Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Review Article
  • Published:

Corporate social responsibility and individual behaviour

Nature Human Behaviour volume 8, pages 219–227 (2024)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) research can help to address some of society’s grand challenges (for example, climate change, energy sustainability and social inequality). Historically, CSR research has focused on organizational-level factors that address environmental and social issues and the firm’s resulting financial performance, with much less focus on individual-level factors. In response to research calls to consider the individual level of analysis, we provide a narrative review to improve our understanding of the interconnections between CSR and individual behaviour. We organize existing research around three individual-level categories: CSR perceptions, CSR attitudes and CSR behaviours. We summarize research elucidating how perceptions and attitudes influence behaviours and how organization and higher-level CSR context and individual-level CSR readiness moderate perceptions–behaviours and attitudes–behaviours relationships. We offer a conceptual model that organizes the diverse, conflicting and multidisciplinary research on the CSR–individual behaviour link and that can be used to guide future research.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Integrative conceptual model of CSR and individual behaviour.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Aguinis, H. & Glavas, A. Embedded versus peripheral corporate social responsibility: psychological foundations. Ind. Organ. Psychol. 6, 314–332 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Scott, L. & McGill, A. Creating a Strategy for a Better World: How the Sustainable Development Goals Can Provide the Framework for Business to Deliver Progress on Our Global Challenges (PriceWaterhouseCoopers, 2019).

  3. Aguinis, H. in APA Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (ed. Zedeck, S.) Vol. 3, 855–879 (American Psychological Association, 2011).

  4. EPA Announces Initial Program Design of Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-announces-initial-program-design-greenhouse-gas-reduction-fund (Environmental Protection Agency, 2023).

  5. Zorzini, M., Hendry, L. C., Anisul Huq, F. & Stevenson, M. Socially responsible sourcing: reviewing the literature and its use of theory. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manage. 35, 60–109 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L. & Rynes, S. L. Corporate social and financial performance: a meta-analysis. Organ. Stud. 24, 403–41 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Waddock, S. A. & Graves, S. B. The corporate social performance–financial performance link. Strateg. Manage. J. 18, 303–319 (1997).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Glavas, A. Corporate social responsibility and organizational psychology: an integrative review. Front. Psychol. 7, 144 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Gond, J. P., El Akremi, A., Swaen, V. & Babu, N. The psychological microfoundations of corporate social responsibility: a person-centric systematic review. J. Organ. Behav. 38, 225–246 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Dahlsrud, A. How corporate social responsibility is defined: an analysis of 37 definitions. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manage. 15, 1–13 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Sarkar, S. & Searcy, C. Zeitgeist or chameleon? A quantitative analysis of CSR definitions. J. Clean. Prod. 135, 1423–1435 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Homer, S. T. & Gill, C. M. H. D. How corporate social responsibility is described in keywords: an analysis of 144 CSR definitions across seven decades. Glob. Bus. Rev. https://doi.org/10.1177/09721509221101141 (2022).

  13. Hahn, T., Pinkse, J., Preuss, L. & Figge, F. Tensions in corporate sustainability: towards an integrative framework. J. Bus. Ethics 127, 297–316 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Hahn, T., Preuss, L., Pinkse, J. & Figge, F. Cognitive frames in corporate social responsibility: managerial sensemaking with paradoxical and business case frames. Acad. Manage. Rev. 39, 463–487 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Delmas, M. A. & Pekovic, S. Corporate sustainable innovation and employee behavior. J. Bus. Ethics 150, 1071–1088 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Cillo, V., Petruzzelli, A. M., Ardito, L. & Del Giudice M. Understanding sustainable innovation: a systematic literature review. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manage. 26, 1012–1025 (2019).

  17. Gond, J. P. & Moser, C. The reconciliation of fraternal twins: integrating the psychological and sociological approaches to ‘micro’ corporate social responsibility. Hum. Relat. 74, 5–40 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Williams, C. A. Corporate social responsibility in an era of economic globalization. UC Davis Law Rev. 35, 705–77 (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Ricks, J. M. Jr. An assessment of strategic corporate philanthropy on perceptions of brand equality variables. J. Consum. Mark. 22, 121–34 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Sen, S., Bhattacharya, C. B. & Korschun, D. The role of corporate social responsibility in strengthening multiple stakeholder relationships: a field experiment. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 34, 158–66 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. David, P., Bloom, M. & Hillman, A. J. Investor activism, managerial responsiveness, and corporate social performance. Strateg. Manage. J. 28, 91–100 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Jones, D. A. in The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility: Psychological and Organizational Perspectives (eds McWilliams, A. et al.) 19–47 (Oxford Univ. Press, 2019).

  23. Rupp, D. E., Ganapathi, J., Aguilera, R. V. & Williams, C. A. Employee reactions to corporate social responsibility: an organizational justice framework. J. Organ. Behav. 27, 537–543 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Aguilera, R., Rupp, D. E., Williams, C. & Ganapathi, J. Putting the S back in corporate social responsibility: a multi-level theory of social change in organizations. Acad. Manage. Rev. 32, 836–863 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. El Akremi, A., Gond, J.-P., Swaen, V., De Roeck, K. & Igalens, J. How do employees perceive corporate responsibility? Development and validation of a multidimensional corporate stakeholder responsibility scale. J. Manage. 44, 619–657 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  26. Onkila, T. Pride or embarrassment? Employees’ emotions and corporate social responsibility. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manage. 22, 222–236 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Ashforth, B. E. & Mael, F. Social identity theory and the organization. Acad. Manage. Rev. 14, 20–39 (1989).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Mu, H. & Lee, Y. Greenwashing in corporate social responsibility: a dual-faceted analysis of its impact on employee trust and identification. Sustainability 15, https://doi.org/10.3390/su152215693 (2023).

  29. Petriglieri, J. L. Under threat: responses to and the consequences of threats to individuals’ identities. Acad. Manage. Rev. 36, 641–662 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Jones, D. A. Does serving the community also serve the company? Using organizational identification and social exchange theories to understand employee responses to a volunteerism programme. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 83, 857–878 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. De Roeck, K., El Arkemi, A. & Swaen, V. Consistency matters! How and when does corporate social responsibility affect employees’ organizational identification? J. Manage. Stud. 53, 1141–1168 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Opoku-Dakwa, A., Chen, C. C. & Rupp, D. E. CSR initiative characteristics and employee engagement: an impact-based perspective. J. Organ. Behav. 39, 580–593 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Glavas, A. & Willness, C. R. in Employee Engagement in Corporate Social Responsibility (eds Haski-Leventhal, D. et al.) 110–127 (Sage, 2020).

  34. Robertson, J. L. & Barling, J. Greening organizations through leaders’ influence on employees’ pro-environmental behaviors. J. Organ. Behav. 34, 176–194 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Rodrigo, P. & Arenas, D. Do employees care about CSR programs? A typology of employees according to their attitudes. J. Bus. Ethics 83, 265–283 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Richter, U. H. & Arndt, F. F. Cognitive processes in the CSR decision-making process: a sensemaking perspective. J. Bus. Ethics 148, 587–602 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Rupp, D. E., Shao, R., Thornton, M. A. & Skarlicki, D. Applicants’ and employees’ reactions to corporate social responsibility: the moderating effects of first-party justice perceptions and moral identity. Pers. Psychol. 66, 895–933 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Vlachos, P. A., Panagopoulos, N. G. & Rapp, A. A. Employee judgments of and behaviors toward corporate social responsibility: a multi-study investigation of direct, cascading, and moderating effects. J. Organ. Behav. 35, 990–1017 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Carrington, M., Zwick, D. & Neville, B. Activism and abdication on the inside: the effect of everyday practice on corporate responsibility. J. Bus. Ethics 160, 973–999 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Hejjas, K., Miller, G. & Scarles, C. ‘It’s like hating puppies!’ Employee disengagement and corporate social responsibility. J. Bus. Ethics 157, 319–337 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Briscoe, F. & Gupta, A. Social activism in and around organizations. Acad. Manage. Ann. 10, 671–727 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Alt, E. & Craig, J. B. Selling issues with solutions: igniting social intrapreneurship in for-profit organizations. J. Manage. Stud. 53, 794–820 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Wickert, C. & De Bakker, F. G. A. Pitching for social change: toward a relational approach to selling and buying social issues. Acad. Manage. Discov. 4, 50–73 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Grant, A. M. Relational job design and the motivation to make a prosocial difference. Acad. Manage. Rev. 32, 393–417 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Kim, A., Kim, Y., Han, K., Jackson, S. E. & Ployhart, R. E. Multilevel influences on voluntary workplace green behavior: individual differences, leader behavior, and coworker advocacy. J. Manage. 43, 1335–1358 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  46. May, D. R., Chang, Y. K. & Shao, R. Does ethical membership matter? Moral identification and its organizational implications. J. Appl. Psychol. 100, 681–694 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Hirsh, J. B. Personality and environmental concern. J. Environ. Psychol. 30, 245–248 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Chen, F. X. et al. The vigilante identity and organizations. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2022.104136 (2022).

  49. Mallory, D., Rupp, D. E., Pandey, N. & Tay, L. The effect of employee proactive personality and felt responsibility on individual corporate social responsibility behaviors: the CSR context matters. J. Sustain. Res. 3, e210002 (2021).

  50. Jones, D. A., Willness, C. A. & Madey, A. Why are job seekers attracted by corporate social performance? Experimental and field tests of three signal-based mechanisms. Acad. Manage. J. 57, 383–404 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Bridoux, F., Stofberg, N. & Den Hartog, D. Stakeholders’ responses to CSR tradeoffs: when other-orientation and trust trump material self-interest. Front. Psychol. 6, 1992 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Ramus, C. A. & Steger, U. The roles of supervisory support behaviors and environmental policy in employee ‘Ecoinitiatives’ at leading-edge European companies. Acad. Manage. J. 43, 605–626 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Hoffman, A. J. Institutional evolution and change: environmentalism and the U.S. chemical industry. Acad. Manage. J. 42, 351–371 (1999).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Halkos, G. & Skouloudis, A. Revisiting the relationship between corporate social responsibility and national culture: a quantitative assessment. Manage. Decis. 55, 596–613 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Brunton, M., Eweje, G. & Taskin, N. Communicating corporate social responsibility to internal stakeholders: walking the walk or just talking the talk. Bus. Strategy Environ. 26, 31–48 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Blakeley, K. in The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility: Psychological and Organizational Perspectives (eds McWilliams, A. et al.) 156–175 (Oxford Univ. Press, 2019).

  57. Rupp, D. E. & Williams, C. A. The efficacy of regulation as a function of psychological fit: a re-evaluation of hard and soft law in the age of new governance. Theor. Inq. Law 12, 581–602 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  58. Zhang, L. & Gowan, M. A. Corporate social responsibility, applicants’ individual traits, and organizational attraction: a person–organization fit perspective. J. Bus. Psychol. 27, 345–362 (2012).

  59. Aguinis, H., Beltran, J. R., Archibold, E. E., Jean, E. L. & Rice, D. B. Thought experiments: review and recommendations. J. Organ. Behav. 44, 544–560 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Thornton, G. C. & Mueller-Hanson, R. A. Developing Organizational Simulations: A Guide for Practitioners and Students (Psychology Press, 2003).

  61. International Taskforce on Assessment Center Guidelines. Guidelines and ethical considerations for assessment center operations. J. Manage. 41, 1244–1273 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  62. Gartner Predicts 25% of People Will Spend at Least One Hour Per Day in the Metaverse by 2026 (Gartner Inc., 2022).

  63. Frynas, J. G. & Yamahaki, C. Corporate social responsibility: review and roadmap of theoretical perspectives. Bus. Ethics 25, 258–285 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Rupp, D. E., Aguinis, H., Siegel, D., Glavas, A. & Aguilera, R. V. Corporate social responsibility research: an ongoing and worthwhile journey. Acad. Manage. Collect., https://doi.org/10.5465/amc.2022.0006 (2024).

  65. Margolis, J. D. & Walsh, J. P. Misery loves companies: rethinking social initiatives by business. Adm. Sci. Q. 48, 268–305 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. McWilliams, A. & Siegel, D. Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: correlation or misspecification? Strateg. Manage. J. 21, 603–608 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Teoh, S. H., Welch, I. & Wazzan, C. P. The effect of socially activist investment policies on the financial markets: evidence from the South African boycott. J. Bus. 72, 35–89 (1999).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Wright, P. & Ferris, S. P. Agency conflict and corporate strategy: the effect of divestment on corporate value. Strateg. Manage. J. 18, 77–83 (1997).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Hawn, O., Chatterji, A. K. & Mitchell, W. Do investors actually value sustainability? New evidence from investor reactions to the Dow Jones Sustainability Index (DJSI). Strateg. Manage. J. 39, 949–976 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Shan, L., Fu, S. & Zheng, L. Corporate sexual equality and firm performance. Strateg. Manage. J. 38, 1812–1826 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Box-Steffensmeier, J. M. et al. The future of human behaviour research. Nat. Hum. Behav. 6, 15–24 (2022).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Jones, D. A. & Rupp, D. E. in Handbook of Industrial, Work, and Organizational Psychology 2nd edn (eds Anderson, N. et al.) 333–350 (Sage, 2018).

  73. Aguinis, H. & Glavas, A. On corporate social responsibility, sensemaking, and the search for meaningfulness through work. J. Manage. 45, 1057–1086 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  74. Margolis, J. D., Elfenbein, H. A. & Walsh, J. P. Does it pay to be good…and does it matter? A meta-analysis of the relationship between corporate social and financial performance. SSRN https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1866371 (2009).

  75. Hill, N. S., Aguinis, H., Drewry, J. M., Patnaik, S. & Griffin, J. Using macro archival databases to expand theory in micro research. J. Manage. Stud. 59, 627–659 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Bowen, H. R. Social Responsibility of the Businessman (Harper & Row, 1953).

  77. Davis, K. The case for and against business assumption of social responsibility. Acad. Manage. J. 16, 312–322 (1973).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Carroll, A. B. A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. Acad. Manage. Rev. 4, 498–505 (1979).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Wood, D. J. Corporate social performance revisited. Acad. Manage. Rev. 16, 691–718 (1991).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. McWilliams, A. & Siegel, D. Corporate social responsibility: a theory of the firm perspective. Acad. Manage. Rev. 26, 117–27 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Waldman, D. A., Siegel, D. S. & Javidan, M. Components of CEO transformational leadership and corporate social responsibility. J. Manage. Stud. 43, 1703–1725 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Matten, D. & Moon, J. Implicit and explicit CSR: a conceptual framework for a comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility. Acad. Manage. Rev. 33, 404–424 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Donia, M. B. L., Ronen, S., Tetrault Sirsly, C.-A. & Bonaccio, S. CSR by any other name? The differential impact of substantive and symbolic CSR attributions on employee outcomes. J. Bus. Ethics 157, 503–23 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Glavas, A., Hahn, T., Jones, D. A. & Willness, C. Predisposed, exposed, or both? How prosocial motivation and CSR education are related to prospective employees’ desire for social impact in work. Bus. Soc. https://doi.org/10.1177/00076503231182665 (2023).

  85. Bansal, P. & Roth, K. Why companies go green: a model of ecological responsiveness. Acad. Manage. J. 43, 717–736 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Aguinis, H. & Glavas, A. What we know and don’t know about corporate social responsibility: a review and research agenda. J. Manage. 38, 932–968 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank N. Strah, A. Nottingham and Z. Howard for their support in preparing this Review.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Business, The George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA

    Herman Aguinis

  2. Department of Psychology, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, USA

    Deborah E. Rupp

  3. Grossman School of Management, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, USA

    Ante Glavas

Authors
  1. Herman Aguinis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Deborah E. Rupp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ante Glavas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Herman Aguinis.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Human Behaviour thanks the anonymous reviewers for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Aguinis, H., Rupp, D.E. & Glavas, A. Corporate social responsibility and individual behaviour. Nat Hum Behav 8, 219–227 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-023-01802-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-023-01802-7

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing