In a multilevel corporate social performance model we examine the effects of three different regulatory scenarios on corporate environmental performance (CEP) (relating to compliance and beyond compliance behaviors) as a measure of CSR. The empirical state defined as a “cooperative regulator” is assessed against three simulated scenarios: a “coercive regulator” (more punitive), a “demanding regulator” (strengthened standards) and a “lax regulator” (less punitive and less demanding). The relative effect of different regulatory scenarios is examined within a multilevel multivariate model. The model allows for the estimation of the role of regulatory strategies in relation to other CEP antecedents. The model includes the principal driving factors effecting CEP and incorporates three levels of analysis: institutional, organizational, and individual. The multilevel nature of the design allows for the assessment of the relative importance of the levels and their components in the achievement of CEP. Included in the institutional level are stakeholder expectations, regulatory demands and regulatory power. Included in the organizational level are corporate organizational culture, CSR orientation of managers and organizational leadership. Included in the individual level are personal workplace behaviors and norms, namely: job satisfaction, organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior. The simulation of regulatory scenarios shows that the empirical “cooperative regulator” has the strongest positive effect on CEP. Contrarily, coercive regulatory practices reduce the internal motivation for compliance and beyond compliance action, although they may increase the external incentives. Laxer regulatory practices reduce the credibility of the normative effect of the regulatory regime and weaken the internal motivation for CEP. While findings show that regulation does play a key role in CEP performance, the organizational level has the strongest and most positive significant relationships with CEP. Organizational culture and manager’s attitudes and behaviors are significant driving forces. Generally, the individual level, depicting workers’ attitudes toward their workplace, is found as insignificant in promoting CEP.
The detachment of moral and affective motives from the actual behavior of loyalty and active commitment is recognized and expected in cross cultural research into organizational commitment. However, this separation is almost impossible to make from the perspective of western and managerially biased mainstream research into organizational commitment. Following the cross cultural perspective, the thesis of this article is that organizational commitment is not a state of mind but a behavior of choice. It is the unequivocal behavior of being obligated, regardless of individual goals, sentiments or moral values, particularly in the worst conditions, when organizations are unable to reward it. In a study of 361 respondents from four organized systems into the impact of perceived organizational power (POP) and perceived employment alternatives (PEA) on behavior of organizational commitment (OCb), it was found that OCb was dependent partially and in a non-linear manner on POP and PEA. However, the part that was not explained by these independent variables leaves ample room for a different possible explanation of OC b. For example, many people in this study chose active modes of positive commitment, in spite of having perceived employment alternatives and possessing only a small amount of perceived organizational power. This suggests that even during bad times for their employing organization, employees may not automatically rush to take advantage of their employment alternatives, but, on the contrary, may continue to contribute their knowledge, skills and abilities voluntarily, and not as tactics designed to protect their organizational assets. After all, pure commitment is an obligation to do something that is not necessarily agreeable or gainful. This lesson is well known in non-western cultures.
This multilevel study addresses labor relations (LA) and human resource management (HRM) practices within the context of corporate social responsibility (CSR). The study adds to the growing literature on multilevel CSR by addressing the specific aspect of responsibility towards employees through LA-HRM practices in industrial firms. We design a multidimensional model of LA-HRM oriented CSR with the wider institutional environment, industrial setting and organizational setting as antecedents. The model and findings allow for a broad view of factors associated with practices of LA-HRM as important attributes of CSR. The predictive power of the institutional setting as well as industrial setting are shown to be moderately strong, while contrary the research hypothesis the organizational setting generally exhibits weak predictive power. The former finding reinforces the central role of the external environment and actors in firms' internal application of LA-HRM practices and CSR. The later finding suggests that contrary to previous assertions, LA-HRM is generally not within the discretional power and influence of firms, and not a not a key area in the context of firms' voluntary CSR policy but is dominated by externally mandated regulatory requirements.
Those who are more committed to their organizations are assumed to be more productive persons and behave with a higher sense of responsibility and loyalty (Ulrich, 1998). Several different definitions of commitment exist in the literature. Buchanan's (1974) definition is typical: "Commitment is viewed as a partisan, affective attachment to the goals and values of an organization, to one's role in relation to goals and values, and to the organization for its own sake, apart from its pruly instrumental worth" (p. 533). In the definition of Wiener (1982) commitment is conceptualized as a normative motivational process clearly distinctive from instrumental approaches to the explanation of work behavior. Tsui, Egan, and O'Reilly (1992) defined it as an employees' psychological and behavioral attachment to a social group. Scheldon's (1971) definition combines commitment with identification words. He viewed commitment as a psychological attachment
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.