Is my company really doing good? Factors influencing employees' evaluation of the authenticity of their company's corporate social responsibility engagement
By Sarah Desirée Schaefer, Ralf Terlutter, S. Diehl. Journal of business research, 2019
105 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Abstract Based on persuasion knowledge theory, attribution theory, and a qualitative investigation of authenticity, this study investigates employees' CSR authenticity evaluation in four CSR domains (customer-, employee-, environment-, and philanthropy-oriented). Four antecedents of employees' CSR authenticity evaluation are examined: the evaluation of CSR advertising, the perceived fit between corporate culture and CSR engagement and two perceived CSR motives. Additionally, employees' involvement in CSR as an individual difference variable is analyzed. Results are reported from a study with the employees (n = 432) of a large European energy provider. Findings reveal that the evaluation of the CSR advertising and the perceived corporate culture fit have a higher impact on employees' CSR authenticity evaluation than do the perceived CSR motives. While CSR authenticity in the customer-, employee- and environment-oriented CSR domain are mainly influenced by perceived corporate culture fit, CSR authenticity in the philanthropy-oriented CSR domain is mainly affected by the evaluation of CSR advertising.
Subfields: Marketing, Strategy and Management
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/3c946d8fc0a9e5faaa8e73a7713d1bc2f2317d8c
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Marketing
In Strategy and Management
Citations in the corpus
- Talking about CSR matters: employees’ perception of and reaction to their company’s CSR communication in four different CSR domains (2019, background): “There are numerous calls for a finer-grained understanding of the effects of different CSR practices (Ailawadi et al. 2014; Roeck et al. 2014; Rupp et al. 2015; Taylor 2018; Schaefer, Terlutter, and Diehl 2019).”