Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Translating Corporate Social Responsibility into Action: A Social Learning Perspective

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

Abstract

Interest in the microfoundations of corporate social responsibility (CSR) has grown over the past decade. In this study, we draw on social learning theory to examine the effects of prosocial leaders on followers’ motivation to engage in CSR practices, and consequently on their CSR performance. Further drawing from social learning theory, we propose that followers’ trait compliance and leader-member exchange moderate the above relationships by affecting the conceptual mechanisms of social rewards and role-modeling motives. We tested our hypotheses with data from a sample of 138 employees (i.e., followers) who were responsible for implementing an organization-initiated CSR practice. Our results showed that among followers who were high in trait compliance, leaders’ prosocial motivation was positively associated with followers' CSR motivation. In addition, followers’ CSR motivation was positively related to their objective CSR performance when they had a high-quality relationship with their leaders. Our findings advance our understanding of the conditions under which leaders will be more versus less influential on followers’ motivation and engagement in CSR activities. We discuss the theoretical and practical implications of our results.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The respondents were referring to their immediate manager when they answered the survey items for the scale.

  2. We replicated the regression analyses with a multilevel approach using R free software by controlling for store variability; however, the results were similar to those reported from the regression analyses.

  3. Although the index for the moderated moderated mediation is the same whether we use ± 1SD or ± 2SD, the bootstrap confidence intervals of the conditional indirect effects include zero at ± 1SD. These confidence intervals for these conditional indirect effects, as reported above, do not include zero in two conditions at ± 2SD.

References

  • 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 

  • Aguinis, H., & Glavas, A. (2012). What we know and don’t know about corporate social responsibility: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 38(4), 932–968.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aguinis, H., Edwards, J. R., & Bradley, K. J. (2017). Improving our understanding of moderation and mediation in strategic management research. Organizational Research Methods, 20(4), 665–685.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ambrose, M. L., Schminke, M., & Mayer, D. M. (2013). Trickle-down effects of supervisor perceptions of interactional justice: A moderated mediation approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(4), 678–689.

    Google Scholar 

  • Archimi, C. S., Reynaud, E., Yasin, H. M., & Bhatti, Z. A. (2018). How perceived corporate social responsibility affects employee cynicism: The mediating role of organizational trust. Journal of Business Ethics, 151(4), 907–921.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1969). Social-learning theory of identificatory processes. In D. A. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research (pp. 213–262). Chicago: RandMcNally.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1972). Modeling theory: Some traditions, trends, and disputes. In R. D. Parke (Ed.), Recent trends in social learning theory (pp. 35–62). New York: Academic Press Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social-cognitive view. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: WH Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Batson, C. D. (1987). Prosocial motivation: Is it ever truly altruistic? Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 20, 65–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Behrend, T. S., Baker, B. A., & Thompson, L. F. (2009). Effects of pro-environmental recruiting messages: The role of organizational reputation. Journal of Business Psychology, 24(3), 341–350.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhattacharya, C. B., Sen, S., & Korschun, D. (2011). Leveraging corporate responsibility: The stakeholder route to maximizing business and social value. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bordia, P., Restubog, S. L. D., Bordia, S., & Tang, R. L. (2010). Breach begets breach: Trickle-down effects of psychological contract breach on customer service. Journal of Management, 36(6), 1578–1607.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brammer, S., He, H., & Mellahi, K. (2015). Corporate social responsibility, employee organizational identification, and creative effort: The moderating impact of corporate ability. Group & Organization Management, 40(3), 323–352.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brehm, S. S., & Brehm, J. W. (1981). Psychological reactance: A theory of freedom and control. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brief, A. P., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1986). Prosocial organizational behaviors. Academy of Management Review, 11(4), 710–725.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burbano, V. C. (2016). Social responsibility messages and worker wage requirements: Field experimental evidence from online labor marketplaces. Organization Science, 27(4), 1010–1028.

    Google Scholar 

  • Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cha, J., Chang, Y. K., & Kim, T. Y. (2014). Person–organization fit on prosocial identity: Implications on employee outcomes. Journal of Business Ethics, 123(1), 57–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chartrand, T. L., & Bargh, J. A. (1999). The chameleon effect: The perception-behavior link and social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(6), 893–910.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, L. J., Mackey, A., & Whetten, D. (2014). Taking responsibility for corporate social responsibility: The role of leaders in creating, implementing, sustaining, or avoiding socially responsible firm behaviors. Academy of Management Perspectives, 28(2), 164–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cleary, T. J., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2001). Self-regulation differences during athletic practice by experts, non-experts, and novices. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 13(2), 185–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dansereau, F., Jr., Graen, G., & Haga, W. J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the role making process. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13(1), 46–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, A. L., & Rothstein, H. R. (2006). The effects of the perceived behavioral integrity of managers on employee attitudes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 67(4), 407–419.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Roeck, K., & Farooq, O. (2018). Corporate social responsibility and ethical leadership: Investigating their interactive effect on employees’ socially responsible behaviors. Journal of Business Ethics, 151(4), 923–939.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Roeck, K., & Maon, F. (2018). Building the theoretical puzzle of employees’ reactions to corporate social responsibility: An integrative conceptual framework and research agenda. Journal of Business Ethics, 149(3), 609–625.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Roeck, K., Marique, G., Stinglhamber, F., & Swaen, V. (2014). Understanding employees’ responses to corporate social responsibility: Mediating roles of overall justice and organizational identification. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(1), 91–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Ruiter, M., Schaveling, J., Ciulla, J. B., & Nijhof, A. (2018). Leadership and the creation of corporate social responsibility: An introduction to the special issue. Journal of Business Ethics, 151(4), 871–874.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dulebohn, J. H., Bommer, W. H., Liden, R. C., Brouer, R. L., & Ferris, G. R. (2012). A meta-analysis of antecedents and consequences of leader-member exchange: Integrating the past with an eye toward the future. Journal of Management, 38(6), 1715–1759.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dutton, J. E., Roberts, L. M., & Bednar, J. (2010). Pathways for positive identity construction at work: Four types of positive identity and the building of social resources. Academy of Management Review, 35(2), 265–293.

    Google Scholar 

  • El Akremi, A., Gond, J.-P., Swaen, V., De Roeck, K., & Igalens, J. (2018). How do employees perceive corporate responsibility? Development and validation of a multidimensional corporate stakeholder responsibility scale. Journal of Management, 44(2), 619–657.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellen, B. P., III, Ferris, G. R., & Buckley, M. R. (2016). Political is the new prosocial: Leaders’ support of followers through political behavior. In E. Vigoda-Gadot & A. Drory (Eds.), Handbook of organizational politics: Looking back and to the future (2nd ed., pp. 95–112). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Falkenberg, L., & Herremans, I. (1995). Ethical behaviours in organizations: Directed by the formal or informal systems? Journal of Business Ethics, 14(2), 133–143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farh, J.-L., Zhong, C.-B., & Organ, D. W. (2004). Organizational citizenship behavior in the People’s Republic of China. Organization Science, 15(2), 241–253.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farooq, M., Farooq, O., & Jasimuddin, S. M. (2014). Employees response to corporate social responsibility: Exploring the role of employees’ collectivist orientation. European Management Journal, 32(6), 916–927.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Furnham, A. (1995). The just world, charitable giving, and attitudes to disability. Personality and Individual Differences, 19(4), 577–583.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galaskiewicz, J. (1997). An urban grants economy revisited: Corporate charitable contributions in the Twin Cities, 1979–81, 1987–89. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(3), 445–471.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. (1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its determinants and malleability. Academy of Management Review, 17(2), 183–211.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glavas, A. (2016). Corporate social responsibility and organizational psychology: An integrative review. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gond, J., El Akremi, A., Swaen, V., & Babu, N. (2017). The psychological microfoundations of corporate social responsibility: A person-centric systematic review. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(2), 225–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. A. (1987). Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. Research in Organizational Behavior, 9, 175–208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of the leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years. Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219–247.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grant, A. M. (2008). Does intrinsic motivation fuel the prosocial fire? Motivational synergy in predicting persistence, performance, and productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 48–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grant, A. M. (2012). Giving time, time after time: Work design and sustained employee participation in corporate volunteering. Academy of Management Review, 37(4), 589–615.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grant, A. M., & Berg, J. M. (2011). Prosocial motivation at work: When, why, and how making a difference makes a difference. In K. S. Cameron & G. M. Spreitzer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of positive organizational scholarship (pp. 28–44). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grant, A. M., Dutton, J. E., & Rosso, B. D. (2008). Giving commitment: Employee support programs and the prosocial sensemaking process. Academy of Management Journal, 51(5), 898–918.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graves, L. M., Sarkis, J., & Zhu, Q. (2013). How transformational leadership and employee motivation combine to predict employee pro-environmental behaviors in China. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 35, 81–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gudjonsson, G. (1989). Compliance in an interrogative situation: A new scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 10(5), 535–540.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, S. D., Dunford, B. B., Boss, A. D., Boss, R. W., & Angermeier, I. (2011). Corporate social responsibility and the benefits of employee trust: A cross-disciplinary perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 102(1), 29–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, A. A. (1976). Individuals and groups: Understanding social behavior. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hemingway, C. A., & Starkey, K. (2018). A falling of the veils: Turning points and momentous turning points in leadership and the creation of CSR. Journal of Business Ethics, 151(4), 875–890.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hur, W. M., Moon, T. W., & Ko, S. H. (2018). How employees’ perceptions of CSR increase employee creativity: Mediating mechanisms of compassion at work and intrinsic motivation. Journal of Business Ethics, 153(3), 629–644.

    Google Scholar 

  • Husted, B. W., & De Jesus Salazar, J. (2006). Taking Friedman seriously: Maximizing profits and social performance. Journal of Management Studies, 43(1), 75–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Janssen, O., & Van Yperen, N. W. (2004). Employees' goal orientations, the quality of leader-member exchange, and the outcomes of job performance and job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 47(3), 368–384.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, D. A., Willness, C. R., & Madey, S. (2014). Why are job seekers attracted by corporate social performance? Experimental and field tests of three signal-based mechanisms. Academy of Management Journal, 57(2), 383–404.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D., Quinn, R. P., Snoek, J. D., & Rosenthal, R. A. (1964). Organizational stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kanungo, R. N., & Conger, J. A. (1993). Promoting altruism as a corporate goal. Academy of Management Perspectives, 7(3), 37–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kanungo, R. N., & Mendonca, M. (1996). Ethical dimensions of leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelman, H. C. (2008). Reconciliation from a social-psychological perspective. In A. Nadler, T. E. Malloy, & J. D. Fisher (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup reconciliation (pp. 15–32). Oxford: Oxford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, A., Kim, Y., Han, K., Jackson, S. E., & Ployhart, R. E. (2017). Multilevel influences on voluntary workplace green behavior: Individual differences, leader behavior, and coworker advocacy. Journal of Management, 43(5), 1335–1358.

    Google Scholar 

  • KPMG. (2014). KPMG survey of corporate responsibility reporting 2013. Retrieved December 23, 2014, from https://www.kpmg.com/global/en/issuesandinsights/articlespublications/corporate-responsibility/Pages/default.aspx.

  • Kram, K. E. (1985). Improving the mentoring process. Training and Development Journal, 39(4), 40–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liden, R. C., & Maslyn, J. M. (1998). Multidimensionality of leader-member exchange: An empirical assessment through scale development. Journal of Management, 24(1), 43–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, D., Liao, H., & Loi, R. (2012). The dark side of leadership: A three-level investigation of the cascading effect of abusive supervision on employee creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 55(5), 1187–1212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luce, R. A., Barber, A. E., & Hillman, A. J. (2001). Good deeds and misdeeds: A mediated model of the effect of corporate social performance on organizational attractiveness. Business & Society, 40(4), 397–415.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahoney, M. J. (1977). Reflections on the cognitive-learning trend in psychotherapy. American Psychologist, 32(1), 5–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mallory, D. B., & Rupp, D. E. (2014). “Good” leadership: Using corporate social responsibility to enhance leadermember exchange. In T. N. Bauer & B. Erdogan (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of leader-member exchange (pp. 335–350). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Masterson, S. S. (2001). A trickle-down model of organizational justice: Relating employees’ and customers’ perceptions of and reactions to fairness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(4), 594–604.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, D. M., Kuenzi, M., Greenbaum, R., Bardes, M., & Salvador, R. B. (2009). How low does ethical leadership flow? Test of a trickle-down model. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108(1), 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgeson, F. P., Aguinis, H., Waldman, D. A., & Siegel, D. S. (2013). Extending corporate social responsibility research to the human resource management and organizational behavior domains: A look to the future. Personnel Psychology, 66(4), 805–824.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muthuri, J. N., Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2009). Employee volunteering and social capital: Contributions to corporate social responsibility. British Journal of Management, 20(1), 75–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nadler, D. A., & Lawler, E. E. (1983). Motivation: A diagnostic approach. In J. R. Hackman & E. E. Lawler (Eds.), Perspectives on organizational behavior (pp. 67–78). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Toole, J. (2019). The enlightened capitalists. New York: HarperCollins.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2006). Strategy and society: The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 84(12), 78–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rafferty, A. E., Restubog, S. L. D., & Jimmieson, N. L. (2010). Losing sleep: Examining the cascading effects of supervisors' experience of injustice on subordinates' psychological health. Work & Stress, 24(1), 36–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rains, S. A. (2013). The nature of psychological reactance revisited: A meta-analytic review. Human Communication Research, 39(1), 47–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robertson, J. L., & Barling, J. (2013). Greening organizations through leaders’ influence on employees’ pro-environmental behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(2), 176–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ronen, S., & Mikulincer, M. (2012). The foundation of autonomous motivation in the workplace: An attachment perspective. In M. Gagne (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of work engagement, motivation, and self-determination theory (pp. 102–126). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberg, B. D., & Siegel, J. T. (2018). A 50-year review of psychological reactance theory: Do not read this article. Motivation Science, 4(4), 281–300.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rupp, D. E., & Mallory, D. B. (2015). Corporate social responsibility: Psychological, person-centric, and progressing. The Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2, 211–236.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rupp, D. E., Ganapathi, J., Aguilera, R. V., & Williams, C. A. (2006). Employee reactions to corporate social responsibility: An organizational justice framework. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(4), 537–543.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rupp, D. E., Shao, R., Thornton, M. A., & Skarlicki, D. P. (2013a). Applicants’ and employees’ reactions to corporate social responsibility: The moderating effects of first-party justice perceptions and moral identity. Personnel Psychology, 66(4), 895–933.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rupp, D. E., Skarlicki, D. P., & Shao, R. (2013b). The psychology of corporate social responsibility and humanitarian work: A person-centric perspective. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 6(4), 361–368.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, R. M., & Connell, J. P. (1989). Perceived locus of causality and internalization: Examining reasons for acting in two domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(5), 749.

    Google Scholar 

  • Savitz, A. W., & Weber, K. (2006). The triple bottom line. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scandura, T. A. (1992). Mentorship and career mobility: An empirical investigation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(2), 169–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, S. H., & Bilsky, W. (1990). Toward a theory of the universal content and structure of values: Extensions and cross-cultural replications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(5), 878–891.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shanock, L. R., & Eisenberger, R. (2006). When supervisors feel supported: Relationships with subordinates’ perceived supervisor support, perceived organizational support, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(3), 689–695.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slack, R. E., Corlett, S., & Morris, R. (2015). Exploring employee engagement with (corporate) social responsibility: A social exchange perspective on organisational participation. Journal of Business Ethics, 127(3), 537–548.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sonenshein, S., DeCelles, K. A., & Dutton, J. E. (2014). It’s not easy being green: The role of self-evaluations in explaining support of environmental issues. Academy of Management Journal, 57(1), 7–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sparrowe, R. T., Soetjipto, B. W., & Kraimer, M. L. (2006). Do leaders’ influence tactics relate to members’ helping behavior? It depends on the quality of the relationship. Academy of Management Journal, 49(6), 1194–2208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tongo, C. I. (2015). Social responsibility, quality of work life and motivation to contribute in the Nigerian society. Journal of Business Ethics, 126(2), 219–233.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsui, A. S., & O'Reilly, C. A. (1989). Beyond simple demographic effects: The importance of relational demography in superior-subordinate dyads. Academy of Management Journal, 32(2), 402–423.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tucker, S., Turner, N., Barling, J., & McEvoy, M. (2010). Transformational leadership and children’s' aggression in team settings: A short-term longitudinal study. Leadership Quarterly, 21(3), 389–399.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Aaken, D., Splitter, V., & Seidl, D. (2013). Why do corporate actors engage in pro-social behaviour? A Bourdieusian perspective on corporate social responsibility. Organization, 20(3), 349–371.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vlachos, P. A., Panagopoulos, N. G., & Rapp, A. A. (2014). Employee judgments of and behaviors toward corporate social responsibility: A multi-study investigation of direct, cascading, and moderating effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(7), 990–1017.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, S., Tomlinson, E. C., & Noe, R. A. (2010). The role of mentor trust and protege internal locus of control in formal mentoring relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(2), 358–367.

    Google Scholar 

  • Welch, S. (2014). Corporate volunteerism takes formal shape. Crain’s Detroit Business, 26, 7–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yaffe, T., & Kark, R. (2011). Leading by example: The case of leader OCB. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(4), 806–826.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yammarino, F. J., & Dubinsky, A. J. (1990). Sales person performance and managerially controllable factors: An investigation of individual and work group effects. Journal of Management, 16(1), 87–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yukl, G. (2010). Leadership in organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Mike Ilitch School of Business, Wayne State University, 2771 Woodward Ave., Suite 475, Detroit, MI, 48201, USA

    Amanuel G. Tekleab

  2. Mobeous, 33717 Woodward Ave #325, Birmingham, 48009, MI, USA

    Paul M. Reagan

  3. School of Business, Yonsei University, Business Hall 624, 50 Yonsei-Ro, Seodaemun-Gu, Seoul, 03722, South Korea

    Boram Do

  4. Mike Ilitch School of Business, Wayne State University, 2771 Woodward Ave., Suite 443, Detroit, MI, 48201, USA

    Ariel Levi

  5. Department of Psychology, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, 48202, USA

    Cary Lichtman

Authors
  1. Amanuel G. Tekleab
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Paul M. Reagan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Boram Do
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ariel Levi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Cary Lichtman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Boram Do.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tekleab, A.G., Reagan, P.M., Do, B. et al. Translating Corporate Social Responsibility into Action: A Social Learning Perspective. J Bus Ethics 171, 741–756 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04447-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04447-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation