Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Corporate Humanistic Responsibility: Social Performance Through Managerial Discretion of the HRM

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The Corporate Social Performance (CSP) model (Wood, Acad Manag Rev 164:691–718, 1991) assesses a firm’s social responsibility at three levels of analysis—institutional, organizational and individual—and measures the resulting social outcomes. In this paper, we focus on the individual level of CSP, manifested in the managerial discretion of a firm’s principles, processes, and policies regarding social responsibilities. Specifically, we address the human resources management of employees as a way of promoting CSR values and producing socially minded outcomes. We show that applying the humanist philosophy to the managerial discretion of a business organization leads to the creation of an “autonomy supportive work environment”—as defined by the self-determination theory—which in turn, facilitates the internalization of social values, citizenship behaviors, and cooperation. The objective of promoting self-determination at work (i.e., the core of a humanist management) fits well with the ontology of social responsibility since autonomy and consideration of individuals as moral actors are central tenets. Furthermore, we show that applying humanistic management philosophy to the discretion of managers can lead to socially responsible outcomes. First, intra-organizational stakeholders (e.g., employees) are treated with respect and focus is put on their well-being, satisfaction, and self-actualization at work. Second, as employees’ need of self-determination is addressed by managers, it is likely that pro-social behaviors toward other stakeholders of the organization will be adopted, leading to socially responsible outcomes for extra-organizational stakeholders (Gagné, Motiv Emot 77:58–75, 2003). Thus, this paper ultimately posits that humanistic management applied to the HRM can be a solution for developing and maintaining socially responsible outcomes as determined at the individual level of the CSP model, through managerial discretion.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Words inspired by http://www.psych.rochester.edu/SDT/measures/index.html.

  2. MSCI ESG Research is the successor to KLD, Innovest, and IRRC, which were acquired through the completion of MSCI’s June 1, 2010 acquisition of RiskMetrics. The MSCI ESG Indices use ratings and other data, analysis and information supplied by MSCI ESG Research which is therefore the successor of KLD Research Analytics (MSCI ESG Indices 2010).

References

  • Acevedo, A. (2009). Personalist business ethics and humanistic management: Insights from Jacques Maritain. Journal of Business Ethics, 105, 197–219.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aguilera, R. V., Rupp, D. E., Williams, C. A., & Ganapathi, J. (2007). Putting the S back in corporate social responsibility: A multilevel theory of social change in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 836–863.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allouche, J., & Laroche, P. (2005). Responsabilité sociale et performance financière des entreprises: une synthèse de la littérature. In Conference Responsabilité sociale des entreprises : réalité, mythe ou mystification? Organized by CREFIGE-CEREMO, Nancy, France.

  • Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 10). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amabile, T. M. (1993). Motivational synergy: Toward new conceptualizations of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in the workplace. Human Resource Management Review, 3(3), 185–201.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amabile, T. M., & Gryskiewicz, S. (1989). The creative environment scales: The work environment inventory. Creativity Research Journal, 2, 231–254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1154–1184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Argandoña, A. (1998). The stakeholder theory and the common good. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(9/10), 1093–1102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnaud, S. (2008). Management humaniste: Enjeux, outils et obstacles. Revue Internationale de Psychosociologie, 14(34), 207–224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baard, P. P., Deci, R. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2004). Intrinsic need satisfaction: A motivational basis of performance and well-being in two work settings. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(10), 2045–2068.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bauer, J. J., McAdams, D. P., & Sakaeda, A. R. (2005). Interpreting the good life: Growth memories in the lives of mature, happy people. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(1), 203–217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benware, C., & Deci, E. L. (1984). Quality of learning with an active versus passive motivational set. American Educational Research Journal, 21, 755–765.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergson, H. (1993). La Pensée et le Mouvant. Paris: Quadrige, P.U.F. (1ière édition 1938).

  • Berry, G. R. (2010). Improving organisational decision-making: Reframing social, moral and political stakeholder concerns. The Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 38, 33–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blais, M. R., & Brière, N. M. (1992). On the mediational role of feelings of self-determination in the workplace: Further evidence and generalization. Unpublished manuscript, University of Quebec at Montreal, Canada.

  • Boggiano, A. K., & Ruble, D. N. (1979). Competence and the overjustification effect: A developmental study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1462–1468.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bolton, S. C., Houlihan, M., & Laaser, K. (2012). Contingent work and its contradictions: Towards a moral economy framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 111, 121–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brickson, S. (2007). Organizational identity orientation: The genesis of the role of the firm and distinct forms of social value. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 864–888.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchholtz, A. K., Amason, A. C., & Rutherford, M. A. (1999). Beyond resources: The mediating effect of top management discretion and values on corporate philanthropy. Business and Society, 38(2), 167–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 4, 497–505.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cascio, W. F. (2010). Managing human resources: Productivity, quality of work life, and profits (8th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caza, A. (2011). Testing alternate predictions for the performance consequences of middle managers’ discretion. Human Resource Management, 50(1), 9–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cennamo, C., Berrone, P., & Gomez-Mejia, L. R. (2009). Does stakeholder management have a dark side? Journal of Business Ethics, 89, 491–507.

    Google Scholar 

  • Combs, J., Liu, Y., Hall, A., & Ketchen, D. (2006). How much do high performance work practices matter? A meta-analysis of their effects on organizational performance. Personnel Psychology, 59, 501–528.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corbett, C. J., & Van Wassenhove, L. N. (1993). The green fee: Internalizing and operationalizing environmental issues. California Management Review, 36(1), 116–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crossland, C., & Hambrick, D. C. (2011). Differences in managerial discretion across countries: How nation-level institutions affect the degree to which CEOs matter. Strategic Management Journal, 32, 797–819.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Charm, R. (1968). Personal causation: The internal affective determinants of behavior. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Gama, N., McKenna, S., & Peticca-Harris, A. (2012). Ethics and HRM: Theoretical and conceptual analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 111, 97–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Montaigne M. (2004). Les essays: Edition Villey-Saulnier. Coll. Quadrige: Presses Universitaires de France.

  • Deci, E. L. (1971). Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 18(1), 105–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E. L., & Cascio, W. F. (1972). Changes in intrinsic motivation as a function of negative feedback and threats. Paper presented at the Eastern Psychological Association, Boston, MA.

  • Deci, E. L., Eghrari, H., Patrick, B. C., & Leone, D. R. (1994). Facilitating internalization: The self-determination theory perspective. Journal of Personality, 62, 119–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The what and why of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behaviour. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M., Gagne, M., Leone, D., Usunov, J., & Kornazheva, B. P. (2001). Need satisfaction, motivation, and well-being in the work organizations of a former eastern bloc country. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 930–942.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E. L., Schwartz, A. J., Sheinman, L., & Ryan, R. M. (1981). An instrument to assess adults’ orientations toward control versus autonomy with children: Reflections on intrinsic motivation and perceived competence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 642–650.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1978). Altruism and egoism, reprinted in John Dewey: The middle works 1899–1924 (Vol. 6). Chicago: Southern Illinois University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20, 65–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eghrari, H., & Deci, E. L. (1988). Facilitating internalization: A motivational analysis. Unpublished manuscript, University of Rochester.

  • Ehrenberg, K. M. (1999) Social Structure and Responsibility. Loyola Poverty Law Journal, 1–26. http://www.riskmetrics.com/sites/default/files/RMG2010USPolicyUpdates.pdf.

  • Elms, H., Brammer, S., Harris, J. D., & Phillips, R. A. (2010). New directions in strategic management and business ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20(3), 401–425.

    Google Scholar 

  • Enderle, G. (2010). Clarifying the terms of business ethics and CSR. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20(4), 730–732.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erhenberg, A. (1998). La fatigue d’être soi, Dépression et Société. Paris: Odile Jacob.

  • Fabes, R. A., Fultz, J., Eisenberg, N., May-Plumlee, T., & Christopher, F. S. (1989). Effects of rewards on children’s prosocial motivation: A socialization study. Developmental Psychology, 25, 509–515.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fehr, E., & Fischbacher, U. (2004). Third party punishment and social norms. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25, 63–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finkelstein, S., & Boyd, B. K. (1998). How much does the CEO matter? The role of managerial discretion in the setting of CEO compensation. Academy of Management Journal, 41(2), 179–199.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finkelstein, S., & Hambrick, D. C. (1990). Top-management-team tenure and organizational outcomes: The moderating role of managerial discretion. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 484–503.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finkelstein, S., & Peteraf, M. A. (2007). Managerial activities: A missing link in managerial discretion theory. Strategic Organization, 5, 237–248.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frederick, W. C. (1995). Values, nature, and culture in the American corporation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frederick, W. C. (2006). Corporation, be good! The story of corporate social responsibility. New York: Dog Ear Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E., & Liedtka, J. (1991). Corporate social responsibility: A critical approach. Business Horizons, 34(4), 92–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frey, B. S., & Jegen, R. (2001). Motivation crowding theory: A survey of empirical evidence. Journal of Economic Surveys, 15(5), 589–611.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fontrodona, J., & Sison, A. J. G. (2006). The nature of the firm, agency theory and shareholder theory: A critique from philosophical anthropology. Journal of Business Ethics, 66(1), 33–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gagné, M. (2003). The role of autonomy support and autonomy orientation in prosocial behavior engagement. Motivation and Emotion, 77, 58–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 331–362.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garriga, E., & Melé, D. (2004). Corporate social responsibility theories: Mapping the territory. Journal of Business Ethics, 53, 51–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gergen, K. (1982). Toward transformation in social knowledge. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gino, F., Shu, L. L., & Bazerman, M. H. (2010). Nameless + Harmless = Blameless: When seemingly irrelevant factors influence judgment of (un)ethical behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 111(2), 102–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goll, I., & Rasheed, A. A. (2004). The moderating effect of environmental munificence and dynamism on the relationship between discretionary social responsibility and firm performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 49, 41–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grassl, W., & Habisch, A. (2011). Ethics and economics: Towards a new humanistic synthesis for business. Journal of Business Ethics, 99, 20–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greening, D. W., & Turban, D. B. A. U. o. M. (2000). Corporate social performance as a competitive advantage in attracting a quality workforce. Business and Society, 39(3), 254–280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffin, E. (1994). A first look at communication theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). Autonomy in children’s learning: An experimental and individual difference investigation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 890–898.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guest, D. E., & Woodrow, C. (2012). Exploring the boundaries of human resource managers’ responsibilities. Journal of Business Ethics, 111, 109–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hambrick, D. C., & Abrahamson, E. (1995). Assessing managerial discretion across industries: A multi-method approach. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1427–1441.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hambrick, D. C., & Finkelstein, S. (1987). Managerial discretion: A bridge between polar views of organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 9, 369–406.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 106–193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hay, R., & Gray, E. (1974). Social responsibilities of business managers. Academy of Management Journal, 17, 135–143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayamizu, T. (1997). Between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: Examination of reasons for academic study based on the theory of internalization. Japanese Psychological Research, 39, 98–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hemingway, C. A. (2005). Personal values as a catalyst for corporate social entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Ethics, 60(3), 233–249.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hemingway, C. A., & Maclagan, P. W. (2004). Managers personal values as drivers of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 50(1), 33–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hersey, P. (1985). The situational leader. New York, NY: Warner Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. (1972). Management of organizational behaviour. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Honneth, A. (1995). Struggle for recognition: The moral grammar of social conflicts (trans. J. Anderson). Cambridge: Polity Press.

  • Honneth, A. (2008). Reification and recognition: A new look at an old idea. In M. Jay (Ed.), Reification: A new look at an old idea (pp. 17–96). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hosmer, L. T. (1995). Trust: The connecting link between organizational theory and philosophical ethics. The Academy of Management Review, 20, 379–403.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hrebiniak, L. G. (1974). Job technology, supervision, and work-group structure. Administrative Science Quarterly, 19(3), 395–410.

    Google Scholar 

  • Islam, G. (2012). Recognition, reification, and practices of forgetting: Ethical implications of human resource management. Journal of Business Ethics, 111, 37–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, T. (2002). International HRM: A cross-cultural approach. New York: Sage.

  • Jackson, S. E., Schuler, R. S., & Rivero, J. C. (1989). Organizational characteristics as predictors of personnel practices. Personnel Psychology, 42, 727–786.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jamali, D. (2008). A stakeholder approach to corporate social responsibility: A fresh perspective into theory and practice. Journal of Business Ethics, 82, 213–231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, M. C. (2000). Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function. In M. Beer & N. Nohria (Eds.), Breaking the code of change (Boston: Harvard Business School Press), pp. 37–58. Reprinted (2002) as Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function. Business Ethics Quarterly, 12(2), 235–256.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, T. (1995). Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and economics. Academy of Management Review, 20, 404–437.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kant, I. (1783/1954). Prolegomena zu einer jeden künftigen Metaphysik, die als Wissenschaft wird auftreten Können. Riga, Lithuania: Friedrich Hartknoch.

  • Kant, I. (1785/1959). Foundations of the metaphysics of morals. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill.

  • Keegan, J., & Kabanoff, B. (2008). Indirect industry- and subindustry-level managerial discretion measurement. Organizational Research Methods, 11(4), 682–694.

    Google Scholar 

  • Key, S. (2002). Perceived managerial discretion: An analysis of individual ethical intentions. Journal of Managerial Issues, 14(2), 218–233.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kunda, Z., & Schwartz, S. H. (1983). Undermining intrinsic moral motivation: External reward and self-presentation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 763–771.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krippendorff, K. (1989). On the ethics of constructing communication. In B. Dervin, L. Grossberg, B. J. O'Keefe & E. Wartella (Eds.), Rethinking communication vol.1: Paradigm issues, (pp. 66–96). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

  • Leroux, A. (1999). Une société à vivre. Refonder le personnalisme. Paris: P.U.F.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lieberson, S., & O’Connor, J. F. (1972). Leadership and organizational performance: A study of large corporations. American Sociological Review, 37(2), 117–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2005). Goal setting theory: Theory building by induction. In K. Smith & M. Hitt (Eds.), Great minds in management. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Logsdon, J. M., & Wood, D. J. (2002). Business citizenship: From domestic to global level of analysis. Business Ethics Quarterly, 12(2), 155–187.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manner, M. H. (2010). The impact of CEO characteristics on corporate social performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 93, 53–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maritain, J. (1931/2005). An introduction to philosophy. London: Sheed & Ward.

  • Maslow, A. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Masterson, S. S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B. M., & Taylor, M. S. (2000). Integrating justice and social exchange: The differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on work relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 738–748.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGuire, J. (2003). CEO incentives and corporate social performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 45(4), 341–359.

    Google Scholar 

  • McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26, 117–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Melé, D. (2003). The challenge of humanistic management. Journal of Business Ethics, 44, 77–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Melé, D. (2009). Integrating personalism into virtue-based business ethics: The personalist and the common good principles. Journal of Business Ethics, 88, 227–244.

    Google Scholar 

  • Melé, D. (2012). The firm as a “community of persons”: A pillar of humanistic business ethos. Journal of Business Ethics, 106, 89–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Melé, D., Argandona, A., & Sanchez-Runde, C. (2011). Facing the crisis: Toward a new humanistic synthesis for business. Journal of Business Ethics, 99, 1–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Melé, D., & Mammoser, T. L. (2011). Humanistic corporate community involvement: Walgreens/MEF One-on-One program. Journal of Management Development, 30(6), 582–593.

    Google Scholar 

  • Melo, T. (2012). Determinants of corporate social performance: The influence of organizational culture, management tenure and financial performance. Social Responsibility Journal, 8(1), 33–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miserandino, M. (1996). Children who do well in school: Individual differences in perceived competence and autonomy in above average children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 203–214.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mossholder, K. W., Richardson, H. A., & Settoon, R. P. (2011). Human resource systems and helping in organizations: A relational perspective. Academy of Management Review, 36(1), 33–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mounier, E. (1949). Le personnalisme. Paris: P. U. F.

    Google Scholar 

  • Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier system. Lexington MA: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pajak, E., & Glickman, C. D. (1989). Informational and controlling language in simulated supervisory conferences. American Educational Research Journal, 26, 93–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peretti, J.-M. (2004). Les clés de l’équité dans l’entreprise. Paris: Editions d’Organisation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peretti, J.-M. (2005). Tous reconnus, ss la dir. Paris: Editions d’Organisation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perls, F. S. (1973). The Gestalt approach & eye witness to therapy. Palo Alto, CA: Science and Behavior Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pic de La Mirandole, J. (1993). Œuvres philosophiques, traduction O. Boulnois and G. Tognon. Paris: P.U.F.

  • Pink, D. (2010). The surprising truth about what motivates us. Edinburgh: Canongate Books. ISBN 978-1-84767-888-1.

  • Pirson, M., & Turnbull, S. (2011). Toward a more humanistic governance model: Network governance structures. Journal of Business Ethics, 99, 101–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plant, R. W., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and the effects of self-consciousness, self-awareness, and ego-involvement: An investigation of internally controlling styles. Journal of Personality, 53, 435–449.

    Google Scholar 

  • Preston, L., & Post, J. (1975). Private management and public policy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Preuss, L., Haunschild, A., & Matten, D. (2009). The rise of CSR: Implications for HRM and employee representation. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20(4), 953–973.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ribeiro, N., & Rego, A. (2009). Does perceived organizational virtuousness explain organizational citizenship behaviors? International Journal of Social and Human Sciences, 3, 736–743.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rivera, J., & de Leon, P. (2004). Is greener whiter? Voluntary environmental performance of western ski areas. Policy Studies Journal, 32(3), 417–438.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, C. R. (1959). A theory of therapy, personality and interpersonal relationships as developed in the client-centered framework. In S. Koch (Ed.), Psychology: A study of a science. Vol. III. Formulations of the person and the social context. New York: McGraw Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Royle, T. (2005). Realism or idealism? Corporate social responsibility and the employee stakeholder in the global fast-food industry. Business Ethics: A European Review, 14(1), 42–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rupp, D. E., Gaanapathi, J., Aguilera, R. V., & Williams, C. A. (2006). Employee reactions to corporate social responsibility: An organizational justice framework. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 537–543.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell, E. O. (2010). CEO and CSR: Business leaders and corporate social responsibility. Doctoral dissertation. Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen.

  • Ryan, R. M., Koestner, R., & Deci, E. L. (1991). Ego-involved persistence: When free-choice behavior is not intrinsically motivated. Motivation and Emotion, 15(3), 185–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sayer, A. (2007). Moral economy and employment. In S. C. Bolton & M. Houlihan (Eds.), Searching for the human in human resource management. London: Palgrave.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoemaker, M., Nijhof, A., & Jonker, J. (2006). Human value management: The influence of corporate social responsibility and social capital on HRM. Management Revue, 17(4), 448–465.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, B. A., Colquitt, J. A., & Paddock, E. L. (2009). An actor-focused model of justice rule adherence and violation: The role of managerial motives and discretion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(3), 756–769.

    Google Scholar 

  • Settoon, R. P., & Mossholder, K. W. (2002). Relationship quality and relationship context as antecedents of person-and-task-focused interpersonal citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 255–267.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharma, S. (2000). Managerial interpretations and organizational context as predictors of corporate choice of environmental strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 681–697.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharma, S. K. (2009). Human resource management: A strategic approach to employment. New Delhi: Global India Publishers.

  • Shen, J. (2011). Developing the concept of socially responsible international human resource management. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22(6), 1351–1363.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sobus, M. S. (1995). Mandating community service: Psychological implications of requiring prosocial behavior. Law and Psychology Review, 19, 153–182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, R. C. (2003). Victims of circumstances? A defense of virtue ethics in business. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(1), 43–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spitzeck, H. (2011). An integrated model of humanistic management. Journal of Business Ethics, 99, 51–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stukas, A. A., Snyder, M., & Clary, E. G. (1999). The effects of “mandatory volunteerism” on intentions to volunteer. Psychological Science, 10, 59–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swanson, D. L. (1995). Addressing a theoretical problem by reorienting the corporate social performance field. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 43–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swanson, D. L. (1999). Toward an integrative theory of business and society: A research strategy for corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 24, 506–521.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tashman, P., & Rivera, J. (2010). Are members of business for social responsibility more responsible? Policy Studies Journal, 38(3), 487–514.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, A., & Peyerefitte, S. (1996). The impact of managerial discretion on firm performance. Journal of Business Strategies, 13(1), 21–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, A. S., & Simerly, R. L. (1994). The chief executive officer and corporate social performance: An interdisciplinary examination. Journal of Business Ethics, 13(12), 959–968.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, S. C. (1981). Will it hurt less if I can control it? A complex answer to a simple question. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 89–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, P. (2011). The trouble with HRM. Human Resource Management Journal, 25(4), 355–367.

    Google Scholar 

  • Todorov, T. (1995). La vie commune. Essai d’anthropologie generale. Paris: Seuil.

    Google Scholar 

  • Upton, W. E., III (1974). Altruism, attribution and intrinsic motivation in the recruitment of blood donors. In American Red Cross (Ed.), Selected readings in donor recruitment (Vol. 2, pp. 7–38). Washington, DC: American National Red Cross.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valas, H., & Sovik, N. (1993). Variables affecting students’ intrinsic motivation for school mathematics: Two empirical studies based on Deci and Ryan’s theory of motivation. Learning and Instruction, 3, 281–298.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vallerand, R. J., & Bissonnette, R. (1992). Intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivational styles as predictors of behavior: A prospective study. Journal of Personality, 60, 599–620.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vilanova, M., Lozano, J., & Arenas, D. (2009). Exploring the nature of the relationship between CSR and competitiveness. Journal of Business Ethics, 87(1), 57–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vitell, S. J., & Paolillo, J. G. P. (2004). A cross-cultural study of the antecedents of the perceived role of ethics and social responsibility. Business Ethics: A European Review, 13(2–3), 185–199.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waddock, S., & Bodwell, C. (2004). Managing responsibility: What can be learned from the quality movement. California Management Review, 47(1), 25–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waldman, D. A., & Siegel, D. (2008). Defining the socially responsible leader. Leadership Quarterly, 19, 117–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wartick, S. L., & Cochran, P. L. (1985). The evolution of the corporate social performance model. Academy of Management Review, 104, 758–769.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whetstone, J. T. (2002). Personalism and moral leadership: The servant leader with a transforming vision. Business Ethics: A European Review, 11(4), 385–392.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, C. A., & Aguilera, R. V. (2007). Corporate social responsibility in comparative perspective. In A. Crane, A. McWilliams, D. Matten, J. Moon, & D. Siegel (Eds.), Oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, O. E. (1963). Managerial discretion and business behavior. The American Economic Review, 53(5), 1032–1057.

    Google Scholar 

  • Windsor, D. (2006). Corporate social responsibility: Three key approaches. Journal of Management Studies, 43(1), 93–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, D. J. (1991). Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management Review, 164, 691–718.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, D. J. (2010). Measuring corporate social performance: A review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), 50–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, J., & Vilkinas, T. (2005). Characteristics associated with success: CEOs’ perspectives. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 26(3/4), 186–196.

    Google Scholar 

  • World Business Council for Sustainable Development. (1999). Corporate social responsibility: Meeting changing expectations. Geneva: WBCSD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yamauchi, H., & Tanaka, K. (1998). Relations of autonomy, self-referenced beliefs and self-regulated learning among Japanese children. Psychological Reports, 82, 803–816.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. CEREFIGE-ICN Business School, Nancy-Metz, France

    Stéphanie Arnaud & David M. Wasieleski

  2. Duquesne University, 918 Rockwell Hall, 600 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA, 15282, USA

    David M. Wasieleski

Authors
  1. Stéphanie Arnaud
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David M. Wasieleski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David M. Wasieleski.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Arnaud, S., Wasieleski, D.M. Corporate Humanistic Responsibility: Social Performance Through Managerial Discretion of the HRM. J Bus Ethics 120, 313–334 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1652-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1652-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation