CSR, Employer Brand Equity, and Employee Attraction

Employee Perception of CSR

As Du Preez and Bendixen (2015) note, a consumer's initial exposure to a company's brand typically comes from the employees who stand on the front lines of the company's workplace. These employees represent the face of the business and thus embody its brand. They are the brand's diplomats in a sense, and if the consumer is put off by the employees, the brand suffers. In order for employees to represent their organization's brand with confidence and enthusiasm, they must be able to believe in the brand, embrace the organization's corporate social responsibility (CSR) policies, and promote the spirit of those policies in their engagement with consumers on the front lines. The employees represent the values of the company and feel — if they are happily employed — that the company represents their own values as well.

The employee is attracted to the business for the same reasons as the consumer: the company's brand has appeal to workers just as it does to consumers, based on the organization's values, policies, and image (de Chernatony, Cottam & Segal-Horn, 2006; Brexendorf & Kernstock, 2007). Likewise, Stawiski, Deal, and Gentry (2010) show that "CSR improves employees' perceptions of the company" (p. 2), mainly because workers tend to tie their own identities to the identity of that with which they are associated: if a company enjoys a positive CSR reputation, the employee feels more confident and proud that his or her reputation is boosted by association with the company. In this sense, it can be hypothesized that positive employee perception of an organization's CSR can lead to the organization having greater attractiveness for potential employees.

Attractiveness to Potential Employees

Potential employees are attracted to businesses that offer positive CSR policies, as these are often reflective of community concerns and an awareness on the part of the firm of what matters to the community (Luo & Bhattacharya, 2006). A firm that demonstrates interest in the community's needs is one more likely to be respected by prospective workers. Most employees tend to seek incentives and want to be employed somewhere where they feel that their organization is supportive and has their interests at heart (Lazaroiu, 2015). A firm that pays attention to community interests is similarly more likely to attend to the needs and interests of its own employees, just as effective managers are attuned and responsive to their followers and workers — in contrast to bad and ineffective managers, who are detached from and indifferent to those they lead (Schyns & Schilling, 2013). Moreover, organizational leaders know that by practicing CSR, they are helping themselves through the establishment of a foundation of positive human capital (Petrenko, Aime, Ridge, & Hill, 2016).

Because CSR programs can be viewed as effective forms of management that directly and indirectly affect the "social, environmental and economic environment in which" the organization operates, potential employees can be understood as being impacted by CSR insofar as they are on the receiving end of these programs as members or stakeholders in the community (Castka, Bamber, & Sharp, 2005, p. vii). CSR thus serves to attract both consumers and potential employees because of the reciprocal nature of relationships (Schyns & Schilling, 2013), which essentially form the basis of CSR policies.

CSR Perception and Employee Attractiveness: Hypothesis 1

Hypothesis 1: Employee perception of CSR is positively related to the attractiveness of the organization to potential employees.

How workers view the CSR policies of their employer is likely to be related to the attractiveness of the company to potential employees. A company that is capable of attracting talent is one that has a strong standing both in the marketplace and in the communities in which it operates. Stakeholders in the company are likely to feel good about their connections to it, just as shareholders are likely to feel confident about their investments. Organizations that promote positive CSR policies embraced by consumers are likely to be equally embraced by workers, as all will feel as though they are part of the same "spirit of mission" that runs like a thread through each of these variables (Samaan & Verneuil, 2009).

H1 thus refers to the employee's perception of CSR as a valuable informational input in communicating to other potential employees the attractiveness of the firm. Employees are on the frontlines not only in terms of how they interact with consumers but also in terms of how they represent their company to prospective workers. Through the use of social media and the spread of information in personal communications, employees will represent the company to potential employees based on how they perceive their firm's CSR policies, whether they approve of those policies, and whether they find those policies reflective of their own personal values and beliefs (Lemmink, Schuijf, & Streukens, 2003).

Employer Brand Equity

Employer brand equity is an asset that allows an organization to attract potential employees. Brand equity can be achieved in a number of ways, but it is often developed through the offering of incentives or rewards that employees find appealing (Neckermann & Frey, 2013). CSR as employer brand equity aligns with what Miles and Friedman (2002) describe as a plan to establish a "better world" through socially proactive positioning on the part of the organization (p. 1). Ethical approaches typically play a role in constructing the CSR program, as ethical systems and frameworks serve as the backbone for the corporate policy stance (Pearce & Doh, 2005; AnyangoOoko, 2014). Companies that lack an ethical backbone are eventually revealed as such — a prominent case in the 21st century being that of Enron, whose leaders made questionable ethical decisions, and whose appeal to employees quickly evaporated once it became apparent that the company was no longer trustworthy (Tiwari, 2010).

Employer brand equity feeds into the attractiveness of an organization to potential employees. Burmann, Schaefer, and Maloney (2008) show that "corporate brand image is indeed determined by the industry image, and that this determination is moderated by involvement and knowledge about the specific corporation" (p. 157). The flow of information is thus processed differently in this transaction, with information reaching potential employees by way of employer brand equity rather than solely by way of employee perception of CSR. While each channel can contribute to the information processing of a prospective employee considering whether to apply to an organization, it is hypothesized that employer brand equity is just as important and vital to that process as employee perception of CSR (Argenti & Druckenmiller, 2004).

References

AnyangoOoko, G. (2014). The environmental factors that influence implementation of corporate social responsibility (CSR) in an organization. Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 19(12), 95–102.

Argenti, P. A., & Druckenmiller, B. (2004). Reputation and the corporate brand. Corporate Reputation Review, 6(4), 368–374.

Brammer, S., Millington, A., & Rayton, B. (2007). The contribution of corporate social responsibility to organizational commitment. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18, 1701–1719.

Brexendorf, T. O., & Kernstock, J. (2007). Corporate behaviour vs brand behaviour: Towards an integrated view? Journal of Brand Management, 15(1), 32–40.

Brooks, M. E., Highhouse, S., Russell, S. S., & Mohr, D. C. (2003). Familiarity, ambivalence, and firm reputation: Is corporate fame a double-edged sword? Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 904–914.

Burmann, C., Schaefer, K., & Maloney, P. (2008). Industry image: Its impact on the brand image of potential employees. Journal of Brand Management, 15(3), 157–176.

Chang, M. J., Ko, Y. J., Connaughton, D. P., & Kang, J. H. (2016). The effects of perceived CSR, pride, team identification, and regional attachment: the moderating effect of gender. Journal of Sport & Tourism, 20(2), 145–159.

de Chernatony, L., Cottam, S., & Segal-Horn, S. (2006). Communicating service brands' values internally and externally. The Service Industries Journal, 26(8), 819–836.

Du Preez, R., & Bendixen, M. T. (2015). The impact of internal brand management on employee job satisfaction, brand commitment and intention to stay. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 33(1), 78–91.

Helm, S. V., Renk, U., & Mishra, A. (2016). Exploring the impact of employees' self-concept, brand identification and brand pride on brand citizenship behaviors. European Journal of Marketing, 50(1/2), 58–77.

King, C. (2017). Brand management — standing out from the crowd: A review and research agenda for hospitality management. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 29(1), 115–140.

Lazaroiu, G. (2015). Employee motivation and job performance. Linguistic and Philosophical Investigations, 14, 97.

Lemmink, J., Schuijf, A., & Streukens, S. (2003). The role of corporate image and company employment image in explaining application intentions. Journal of Economic Psychology, 24(1), 1–15.

Luo, X., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2006). Corporate social responsibility, customer satisfaction and market value. Journal of Marketing, 70, 1–18.

Miles, S., & Friedman, A. (2002). Developing stakeholder theory. Journal of Management Studies, 39(1), 1–21.

Natarajan, T., Balasubramaniam, S. A., & Srinivasan, T. (2016). Relationship between internal branding, employee brand and brand endorsement. International Journal of Business and Management, 12(1), 95.

Neckermann, S., & Frey, B. (2013). And the winner is…? The motivating power of employee awards. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 46, 66–77.

Nyadzayo, M. W., Matanda, M. J., & Ewing, M. T. (2015). The impact of franchisor support, brand commitment, brand citizenship behavior, and franchisee experience on franchisee-perceived brand image. Journal of Business Research, 68(9), 1886–1894.

Pearce, J., & Doh, J. (2005). The high impact of collaborative social initiatives. MIT Sloan Management Review, 46(3), 30–38.

Petrenko, O. V., Aime, F., Ridge, J., & Hill, A. (2016). Corporate social responsibility or CEO narcissism? CSR motivations and organizational performance. Strategic Management Journal, 37(2), 262–279.

Piehler, R., King, C., Burmann, C., & Xiong, L. (2016). The importance of employee brand understanding, brand identification, and brand commitment in realizing brand citizenship behaviour. European Journal of Marketing, 50(9/10), 1575–1601.

Samaan, J., & Verneuil, L. (2009). Civil-military relations in Hurricane Katrina: A case study on crisis management in natural disaster response. Berlin: Global Public Policy Institute.

Schyns, B., & Schilling, J. (2013). How bad are the effects of bad leaders? A meta-analysis of destructive leadership and its outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 24, 138–158.

Slaughter, J. E., Zickar, M. J., Highhouse, S., & Mohr, D. C. (2004). Personality trait inferences about organizations: Development of a measure and assessment of construct validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(1), 85–103.

So, K. K. F., King, C., & Sparks, B. (2014). Customer engagement with tourism brands: Scale development and validation. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 38(3), 304–329.

Stawiski, S., Deal, J., & Gentry, W. (2010). Employee perceptions of corporate social responsibility. Center for Creative Leadership.

Tiwari, M. K. (2010). Separation of brand equity and brand value. Global Business Review, 11(3), 421–434.