ job-related questions were also considered, including department, position held, CSR position (if any) and years of service in the company. These three groups of questions were included as the last section of the questionnaire. The objective was not to be too overwhelming for the respondents; otherwise, the first impression could be jeopardized. The answers of the demographic questions were not mandatory, allowing the respondents to proceed even without full fulfilment. The objective was that the respondents did not feel their privacy invaded and interrupt the questionnaire if all the answers were compulsory. 80 3.4.1.3 Main Constructs The core of the questionnaire presented the main constructs of the study. These questions will be detailed next, and include measurement scales regarding CSR value co-creation experience, employees’ CSR perceptions, employees’ CSR participation, employees’ CSR participation enjoyment, among others. The answers related to the main constructs’ questions were mandatory. It was not possible for the respondents to proceed without answering to all the items. If any question was left behind the software highlighted the item so the respondent could have the opportunity to fulfil the blanks. Corporate Social Responsibility Value Co-Creation Experience In the present study, Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) value co-creation is the process by which value is the result of the intersection between the firm’s CSR value proposition and the employee’s CSR value proposition, in a given platform of interaction. Value can be understood in three different perspectives: internal value (at organizational and individual level), external value (external stakeholders involved) and value for the cause (community/society and environment). To assess this construct, the DART scale proposed by Albinsson et al. (2016), based on the DART model proposed by Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004c) was considered. DART is one of the currently most complete frameworks (Mazur & Zaborek, 2014) as the model includes four building blocks of the cocreation experience between a consumer and a firm, namely, dialogue, access, risk assessment and transparency. The work of Albinsson et al. (2016) provided one of the first attempts to measure the application of the DART model. The importance of evaluating DART would allow firms to access “ their institutional readiness for strategic value co-creation and encourages firms to reflect upon their use of structures and policies that support a climate conductive to strategic value co-creation ” (p. 42). Therefore, in the authors’ study, the DART scale was mostly understood as a diagnosis measure. The authors developed a multi-item scale with 23 items considering consumer product companies. The scale was considered valid and reliable. The results also showed that the building blocks of DART were positively correlated with a sense of shared responsibility although no correlation was found with loyalty. Considering Albinsson et al. (2016) progress, firstly published as a conference paper in 2011 (Albinsson et al., 2011), Becker and Nagel (2013) tested the relationship between the elements of co-creation according to the DART model and consumers’ trust in a Brazilian service context. The authors applied 81 the same 23 items scale developed by Albinsson et al. (2011) and the results of the scale test indicated the necessity of extracting some items regarding dialogue and transparency building blocks, resulting in a reduction of the original scale. Regarding the relationship between the elements of co-creation and trust, only dialogue and transparency were positively related to consumers’ trust. On the contrary, access and risk assessment were not related to consumers’ trust. On other hand Mazur and Zaborek (2014) also developed a multiple measurement scale with 30 items to test the adequacy of the DART model regarding managers’ responses. The authors based their study in the conceptual work of Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004c) and in Albinsson et al. (2011) suggestions. Their attempt to validate DART model considering Polish service and manufacturing companies indicated serious limitations to its application. After several statistical procedures, several indicators were excluded from the data set. It was also verified an exclusion of groups of companies of the sample, and the model was considered to be probably more suitable for manufacturers’ companies only. Additionally, they suggested that there is a conceptual overlap regarding the building blocks of DART and contested its accuracy to represent value co-creation between firms and customers. For that reason, the DART model was considered to be incomplete as more than four latent variables should be integrated (Mazur & Zaborek, 2014, p. 121). Additionally, DART might have a multidimensional structure opposing the unidimensional one assumed by Albinsson et al. (2011). The authors suggest an overhaul of the DART model encompassing a selection of non-overlapping constructs and new elements to develop a more accurate and multidimensional model. Furthermore, they argue that the DART building blocks could be mediators of co-creation influencing indicators indirectly. More recently, Taghizadeh et al. (2016) also developed a scale measurement of dialogue, access, risk assessment and transparency constructs, as the process of value-co-creation. The works’ objective was the validation of the DART model and to understand its effect on innovation strategy. Although not without criticism, taking into account the previous research regarding the development and validation of value co-creation scales, and considering the context of the present analysis DART model was adopted in this study. The building blocks, namely dialogue, access, risk assessment and transparency, constitute the basis for the CSR value co-creation experience. This is an opportunity to transposing the model to a different reality and context. Similarly to Albinsson et al. (2016), the institutional development of a favourable value co-creation environment was also accessed in the present study. Hence, the scale was adapted to specifically 82 comprise the CSR value co-creation experience. The objective was to measure the CSR experience environment of the firm considering corporate social responsibility value co-creation as a construct involving four components: Dialogue, Access, Risk Assessment and Transparency. The original scale encompasses 23 items and is divided into the four building blocks of the DART model (see original scale in Appendix III – Original DART Scale). Items were measured in a seven-point Likert scale. Nine items measure Dialogue, three items measure Access, six items measure Risk Assessment and five items measure Transparency. The original scale was adapted to capture the CSR context, considering previous studies and the inputs of the Empirical Study I (see section 4.2). This resulted in the 26 items scale shown in Table 3.1. Items were measured in a seven-point Likert scale. Respondents’ answers varied between 1 “Totally disagree” to 7 “Totally agree”. Table 3.1. CSR value co-creation scale. Construct Items adapted from Albinsson et al. (2016) Dialogue 1. The firm communicates with the employee to receive input on improving the corporate social responsibility initiatives. 2. The firm is interested in communicating with the employee about the best ways to design a quality corporate social responsibility initiative.* 3. The firm is interested in communicating with the employee about the best ways to deliver quality corporate social responsibility initiatives. * 4. The firm uses multiple channels of communication to encourage greater exchange of ideas with the employee about the corporate social responsibility initiatives. 5. The employee is encouraged to communicate with the firm about any and all aspects of the corporate social responsibility initiatives. 6. The firm provide multiple lines of communications to gather input and ideas from the employee about the corporate social responsibility initiatives. 7. The firm actively promotes dialogue with the employee to learn more about the employee’s reaction to the corporate social responsibility initiatives. 8. The employee has many opportunities to share his/her ideas with the firm about adding value to the corporate social responsibility initiatives. 9. The firm makes it easy for the employee to communicate his/her ideas about the design of the corporate social responsibility initiatives. * 10. The firm makes it easy for the employee to communicate his/her ideas about the delivery of the corporate social responsibility initiatives. * 11. The firm and the employee have an open dialogue of how to add value to the corporate social responsibility initiatives. 83 Construct Items adapted from Albinsson et al. (2016) Access 1. The firm lets the employee decide how he/she participates in the corporate social responsibility initiatives. 2. The employee has many options to choose how he/she participates in the corporate social responsibility initiatives. 3. It is easy for the employee to participate in the corporate social responsibility initiatives where he/she wants it. * 4. It is easy for the employee to participate in the corporate social responsibility initiatives when he/she wants it. * 5. It is easy for the employee to participate in the corporate social responsibility initiatives how he/she wants it. * Transparency 1. The firm fully discloses the employee detailed information that can be useful regarding the improvement of corporate social responsibility initiatives results. 2. The employee has open access to information that might be useful in enhancing the overall design and delivery of the corporate social responsibility initiatives. 3. The employee and firm are treated as equal partners in sharing information that is needed to achieve successful corporate social responsibility initiatives. 4. The firm fully discloses the employee detailed information regarding the costs and pricing associated with the design and/or delivery of the corporate social responsibility experience. Risk 1. The firm provides the employee with comprehensive information pertaining how risks were assessed for the corporate social initiatives. 2. The employee receives comprehensive information pertaining to the risks of the corporate social responsibility initiatives. 3. The firm fully informs the customer about all risks stemming from the corporate social responsibility initiatives. 4. The firm provides the employee with necessary tools and support to make fully informed decisions as to whether he or she should participate in the corporate social responsibility initiatives. 5. The firm is very clear and factual about the negative factors associated with the corporate social responsibility initiatives' participation. 6. The firm allows the employee to make informed decisions regarding the risks of the corporate social responsibility initiatives. 7. The firm encourages the employee to familiarize himself/herself with the risks associated with the corporate social responsibility initiatives. 84 Employees’ CSR Perceptions Employees’ CSR perceptions correspond to the employee’s conceptual organization of the information regarding the firms’ CSR, taking into account the employees’ collaboration in the design and execution of the initiatives. Social and environmental responsibilities and initiatives are considered. The Perceived CSR Scale from Glavas and Kelley (2014) was adopted since it represents both social and environmental responsibilities in a multi-construct framework (see original scale in Appendix IV – O). The scale was considered a valid and reliable measurement tool. It comprises eight items and is divided into two dimensions, with four items each. The items were adapted to a more reading-friendly format (see Table 3.2), although the content remains the same as the original. Items were measured in a seven-point Likert scale. Respondents’ answers could vary between 1 “Totally disagree” to 7 “Totally agree”. Table 3.2. Employees’ CSR perceptions scale. Construct Adapted Items from Glavas (2016) Employees' CSR perceptions - Social responsibilities 1. It is a high priority of my firm contribute to de well-being of employees. 2. It is a high priority of my firm contribute to de well-being of customers. 3. It is a high priority of my firm contribute to de well-being of suppliers. 4. It is a high priority of my firm contribute to de well-being of community. Employees' CSR perceptions - Environmental responsibilities 5. To my firm environmental, issues are integral to its strategy. 6. To my firm environmental, issues are integral to its daily operations. 7. To my firm environmental, issues are considerate in order that our work does not hurt the environment. 8. To my firm environmental, issues are considerate while its short-term goals are achieved. Additionally, the overall perception of the commitment of firms in CSR was addressed. The objective was to assess to the overall perception of the employees’ perceptions to CSR commitment in general and with its initiatives in particular. The items were adapted from Du et al. (2015) and specific items regarding environmental initiatives where added in accordance to the previous scale presented and adapted from Glavas and Kelley (2014) (see Table 3.3). 85 Table 3.3. Employees’ overall CSR perceptions. Construct Items Adapted from Employees’ overall perceptions 1. In general, my organization is socially responsible. (Du et al., 2015) 2. In general, my organization has put in substantial resources to various social initiatives. (Du et al., 2015) 3. In general, the organization for which I work has put in substantial resources to various environmental initiatives. Worded specifically for this research 4. In general, the organization for which I work is really committed to its social initiatives. (Du et al., 2015) 5. In general, the organization for which I work is really committed to its environmental initiatives. Worded specifically for this research Employees’ CSR Participation Employees’ participation refers to the behavioural and decision-making involvement in the firms’ CSR experiences. A general item based on Chan et al. (2010) for the frequency of the participation was included. The objective was to measure the behavioural participation in the CSR experiences. A more specific item borrowed from Kim et al. (2010) referring to the participation as a team member was also added. The objective was to measure the behavioural participation in the CSR experiences in the context of the firm as a member of a team. The participation in CSR decision regarding the firms' choice and improvement of the experiences included two items adapted from Ditlev-Simonsen (2015). The aforementioned items were used to measure employees’ CSR participation (see Table 3.4) considering a seven-point Likert scale. Respondents’ answers could vary between 1 “Totally disagree” to 7 “Totally agree”. Table 3.4. Employees’ CSR participation scale. Construct Items Adapted from Participation 1. I have a high level of participation in CSR initiatives. Chan et al. (2010) 2. Me and my colleagues work as a team on CSR activities. Kim et al. (2010) 3. I consider that my suggestions have a great impact on the choice of social responsibility initiatives. Ditlev-Simonsen (2015) 4. I consider that my suggestions have a great impact on the improvement of social responsibility initiatives. 86 Employees’ CSR participation enjoyment Employees’ participation enjoyment corresponds to the emotional dimension of the CSR participation. The four-item scale proposed by Chi Kin et al. (2012), in accordance to the enjoyment’s definition of Davidson (2018), was adapted as shown in Table 3.5. Respondents’ answers varied between 1 “Totally disagree” to 7 “Totally agree”, in a seven-point Likert scale. The additional items (5-7) where added considering some of the insights collected previously in the qualitative study (see Empirical Study I), related to the perception of risk. Table 3.5. Employees’ CSR participation enjoyment scale. Construct Items adapted from Chi Kin et al. (2012) Participation Enjoyment 1. I enjoy the CSR initiative with my participation very much. 2. To participate in CSR initiatives is very enjoyable. 3. To participate in CSR initiatives is fun. 4. I take great pleasure in the participation of CSR initiatives. 5. I participate in social responsibility initiatives because I feel obligated. 6. I participate in social responsibility initiatives because everyone does. 7. I participate in social responsibility because I am afraid of reprisals from my superiors. Employees’ CSR Familiarity CSR familiarity indicates how close employees are familiar/aware with/of firms’ responsible initiatives. Du et al. (2015) proposed two items to assess both employees’ knowledge about CSR and the involvement in their firms’ CSR programs. The authors’ called CSR Proximity. In this study Familiarity and Importance are considered separately (see Importance below Table 3.7). Considering CSR Familiarity, first a filter question based on knowledge regarding the existence of CSR in the firm was included (Does your company have corporate social initiatives?). The objective was to achieve only the individuals that recognized that the firms had CSR. Nevertheless, familiarity/awareness with CSR was included, namely specific familiarity related to the firms’ CSR initiatives. A single item was designed to assess employees’ CSR familiarity (see Table 3.6). The item was worded specifically for this research and supported by Du et al. (2015). Respondents’ answers varied between 1 “Do not know firm’s CSR initiatives” to 7 “Know very well firm’s CSR initiatives”, in a seven-point Likert scale. 87 Table 3.6. Employees’ CSR familiarity measure. Construct Item adapted from Du et al. (2015) Familiarity Indicate the level of familiarity with the social responsibility initiatives of the firm in which you work Employees’ CSR Attributed importance In order to assess the general importance employees’ attribute to CSR, three items were borrowed from Korschun et al. (2014). The objective was to measure the extent of the employees' attributed importance to CSR. A more specific item regarding the importance of CSR initiatives of the firm was also included with support from Du et al (2015). The objective is to measure the extent of the employees' attributed importance to CSR in the context of the firm. The items, depicted in Table 3.7, were measured in a sevenpoint Likert scale. Respondents’ answers varied between 1 “Totally disagree” to 7 “Totally agree”. Table 3.7. Employees’ CSR attributed importance scale. Construct Items Adapted from Importance It’s important to me that companies help out the local communities where they operate. Korchun et al (2010) I care about companies being socially responsible. I feel that companies need to make the world a better place. It's important to me that the company in which I work has socially responsible initiatives. (Du et al., 2015) Platforms of interaction The relevance of the existence of platforms of interaction, for the CSR value co-creation experience level, provided support for the inclusion of an additional question related to the use of platforms. Platforms of interaction are real or virtual environments where CSR propositions of value, both of firm and employees, are taken into account. The existence of platforms was supported Korschun and Du (2013) as well as from the content of the interviews from Empirical Study I. For the purpose of the questionnaire, previously collected platforms were indicated as answer options, such as: Facebook, Youtube, Company Blog, Email, Intranet, Institutional Site, Corporate cause Site, Formal moments of performance evaluation, Formal moments of discussion of firms’ results, Informal communication, Corporate journal / Newsletter, Offline static communication, Working groups, Attribution of days to work on CSR initiatives. An openended possibility was also given for respondents to include other possible platforms. The objective was to select the option that better suited the employees’ environment. 94 were statistically identified. The unidimensionality of the measured values was also verified, as well as its validity. A diagram representing the measurement model was then provided. In Stage 3, the study to produce empirical results was designed. This is the stage where CFA was performed in order to test the measurement theory. If the measurement model is adequate, the model can be tested in the SEM model. It is important to underlie though, that the specification of the model, i.e. the association of the indicators to the respective constructs and the constructs correlation between them, was established from the beginning by the researcher. At the same time, the specification of the cross-loadings between the indicators did not exist (loading is equal to zero). In Stage 4, the measurement model validity was assessed. This roughly means that the theory was crossed with the reality to verify the fit between them. The construct validity was assessed through the implementation of guidelines for good fit based on Hair et al. (2010) indications. Those guidelines are presented in Table 3.8, and as the author mentioned the presented measures are not exhaustive. Rather, they represent the mostly used and reported indices in research. It is relevant to notice that the correspondent values for goodness-of-fit are related to the number of observations and the number of observed variables. In this case, the number of observations is >250 and the number of observed variables is >30. In Stage 5, the specification of the structural model was undertaken. This means that the relationships between the constructs were presented based on the theoretical model, representing the hypothesis developed. The measurement specifications were also included. The diagram combined the measurement and the structural model to estimate. In Stage 6, the validity of the structural model was assessed. After the specification the model was tested following the indications of the Step 4 previously indicated. 95 Table 3.8. Fit indices demonstrating goodness-of-fit. Absolute Fit Indexes Statistics Name Value ᵪ2 Chi-Square GOF Significant ρ-value expected ᵪ2 / df Normed Chi-Square Ratios of 3:1 are associated with betterfitting models GFI Goodness-of-Fit Index Values between 0 and 1, higher values indicating better fit (above .90) RMSEA Root Mean Square Error of Approximation Lower values indicate better fit (0.07 or less with CFI above .90) SRMR Root Mean Square Residual Lower values indicate better fit (between 0.08 or less with CFI above .92) Incremental Fit Indexes Statistics Name Value NFI Normed Fit Index Values that approach 1 TLI Tucker-Lewis Index Values that approach 1 CFI Comparative Fit Index Values between 0 and 1, higher values indicating better fit (above .90) Parsimony Fit Indexes Statistics Name Value AGFI Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index Values typically lower than GFI PNFI Parsimony Normed Fit Index Higher values indicate better fit Source: Hair (2010) 3.4.4 Summary In this chapter the several steps of the construction of the Empirical Study II were presented. The instrument development was detailed in order demonstrate the process that culminated in the questionnaire. Table 3.9 summarizes the scales established to measure the identified constructs. It also presents the respective questions, that can also be seen in the questionnaire developed. The data analysis methodologies were addressed, including factor analysis and structural equation modeling approach to be implemented. After the presentation of the Empirical Study II methodology, the next section will embrace the results and discussion of the analysis carried out. 96 Table 3.9. Summary of the main measurement scales/items used in the questionnaire. Construct Measure Objective Questions Corporate Social Responsibility value co-creation Adapted from Albinsson el al 2016 To measure the readiness of the CSR VCC experience environment considering: Dialogue [Q10, Q11], Access [Q12], Risk [Q13] and Transparency [Q14]. Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Employees' CSR perceptions Adapted from Glavas and Kelly (2014) To measure the employees' perceptions about firm's CSR regarding social [Q7] and environmental [Q8] responsible business, and overall perceptions [Q9]] Q7 Q8 Q9 Employees’ CSR participation Adapted from Chan et al (2010), Kim et al (2010) and Ditlev-Simonsen (2015) To measure the behavioural aspects of participation in the CSR experiences. Q5 Employees’ CSR participation enjoyment Adapted from Yim et al (2012) To measure the level of enjoyment in the participation in the CSR experience. Q6 Employees’ CSR familiarity Supported by Du et al (2015) To measure the level of employees' awareness regarding the CSR in the context of the firm. Q2 Employees’ CSR attributed importance Adapted from Korchun et al (2010) and supported by Du et al (2015) To measure the extent of the employees' importance attributed importance to CSR. Q4 Source: elaborated by the author. 4. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION 98 4.1 Introduction The Results and Discussion section presents the results of both the Empirical Study I and the Empirical Study II separately. The discussion is conducted considering the results of the qualitative and quantitative studies. In a first stage, the sample profile of the empirical studies is provided the data collected through the procedures highlighted in the previous sections is explored. The evaluation and critical analysis of the data allowed to discuss key aspects of the idea of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) value co-creation experience, considering employees and firms, its dynamics and interactions. 4.2 Empirical Study I Findings from Empirical Study I are related to the content analysis performed and are organized considering the main topics that emerged from the interviews, in accordance to the previous literature review. A first set of topics provide the contextualization of the CSR of each firm. The purpose of understanding how CSR is perceived and managed by the firms under study is key to achieve a deeper understanding of the existent dynamics between the firms and its employees. It was relevant to learn how specifically CSR is imbedded in the firms according to its management and context. Topics regarding the motivation for the existence of responsible business consciousness in the firm, the planning and strategy associated to CSR and how firms define CSR were also addressed. Additionally, two topics shed light on the coverage of CSR, considering CSR focus as well as CSR operating range of the firm. A second set of topics embraces the dynamics of CSR between the firm and its stakeholders, with special relevance to employees, and includes the analysis of CSR value propositions – both from firms and employees, the CSR impact and the platforms of interactions between firms and employees. 4.2.1 Sample profile The sample profile was advanced considering a previous search on secondary data collected from the institutional websites and/or sustainability records as well as from news related to the firms’ CSR performance. The process of establishing the sample was by convenience, allowing to choose firms according to its availability and proximity. The sample profile is next presented, with a total of eleven firms included. 99 Firm A is part of an Asian multinational automotive parts supplier operating in Portugal. It has an history of almost thirty years operating in Portugal and it was object of a company restructuring, following a collective dismissal in 2008. The firm has more than 1000 employees, although they have been almost 8000 before the successive dismissals. The firm is a key-economic driving force of the community where it is located. The focus on sustainability is highlighted in the website of the group. Firm B is a large Portuguese textile family-owned firm founded in the 1920’s, being one of the oldest companies in this industry in the country. The firm remains a family business and the chairman of the administration is the founder's grandson, although 10% equity is owned by a venture-capital company. The firm exports 98% of its production and has around 1100 employees, after past successive layoffs. There are scarce references to CSR in the webpages of the firm and the related brands. Firm C is a large Portuguese engineering and construction firm, also operating in other business areas such as renewable energies and telecommunications. It was formally established in the 1980’s, although its history can be traced back to the 1940’s. The firm remains a family business and the chairman of the administration is one of the founder's son. Operates in several countries, mainly in Europe and Africa and has around 1000 employees overall. One of the core values disclosed in the institutional website is solidarity, focusing the importance of volunteering. Firm D is a small and medium-sized enterprise (SME) Portuguese wholesale of machinery and equipment. It was founded in the 1980’s and is a family business operating in Portugal. The firm has around 20 employees. CSR or related concepts are not considered in the firm’s website. Firm E is a SME Portuguese industrial bakery. It was founded in the 1950’s and it is a family business lead by the founder's grandson. The firm operates mainly in Portugal, but also exports to the North of Spain and France. The firm has around 30 employees. CSR or related concepts are not considered in the firm’s website. Firm F is a large firm, mostly of Portuguese capital, engaged in production and commercialization of multibrand beverages, focused on beer and bottled water businesses. It was founded in the 1890’s and exports 30% of the turnover to more than 50 countries worldwide. The firm has 1350 employees and 13 production units. CSR is publicly presented as a strategic dimension of the firm. Firm G is a large firm operating in Portugal, owned by a Spanish venture-capital company, which is a producer and supplier of plastic materials for the furniture industry worldwide. Its origins go back to the 100 1970’s, and today operates in several international markets. It has a worldwide distribution network, in more than 65 countries, and 90% of the Portuguese production is for exportation. The firm has over 300 employees working in two continents. Social and environmental responsibility is assumed as a core value for the group in its website. Firm H is a Portuguese SME for development and commercialization of management software. It was founded in the 1990’s and operates in nearly 20 countries across several continents, and the international activity is roughly 40% of their business volume. The firm has around 240 employees. CSR initiatives and programs are publicly presented as a relevant part of the firms’ activity. Firm I is a Portuguese SME engaged in the development of web products and has recently become part of a group of companies with headquarters in a Western Europe Capital. The firm has around 200 employees and assumes in the institutional website the importance to contribute to make the world a better place. Firm J is a Portuguese SME for development and commercialization of management software mostly oriented for the social economy sector. It has three decades of activity, around 100 employees and has international representation in two Africa countries. CSR is publicly presented as a relevant dimension of the firm. Additionally, the firm was considered by a Portuguese independent entity integrated in a CSR European project a case study of CSR. Firm K is a local subsidiary of a Western Europe multinational firm operating in Portugal in the field of bricolage and gardening. In this local subsidiary there are around 150 employees. The firm answers to international environmental standards and present best practices related to responsible business. It reveals a high level of socially responsible commitment to the public. A summary of the firms’ profile is presented in Table 4.1. Table 4.1. Description of the firms’ profile. Firm Type Number of employees Activity Interviewee Position A.* Multinational operating in Portugal 1000 Automotive parts supplier Director of Quality B.* Large Portuguese firm (familiar) 1100 Textile company Director of Human Resources C.* Large Portuguese firm (familiar) 1000 Engineering and construction Director of Communications 101 Table 4.1. Description of the firms’ profile. Firm Type Number of employees Activity Interviewee Position D. Portuguese SME (familiar) 20 Wholesale of machinery and equipment Director of Human Resources E. Portuguese SME (familiar) 30 Industrial bakery Director of Operations F.*# Large Firm (mostly Portuguese capital) 1350 Production and commercialization of multibrand beverages Staff Member of Partnerships and Communications Dep. G.* Large Firm operating in Portugal, (Spanish venture-capital) 300 Global producer and supplier of thermoplastic for furniture industry Director of Human Resources H.* Portuguese SME 240 Development and commercialization of management software Executive Assistant I. Portuguese SME recently acquired by a large foreign group 200 Development of web products Operations Manager J.* Portuguese SME 100 Development and commercialization of management software Director of Human Resources K.* Local subsidiary of a European multinational operating in Portugal 150 Bricolage and gardening retailer Director *Firm with public records of CSR available in the webpages. #Non-record of interviews firm’s policy. Source: elaborated by the author. 4.2.2 Exploring Data The data collected, considering the in-depth interviews, was organized in several themes foreseen when the interview development of the Empirical Study I was established (see section 3.3.1). Therefore, data is presented following the main topics identified a priori , but also considering the themes that emerged during the interview. Therefore, the following topics are analysed: i) CSR in the firm: management, context and coverage; ii) CSR dynamics: the value proposition vs. the impact of CSR and iii) CSR platforms of interaction. 102 4.2.2.1 CSR in the Firm: Management, Context and Scope CSR in the firm is firstly addressed by a brief firms’ general perceptions and key ideas on its own role regarding responsible business efforts. In this sample, it is relevant to notice that the firms engaged in CSR recognize their important role as social actors in the community - both internally and externally - where they operate. Interviewee from firm A perceive its social and environmental role as determinant for the region where it operates. The dramatic consequences of the laying-off process of the past years is very present, and it is recognized as an important moment for the firm and a “wake up call” to the awareness of its social responsibilities. Firm B considers having a social important role in the community. Its social improver status goes back to the beginning of the company where social infrastructures were provided in the benefit of employees and local community. CSR initiatives of firm C are important and transversal to all sectors of the firm, and the major current problem regarding CSR is related to internal public segmentation and engagement, according to the interviewee from firm C. Interviewee from firm D, although aware of the importance of CSR, assumes that the dimension of the firm, since it is a small firm, is a constraint regarding formal initiatives and programs, as well as a noted scepticism of the employees regarding this issue. As well as to the interviewee from firm E, CSR is not considered to be a concern of the firm, that is mostly focused on production. However, they look at the employees as a member of its own family, and informal social responsibilities are considered to exist. Interviewee from firm F considers CSR very seriously, although this concern does not translate into high rates of reputation regarding responsible business, specially taking into account frequent employees’ layoffs and location changes of the production units – affecting its employees and families. To the interviewee from firm G, CSR is also taken very seriously with positive dynamics established between employees and local community, especially in what concerns education. The interviewee from firm H also agrees on the importance of CSR initiatives and programs since it is embedded in the firms’ own definition. Similarly, interviewee from Firm I refers that CSR is also understood as imbedded in the organization, and the employees have enough autonomy to approach and develop social and environmental initiatives and programs on their own. Interviewee from firm J is proud that the firm is considered a reference as a case study for CSR since it is a genuine reality for the firm since its beginning. To firm K, its social and environmental role is determinant to be connected to the community where it operates, as refereed by interviewee from firm K. 103 CSR Management After the invitation, individuals with different management positions held in the firms were indicated as interviewees. One of the interesting results – to whom CSR is trusted within the firm – is related to the direct or indirect relevance of human resources in this topic (see Table 4.1). Four of the relevant positions are held by the director of human resources (firms B, D, G and J), although in firm F and K human resources department is also actively involved. Two are held by the communication department (firms C and F), and three by the operations management (firms E, I and K). In the case of firm I, the position also covers culture, social responsibility and development of people. Another CSR relevant position is held by the director of quality (firm A), another by the subsidiary general director, and finally one is held by the executive assistant of the administration (firm H), underlying the importance of the administration attached to the firm’ CSR. The results show that in this sample there is no specific department related to CSR in the firms. The interviews revealed that, although the practical aspects of CSR were held by the individuals/departments cited above, and a high degree of autonomy was observed, the role of the administration/CEOs in CSR was strongly referred by the overall interviewees, as well as Human Resources. It is also important to highlight the role of employees stressed by one interviewee (I) referring that any employee may have a leading role in CSR. Regarding the localization of CSR within the firms, it is not surprising that human resources management have an important role (Jamali et al., 2015), as internal social responsibilities are revealed to be on the top of the issues addressed by this department (see CSR Scope presented below). At the same time, highlighting ‘ordinary employees’ in the management of CSR is an important indication to support that employees are more than passive recipients of CSR initiatives and programs. The CSR planning and strategy is addressed to access if CSR initiatives and programs were more or less formal, or if firms mainly answered to external requests of social institutions or other organizations. Regarding this topic, three interviewees assume that there is no specific planning or strategy regarding CSR (firms D, E and I). Interviewees refer that although CSR is not planned, there are activities that are performed annually, which implies some sort of planning (firm A, J and K) and even an annual budget allocated (firm C). The interviewee from firm B relates CSR to the ‘social policies’ planned and performed by the firm, addressing issues relevant to employees and the local community. Finally, three interviewees clearly revealed the existence of planned CSR (firms F, G and H). “ Previously there was not a core area drawn to work upon, so CSR initiatives were performed to answer external requests as they happened. 4.2.2.2 CSR dynamics: The Value Proposition vs the Impact of CSR Regarding the CSR value proposition, it is possible to identify different sources, either from within the firm and/or from external sources (see Table 4.3) Regarding the external sources, formal and informal requests from associations and social welfare institutions as well as requests from schools are referred by all interviewees as key promoters of CSR. Many times these requests are financial requests: “ We have some [external] requests that are more interested in financial sponsorship, we do not work so much in that perspective. (...) I understand that they have to exist, but we prefer to be autonomous and do not invest all our money in a program or a thing that will not even allow people [firm I employees] to be able to be connected with. Rather than have our image associated with a cause that is interesting, we look for people to do things they like to do ” (interviewee from firm I, Operations Manager). At the same time, partnerships with local government are also highlighted as CSR promoter (firm A) as well as business partners’ challenges (firm H). As explained by the interviewee from firm H “(...) above all, those who work with us (…) They know we have this concern, often they engage in our social responsibility projects and often we involve ourselves in their projects“ (interviewee from firm H, Executive Assistant). Table 4.3. Sources of CSR value propositions. Source: elaborated by the author. Looking at the internal dimension, firms stressed the contributions of the administration (firms A, C, E, F, H and J), and the department where CSR is primarily imbedded in the organization (firms A, B, C, H). Interviewees from firm C and firm H, namely the ‘manager of institutional relations, events and communication’ and the ‘executive assistance of the administration’, refer specifically to themselves as key CSR sources for the firm. At the same time, employees are referred as external sources of CSR (firms C, F and G), and both internal and external sources of CSR (firms A, H and I). Such distinction can be essential to understand the proper role of employees in the firm and in CSR. Regarding specifically employees’ CSR value propositions, for example, at firm A, a spontaneous group of employees self-organized within the firm, started to develop and promote environmental activities – External Sources of Value Propositions Internal Sources of Value Propositions Associations and Social Institutions Schools Local government Business partners Employees Administration Departments where CSR is allocated Employees 111 firstly without the firm’s involvement. In this particular case, the firm wanted to be part at some level and support the group (for example regarding the logistics of the initiatives). " In this framework of the Group many things come at the proposal of the company, other things come as proposed by the employees themselves. (…) The company has supported or supports, whenever the Group requests, for example to participate in anything that needs transportation, the company supports transport or food" (interviewee from firm A, Director of Quality). Data also reveals that employees informally have the opportunity and the interest to promote and suggest CSR initiatives and programs. Much of the examples given by the interviewees correspond to a willingness to request the support of the firms where they work for the benefit of causes in which they are already involved. It is also possible to identify that the dynamics regarding the employees’ value CSR propositions is mostly seen as interwoven with the firms’ CSR value propositions: " Usually this is so, is not a fixed thing, it is something that follows from the two ways. I can be an employee who proposes, as well as we propose” (interviewee from firm A, Director of Quality) . This is in line with interviewees from firm I, who stated that “ The idea is that the same way we work, the social responsibility [of firm I] has to be something that people themselves want to do in the interest of them, therefore derived from their will and their autonomy. So, what we do is to give tools to allow our skills to improve the world around us. I think that is just that ”. In accordance, interviewee from firm D emphasizes the need for a more active role of employees in respect to CSR activities. “I know that what I'll say should not be a utopia and no one else will mention this, but people also have to look at the company in another way, isn't it? That is, this company could be better (…) what have I contributed so this would change?” (interviewee from firm D, Director of Human Resources) . The question of willingness, as well as autonomy, pointed out by the interviewees can be determinant so that employees can be effectively involved in the CSR value co-creation experience. The perception that employees could be more involved is also interesting to reflect upon the actions of the firm regarding the promotion of a deeper engagement with employees regarding CSR. Taking into account the CSR impact, previous literature (Aguinis & Glavas, 2012) suggested two main levels, namely internal and external”. The internal impact can be divided into individual impact with reference to employees, and organization impact, with reference to the firm as a whole and its performance. The first includes: employees’ well-being (firms A and D), increase the feeling of mutual help (firm A), happiness (firm A), promotion of a family environment (firm B), improve a healthier lifestyle 112 (firm C), personal and social enrichment (firm G). The organizational impact is related to the improvement of: employees’ motivation (firm A, B), internal marketing (firm B), employees’ sense of belonging and pride (firm B), cohesion (firm C) and interaction (firm H) amongst employees, awareness of the brand (firm C, H) and positive image of the brand (firm H), business, as CSR is a requirement for public works contracts (firm C), the communication of the firms’ values (firm F), productivity (firm G), organization rightness as “put the things right and the most possible developed within the organization” (interviewee from firm G, Director of Human Resources). As to the external level, it can be divided into the community/social impact, and the environmental impact. The first is related to the: stimulation of local economy (firm A, B), involvement of people and the community (firm B, F), active role in educational training (firm B), provide comfort features to the community (firm G), local improvements (firm G), contribution to a healthier business environment (firm G) and inspire children/young people to pursue their education and have a positive outlook at the labour market. The environmental impact includes: reduction of negative environmental impact, encouraging the use of green power (firm A), and contribution to the overall well-being taking into account the environmental concerns of the company (firm G). It is also important to notice that interviewee from firm E does not refer to any impact, established a priori or achieved by the firm when engaging in CSR. At the same time, while the interviewee from firm H assumes that the firm does not seek for internal results, he also refers as an impact of CSR the improvement of interaction between employees, which will lead to a better and more productive work environment. 4.2.2.3 CSR platforms of interaction Regarding the platforms of interaction to develop CSR, specifically taking into account the firms and employees, it is possible to identify a common feature between all the interviews which is related to the existence of informal communication. All the interviewees referred to informal communication as a platform of interaction between the person responsible for CSR in the firm and every employee. The employee interested in promoting CSR initiatives can, and is encouraged, to identify causes and institutions to approach. Other important platform of interaction is social media, namely Facebook (firm C, H and I). E-mail correspondence (firm I) as well as a formal corporate social mission’s platform, different from the firms’ website (firm H) were also referred. In this last case, the corporate social mission’s platform was discontinued to give place to Facebook, as a more usable and frequent platform 113 of interaction for other issues, including CSR. Posters as offline static communication platform was also pointed out (firm I). Meetings and formal moments of performance evaluation as well as moments of discussion of firms’ results (firm F and H) are similarly considered to be a platform of interaction regarding CSR. Lastly, interviewee from firm I stressed the existence of two days attributed to the CSR, entirely managed by the employees, as an initiative that performs as a driver to promote CSR and as an autonomous activity related exclusively to employees’ preferences. The importance of the existence of drivers and platforms of interaction goes beyond the one-way communication between firms and employees, as they can be considered points of interaction between both in order to communicate, but also share and act regarding social and environmental responsibilities. 4.2.3 General Considerations about the CSR Co-Creation Experience Considering the preliminary insights of the qualitative study carried out, and in combination with literature, a set of general considerations about the CSR co-creation experience between firms and employees is presented. The fact that the data analysis features preliminary evidence for a more interactive relationship between firms and employees regarding CSR is essential to a new approach to CSR. If customers have been viewed by traditional lenses as passive recipients of the firms’ activities and efforts (McColl Kennedy et al., 2012), the same can be extended to every stakeholder in a CSR context, including employees. Usually, CSR initiatives and programs are attributed to administration and top-management willingness and business strategy. Notwithstanding the drivers behind CSR (Haigh & Jones, 2006), the fact is that responsible social and environmental efforts are usually regarded in one way-direction, with a firm proposition as starting point. In this sense, stakeholders are often excluded from the process, even though they are affected by the outcomes of CSR. To overcome this traditional view, it is essential to see stakeholders and, more specifically, employees, as active members of the firm, willing to continuously learn, take action and change (del Bosco, 2010), and integrate the firms’ activities, including social and environmental efforts. This leads to the need for an in-depth analysis of the role of the different stakeholders, since it is a major relevant dimension on the value creation equation. The example of consumers’ readiness to be part of the business is paradigmatic as they “ now seek to exercise their influence in every part of the system ” (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004a, p. 5). Indeed, beyond more involvement, if employees are also in charge of the CSR value cocreation experience, it is expected that their participation becomes more effective. It is expected that, 114 once they have a role in the co-creation CSR experience, they can participate on its design and conceptualization as well as in its implementation. The distinctive role of the involved parts in CSR is not so static anymore. Considering the example of consumers and according to the evidence from the previous qualitative analysis, employees may also be more active then usually conceived. Thus, it is possible to assume that, to some extent, employees also want to interact with their firms to co-create value. For that reason, it can be argued that: Employees are willing to have a meaningful role in the CSR value co-creation experience. Thereby, the process of CSR value co-creation becomes relevant not only for the firm and its own agenda, acting autonomously, but also to employees. Employees can develop their own individual propositions and be willing to engage in interactions with the firm and further create value. This approach to co-creation reveals that not only the firm’s aspirations matter. Indeed, employees are not expected to be just a passive audience. This does not suggest that employees should replace the role of CSR by top management. Instead, the focus is on examining how employees and firms interact and co-create value regarding CSR, and the active role of employees. As an interactive phenomenon, it is expected that employees’ value propositions are seriously considered by the firm, as showed by the results of data analysis. For that reason, it can be argued that: Employees’ value propositions are considered to be part of the CSR value co-creation experience by the firm. According to Grönroos and Ravald (2011), co-creation of value only happens if direct interactions occur in a platform. In this case it is a platform to which both firms and employees have access, with related content to CSR initiatives and programs. Therefore, the focus on how the process of interactions occur, as well as on the platforms where interactions occur, are key elements to understand CSR value cocreation experiences. Thus, it can be argued that: The quality of interactions in specific platforms is important to CSR value co-creation experiences between firms and employees. 115 The considerations above presented are related to the specific context of the Empirical Study I. It is important to notice that beyond this qualitative effort, much more could be added. Nevertheless, as a study with an exploratory nature, it has the benefits of opening the discussion of CSR value co-creation between firms and employees, considering the internal marketing context. 4.2.4 Summary This section discussed the results of the Empirical Study I. After presenting the sample profile, the data was analysed through a content analysis. The analysis revealed some existing patterns regarding CSR overall topics but also considering interactions between firms and employees. Indeed, the examination of the data allowed to undercover some CSR dynamics, including what and how value propositions are presented, and how interactions between the actors occur. Another important topic that was assessed was the platforms of interaction. The analysis allowed to list a set of platforms of interaction that are in fact used by firms and employees in a CSR creation of value context. Given the results obtained in the qualitative phase of the study, the next section will convey the results and discussion of the quantitative phase of the study. 116 4.3 Empirical Study II Findings from Empirical Study II are related to the empirical test of the model previously developed (see section 2.4). As mentioned before, data collection was performed with Qualtrics (2017) platform where the questionnaires were first introduced and applied online. The next step was to import data from Qualtrics to the specific software used in the analysis, namely SPSS (FFMS, 2018) and Amos (Arbuckle, 2014). The section is organized considering the data set preparation, which includes the exploration of data obtained from the online questionnaire and the respective descriptive statistics. Next, the sample profile is presented. The process of refinement of the core scales of the model, i.e., Corporate Social Responsibility Value Co-creation (CSR VCC) and employee’s perceptions of CSR, is undertaken. In the end of this section, the hypothesis firstly advanced are tested. 4.3.1 Data Set Preparation: Exploring Data and Descriptive Statistics As mentioned before, the universe of the present study corresponds to employees of Portuguese firms and foreign firms operating in Portugal (see section 3.4.2). From that universe, a sample of 12316 email contacts was gathered. These emails included both employees’ individual emails and firms’ institutional emails (general email, human resources email, commercial email, and similar). Additionally, this list also included the email of several professional organizations that were asked to resend the email to the firms they represent and/or interact with. The link for the questionnaire was send by e-mail and was also available in social media networks (e.g. LinkedIn 14 and Facebook 15 ). An email including the invitation text and the link to the questionnaire was sent in two different moments to the referred 12316 email contacts. Considering the questionnaires not answered, partially answered or just not submitted, at the end, only a total of 1634 valid questionnaires were submitted by the participants and recorded in the Qualtrics platform. This corresponds to a response rate of 13%. This respondents’ rate is in line with other quantitative studies in which online questionnaires were adopted (e.g. Fan & Yan, 2010; Millar & Dillman, 2011). 14 https://pt.linkedin.com/ 15 https://facebook.com/ 117 Next, the filter question “Does your company have corporate social initiates” was analysed. From the 1634 valid questionnaires, only a total of 774 individuals answered positively for having CSR initiatives in the firm. Those individuals proceeded in the fulfilment of the questionnaire. Taking the 774 remaining questionnaires, an additional filter question was analysed: “Indicate your degree of participation in the Social Responsibility initiatives of the firm you work, in a scale of 1 (Do not participate) to 7 (Always participate)”. A total of 351 questionnaires passed this filter which correspond to the sample for the present analysis. The respondents left behind were directed to an additional page of the questionnaire. Before the questionnaire ended, two additional questions for non-participants were suggested regarding the motives for not participating in CSR initiatives and what could be done to change that (see section 3.4.1). The data analysis began with several descriptive statistics of the variables present in the Corporate Social Responsibility Value Co-Creation (CSR VCC) proposed model. Table 4.4 provides a summary of the variables that will be addressed in the present section. After presenting the descriptive statistics, the outliers and missing data are also highlighted. The number of observations is the same for each variable, corresponding to the 351 individuals of the sample. The average indicates the mean value of each variable among all observations, the standard deviation shows how much these observations diverge, in average. The values of skewness and kurtosis are presented to illustrate the distribution’s shape characteristics. The skewness corresponds to the asymmetry in the distribution, relatively to its mean. The kurtosis is represented graphically as the height of the curve. It measures the density of the observations around the mean. Along with the descriptive statistics of the chosen variables, the assessment of normality of the variables is presented using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov and the Shapiro-Wilk normality tests (Hair et al., 2010). Firstly, the variables of the DART model are presented in Table 4.5. Secondly, Table 4.6 shows de descriptive statistics and normality tests of the other variables that are also included in the proposed model. 118 Table 4.4. Model Variables Construct Dimensions Name CSR VCC Dialogue D Access A Risk R Transparency T Employees’ CSR perceptions Social responsibilities perceptions sPCSR Environmental responsibilities ePCSR Overall CSR perceptions oPCSR Employees’ CSR participation Participation in decision-making Part Employees’ CSR enjoyment Participation emotional involvement Enj Moderation Variables Employees’ CSR familiarity Fam Employees’ CSR importance Imp Table 4.5. DART variables: descriptive statistics and normality tests. Variables Average Standard deviation Skewness Kurtosis Kolmogorov-Smirnov Shapiro-Wilk Statistic Sig Statistic Sig D1 - The firm communicates with the employee to receive input on improving the CSRi16 . 5,32 1,501 -1,132 0,886 0,231 0,000 0,857 0,000 D2 -The firm is interested in communicating with the employee about the best ways to design a quality CSRi. 5,4 1,427 -1,166 1,071 0,244 0,000 0,853 0,000 D3 - The firm uses multiple channels of communication to encourage greater exchange of ideas with the employee about the CSRi 5,18 1,531 -0,944 0,284 0,23 0,000 0,878 0,000 D4 - The employee is encouraged to communicate with the firm about any and all aspects of the CSRi. 5,28 1,478 -0,998 0,455 0,241 0,000 0,869 0,000 D5 - The firm uses multiple channels of communication to encourage greater 5,12 1,554 -0,862 0,03 0,227 0,000 0,885 0,000 16 CSRi, Corporate Social Responsibility Initiatives. 119 Table 4.5. DART variables: descriptive statistics and normality tests. Variables Average Standard deviation Skewness Kurtosis Kolmogorov-Smirnov Shapiro-Wilk Statistic Sig Statistic Sig exchange of ideas with the employee about the CSRi. D6 - The firm is interested in communicating with the employee about the best ways to deliver quality CSRi. 5,46 1,364 -1,259 1,513 0,253 0,000 0,843 0,000 D7 - The firm actively promotes dialogue with the employee to learn more about the employee’s reaction to the CSRi. 5,04 1,531 -0,793 0,007 0,196 0,000 0,899 0,000 D8 - The employee has many opportunities to share his/her ideas with the firm about adding value to the CSRi. 5,16 1,561 -0,938 0,233 0,22 0,000 0,876 0,000 D9 - The firm makes it easy for the employee to communicate his/her ideas about the design of the CSRi. 5,16 1,562 -0,954 0,232 0,224 0,000 0,873 0,000 D10 - The firm and the employee have an open dialogue of how to add value to the CSRi. 5,01 1,568 -0,85 0,04 0,202 0,000 0,889 0,000 D11 - The firm makes it easy for the employee to communicate his/her ideas about the delivery of the CSRi. 5,17 1,535 -0,966 0,27 0,239 0,000 0,871 0,000 A1 - The firm lets the employee decide how he/she participates in the CSRi. 5,06 1,492 -0,83 0,135 0,198 0,000 0,894 0,000 A2 - The employee has many options to choose how he/she participates in the CSRi. 4,81 1,545 -0,659 -0,31 0,215 0,000 0,909 0,000 A3 - It is easy for the employee to participate in the CSRi when, where and how he/she wants it. 4,99 1,528 -0,774 -0,002 0,195 0,000 0,901 0,000 A4 - It is easy for the employee to participate in the CSRi where he/she wants it. 4,98 1,548 -0,794 -0,033 0,206 0,000 0,897 0,000 A5 - It is easy for the employee to participate in the CSRi how he/she wants it. 4,91 1,506 -0,738 -0,02 0,211 0,000 0,906 0,000 R1 - The firm provides the employee with comprehensive information 4,59 1,733 -0,48 -0,751 0,177 0,000 0,916 0,000 126 Table 4.8. Sample characterization – individuals’ firm context. Item Frequency Valid [%] Cumulative [%] DEPARTMENT (Q22) Administration 72 20.5 20.5 Administrative 31 8.8 29.3 Commercial 59 16.8 46.2 Procurement 5 10.4 47.6 Financial 17 4.8 52.4 Research and Development 15 4.3 56.7 Juridical 7 2.0 58.7 Marketing/ Communication 35 10.0 68.6 Production 20 5.7 74.3 Human Resources 47 13.4 87.7 Social Responsibility/ Sustainability 11 3.1 90.9 Information Technology 11 3.1 94.0 Quality, safety and environment 17 4.8 98.8 Do not know 4 1.1 100.0 Total 351 100 POSITION (Q23) Administrator 30 8.6 8.6 Director 89 25.4 33.9 Manager 47 13.4 47.3 Supervisor 23 6.6 53.9 Technician 124 35.3 89.2 Assistant 29 8.3 97.4 Intern 4 1.1 98.6 Do not know 5 1.4 100.0 Total 351 100 SENIORITY (Q24) Less than 1 year 52 14.8 14.8 Between 1 year and 5 years 85 24.2 39.0 Between 5 years and 10 years 52 14.8 53.8 Between 10 years and 15 years 51 14.5 68.4 Between 15 years and 20 years 43 12.3 80.6 More than 20 years 68 19.4 100.0 Total 351 100 127 Table 4.8. Sample characterization – individuals’ firm context. Item Frequency Valid [%] Cumulative [%] CSR LEADING POSITION Yes 103 29.3 30.5 No 248 70.7 100.0 Total 351 100 Thirdly, the sample is next characterized considering the respondents’ respective firms (see Table 4.9). The industry classification and the firms’ economic activity was based on the Portuguese National Institute of Statistics (INE, 2019) (the list is presented in Table 4.9). It is possible to verify that the main sector of activity present in the sample is of transformation industries (31,1%). Additionally, the individuals are distributed by highlight to wholesale and retail trade (14,8%); repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles (14,8%), and other services (14,5%). The size of the firms was based on the categorization of the European Commission regarding micro enterprises, small enterprises, medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) (EC, 2009) and large enterprises based on the number of employees and the annual turnover (see Table 4.10). The enterprise size was assessed considering both the number of employees and the firm turnover, following EC recommendations. As can be seen, most of the firms correspond SMEs (35.3%), followed by large enterprises (32,8%). The remaining correspond to micro and small firms (30.8%). Regarding the type of firm, i.e. if private or public, public-private partnership, family company, multinational organization, company listed on stock exchange or other, revealed that most of the firms were private (86,3%). Most of the firms’ headquarters are located in Portugal (76,9%) and besides national presence the firms also present international market presence (22,8%). Table 4.9. Sample characterization - Firms’ characteristics. Item Frequency Valid [%] Cumulative [%] SECTOR OF ACTIVITY (Q16) Agriculture, animal production, haunt, forest and phishing 11 3.1 3.1 Extraction industries 6 1.7 4.8 Transformation industries 109 31.1 35.9 Electricity, gas, vapor, hot and cold water and cold air 6 1.7 37.6 128 Table 4.9. Sample characterization - Firms’ characteristics. Item Frequency Valid [%] Cumulative [%] Collection, treatment and distribution of water; sanitation, waste management and de-pollution 3 0.9 38.5 Construction 18 5.1 43.6 Wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles 52 14.8 58.4 Transport and storage 8 2.3 60.7 Accommodation, catering and similar 4 1.1 61.8 Information and communication activities 17 4.8 66.7 Real estate activities 3 0.9 67.5 Consulting, scientific, technical and similar activities 31 8.8 76.3 Administrative and support services activities 3 0.9 77.2 Education 1 0.3 77.5 Human health activities and social support 10 2.9 80.3 Artistic, entertainment, sports and recreational activities 2 0.6 80.9 Other service activities. 51 14.5 95.4 Do not know 16 4.6 100.0 Total 351 100.0 NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES (Q18) 9 or less employees 31 8.8 8.8 10 to 49 employees 77 21.9 30.8 50 to 249 employees 124 35.3 66.1 250 to 499 employees 33 9.4 75.5 500 or more employees 82 23.4 98.9 Do not know 4 1.1 100.0 Total 351 100 TURNOVER Less than €1 million 39 11.1 11.1 Between €1 and 2€ million 39 11.1 22.2 Between €2 and €10 millions 72 20.5 42.7 Between €10 and €50 millions 62 17.7 60.4 + €50 millions 79 22.5 82.9 129 Table 4.9. Sample characterization - Firms’ characteristics. Item Frequency Valid [%] Cumulative [%] Do not know 60 17.1 100.0 Total 351 100 LOCATION/ COUNTRY Belgium 1 0.3 0.3 Brazil 1 0.3 0.6 France 37 10.5 11.1 Germany 6 1.7 12.8 Holland 1 0.3 13.1 Korea 1 0.3 13.4 Luxemburg 1 0.3 13.7 Portugal 270 76.9 90.6 Spain 3 0.9 91.4 Switzerland 3 0.9 92.3 USA 3 0.9 93.1 Do not know 24 6.8 100.0 Total 351 100 MARKETS’ PRESENCE National, International 94 26.8 26.8 Local, National, International 87 24.8 51.6 International 80 22.8 74.4 National 46 13.1 87.5 Local 17 4.8 92.3 Local, National 17 4.8 97.2 Local, International 4 1.1 98.3 Do not know 6 1.7 100.0 Total 351 100 Table 4.10. Enterprise size: EC recommendations. Enterprise Size Number of employees Annual Turnover Micro < 10 <= € 2 m Small 10 to 49 <= € 10 m Medium-sized 50 to 249 <= € 50 m Large > 250 > € 50 m Source: European Commission. 130 CSR Leading Position It was fundamental to further analyse the sample regarding the employees’ Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) position. For the 103 respondents with a CSR leading position (see Table 4.8) the online questionnaire prompted a box to specify the role performed in the firm’s CSR. The answers collected in the referred box were grouped after a content analysis as shown in Table 4.11. Table 4.11 shows that the majority of the firms in the sample have a specific employee/department to address the CSR activities. Only 22 respondents simultaneously hold management and CSR responsibilities. In the context of the present study, top managers holding CSR responsibilities should not be considered, since they cannot be seen as ordinary employees regarding CSR. Conversely, employees that also hold CSR responsibility positions, since they are not involved in the firm top management, should be included in the analysis. From the data, it was not clear if the 22 respondents grouped in management positions corresponded to top managers. Considering that, this group includes respondents who affirmed to be general managers, general directors, among others, it was decided to include them in the overall analysis. Table 4.11. CSR leading position categorization. Item Frequency Valid [%] Cumulative [%] Certification (CSR) 3 2.9 2.9 Communication (internal and external CSR) 4 3.9 6.8 Coordination/ Organization (activities, projects, volunteerism) 40 38.8 45.6 Environmental (recycling, waste) 2 1.9 47.6 Financial department 2 1.9 49.5 Human resources 7 6.8 56.3 Management 22 21.4 77.7 Top-management support 5 4.9 82.5 Not specified 18 17.5 100.0 Total 103 100.0 4.3.3 CSR Value Co-Creation Scale Refinement Corporate Social Responsibility Value Co-Creation (CSR VCC) experience scale was particularly relevant to analyse separately. Although the main structure of the scale was adapted from a previously research 131 (Albinsson et al., 2016), the context of application of the DART model, including the items corresponding to Dialogue, Access, Risk and Transparency, was different and the scale was adapted to capture the CSR context (as explained in section 3.4.1). The objective was to identify the structure in this context, allowing the factors to freely emerge from the data and confirm the structure of the scale. To proceed with the refinement of the Corporate Social Responsibility Value Co-Creation (CSR VCC) scale, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was first performed. The objective was to explore the factor structure of the respective group of variables that constitute the CSR VCC construct. Based on the DART model, the main reason for adopting that procedure was that the variables belong to the same overall construct, as literature suggests (Albinsson et al., 2016). A common factor analysis was performed, using the Maximum Likelihood extraction method (MLE). To be noted that the sample size is 351 which validates the 10:1 ratio of observations to variables, commonly accepted as adequate to be used in a factor analysis (Hair et al., 2010). The procedures regarding the process to refine the DART scale will be further described. The first step of the analysis consisted in verifying the adequacy of the collected data to be submitted to a factor analysis. To correctly apply this analysis, it was assumed that the data could be grouped according to the existing correlations. In the end, each group of data was expected to be highly correlated inside the group and poorly correlated with the other groups. One statistical test frequently used to access data adequacy is the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test. The KMO test indicates if there are correlations between the items analysed. If the KMO test metric is one, the data is considered appropriate considering the factor analysis. Additionally, the Bartlett’s test was applied. This test verifies whether the data is correlated, testing the null hypothesis that the correlation matrix is an identity, thus variables do not correlate. If the result of the test has zero significance, the null hypothesis is rejected, and the variables indeed correlate with each other (Hair et al., 2010). Table 4.12 summarizes the results of KMO and Bartlett tests for the DAR scale. As can be seen, in both cases KMO is greater than 0.5, thus data is adequate. Also, the significance of Bartlett’s test is zero, thus variables correlate with each other. Note that, in Table 4.12, the scale DART was designated DAR. This is because all the items related to transparency were removed in the final scale (this will be further discussed later in this section ) and Table 4.12 reports the metrics for the final scale. 132 Table 4.12. Results of KMO and Bartlett tests. DAR Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy 0,96 Bartlett Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-square 7511,716 df 120 Sig. 0,000 While the above-mentioned metrics allow confirming that the variables correlate, neither of them account for the possibility that variables correlate so well that they are collinear. To verify the inexistency of data collinearity, it was assured that all the coefficients in the off-diagonal variable’s correlation matrix were in the range [0,3;0,9] in accordance with Hair et al. (2010). Table 4.13 summarizes the final correlation matrix in which can be verified that there is no variables’ collinearity. Further, the ones in the matrix diagonal were replaced by each variable KMO which further illustrates the adequacy of both variables and dataset. Table 4.13. Correlation matrix for final DAR scale variables. D1 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 D8 D10 A1 A2 A3 A5 R1 R4 R5 R7 D1 0,97 D3 0,82 0,96 D4 0,83 0,86 0,96 D5 0,82 0,89 0,89 0,95 D6 0,87 0,82 0,86 0,80 0,95 D7 0,81 0,80 0,82 0,82 0,80 0,97 D8 0,81 0,80 0,85 0,84 0,81 0,89 0,97 D10 0,79 0,79 0,84 0,82 0,81 0,88 0,90 0,97 A1 0,60 0,58 0,61 0,61 0,60 0,64 0,69 0,68 0,95 A2 0,64 0,68 0,68 0,70 0,63 0,72 0,75 0,76 0,85 0,94 A3 0,55 0,57 0,58 0,58 0,57 0,61 0,64 0,67 0,73 0,78 0,97 A5 0,47 0,49 0,51 0,52 0,48 0,60 0,62 0,63 0,73 0,79 0,76 0,95 R1 0,61 0,63 0,60 0,64 0,59 0,72 0,67 0,70 0,55 0,64 0,58 0,53 0,95 R4 0,63 0,64 0,64 0,65 0,62 0,73 0,70 0,73 0,62 0,68 0,64 0,59 0,87 0,97 R5 0,57 0,59 0,55 0,59 0,55 0,68 0,63 0,65 0,55 0,59 0,56 0,51 0,86 0,83 0,95 R7 0,60 0,60 0,60 0,62 0,59 0,71 0,68 0,71 0,55 0,62 0,57 0,53 0,89 0,85 0,88 0,95 Notes: The values in the diagonal do not correspond to correlation coefficients (which were 1 for all variables) but rather the measure of sample adequacy for each variable (should be >0,5 in order to be adequate). After verifying that a factor analysis could be conducted, the next step was to perform the analysis itself. To this purpose, the Maximum Likelihood Extraction (MLE) method with a PROMAX oblique rotation 133 method was adopted. The simplification that this oblique rotation method allows is similar to the orthogonal methods (e.g. QUARTIMAX, VARIMAX, EQUIMAX), and it also allows the possibility of correlated factors (Hair et al., 2010). The factors to be extracted were those with eigenvalues greater than one. In the rotated factor matrix, it was expected that all variables of each subscale fit to the same factor. Table 4.14 present the final rotated factor matrices for DAR. It is possible to notice that the number of factors differ from the original scale. Instead of four factors (Dialogue, Access, Risk and Transparency), the construct is represented by only three factors (Dialogue, Access and Risk). The remaining factors were named using the same nomenclature of the original scale. The three factors above mentioned and presented in Table 4.14 (DAR scale) explain about 70% of the total variance. Furthermore, the variables of each subscale fit to the same factor. As Hair et al. (2010) underlies, loadings above 0.70 are indicative of well-defined structure, loadings above 0.50 are practically significant and loadings between 0.30 and 0.40 can be considered. Table 4.14. Rotated factor matrix for final DAR scale variables. Dialogue Risk Access D1 0,93 D3 0,93 D4 1,00 D5 0,93 D6 0,95 D7 0,70 D8 0,74 D10 0,67 A1 0,87 A2 0,84 A3 0,78 A5 0,94 R1 0,92 R4 0,77 R5 0,97 R7 0,95 Eigenvalue 11,35 1,36 1,14 Total Variance [%] 69,83 7,40 6,16 The two steps’ process explained above was run iteratively. In fact, it is very common that, at the end of step two, the obtained results lead the researcher to rethink analysis parameters. And, if the results do not satisfy and any change is made, the entire process should be repeated from the beginning (Hair et al., 2010). 134 In the context of the present study, two major situations resulted in changes in the analysis, thus in new iterations. On one hand, whenever in step one some variables were found to be correlated, those were fine analysed in order to understand why and if it was reasonable the existence of collinearity between them. Ultimately, the one with a lower individual KMO was removed and the analysis returned to the beginning. On the other hand, whenever at the end of step two it was found that one or more variables were loading significantly in more than one factor, thus factor separation was not clear, a deep look was taken to those variables. Regardless to the solution adopted (e.g. change rotation method or remove variable) the entire process was re-run from the beginning. In the end of the EFA, the DART scale that had 27 variables in the beginning ended up with 16 variables. Besides some collinear variables that were removed in dialogue, access and risk subscales, the entire transparency scale was removed. The reasoning behind this decision is justified with the fact that transparency scale variables, regardless to the parameters adopted in the EFA, were always loading in more than one factor with low values - bellow 0,4 (Hair et al., 2010), namely, in dialogue and/or risk factors. The third and last step of EFA consisted on verifying the internal consistency of the final scale. To that purpose, the Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient is normally adopted (Hair et al., 2010). The closer to 1 this coefficient is, the more reliable and homogeneous the scale is. The Cronbach’s Alpha coefficients obtained for DAR final scale, considering separately each construct, were above 0,90 for Dialogue, Access and Risk, confirming that the final scale is reliable. Additionally, Table 4.15 present the corrected item total correlation and the Cronbach's alpha if item deleted for all variables. The former traduces the relationship between each variable and the entire scale and should be greater than 0,3 in order to have a reliable scale. The latter traduces the impact on Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient if each variable would be removed from the scale. If this value is lower than the Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient, it means that the respective variable is meaningful to the scale. Looking at Table 4.15 it can be confirmed that the scale is reliable, and the included variables are all important to the scale. 135 Table 4.15. Reliability statistics for final DAR scale variables. Corrected item - Total correlation Cronbach's alpha if item deleted D1 0,821 0,97 D3 0,834 0,97 D4 0,845 0,97 D5 0,854 0,97 D6 0,82 0,97 D7 0,893 0,969 D8 0,895 0,969 D10 0,902 0,969 A1 0,753 0,971 A2 0,831 0,97 A3 0,739 0,971 A5 0,686 0,972 R1 0,803 0,97 R4 0,832 0,97 R5 0,762 0,971 R7 0,797 0,97 In order to refine and validate the measures a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed. This procedure also allowed to test the convergent and discriminant validity of the measurement model (Hair et al., 2010). The measurement model of DAR scale, which includes the Dialogue, Access and Risk constructs, includes the same 16 items comprised from the EFA. The maximum likelihood method of estimation was employed. All constructs were allowed to correlate freely, and the measurement items are loading to the respective construct. The errors were also specified for each measurement variable. The DAR model presented acceptable measures of goodness of fit, after the specification of the model considering the correlation of a limited number of errors (i.e. e1 and e5, e2 and e4, e3 and e4, e3 and e5). The model presented a χ2 of 303,123 and 97 degrees of freedom (df) and the following values of the goodness of fit indices: χ2/df = 3,125 (ρ<0,005); CFI = 0,973 TLI = 0,966; GFI = 0.896; RMR = 0,084 and RMSEA = 0,078. Therefore, the values suggested that the measurement model fits the data. The obtained values of the DAR model following all the measures mentioned in section 3.4.1.3 are depicted in Table 4.16.