Authentic Corporate Social Responsibility Pays: Organizational Practices and Salary Requirements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) programs can be a source of societal aid (external CSR) or employee benefit (internal CSR). Yet, not all CSR practices are created equally, with many organizations decoupling their formally stated goals from their behavior. Thus, the extent to which organizations truly implement these programs varies, with some acting in line with their socially responsible claims (authentic CSR), while others fail to take concrete action (inauthentic CSR). Drawing from a multi-motive theoretical framework, we propose that these macro-level CSR practices will yield different micro-level results due to the particular needs they each fulfill (or fail to fulfill) for prospective employees; authentic external CSR practices fulfill morality-based needs, authentic internal CSR practices fulfill self-interest-based needs, and inauthentic CSR practices fail to fulfill either of these needs. Furthermore, in contrast to self-interest-based models, we draw from moral psychological theory to predict that authentic external CSR practices will have the strongest impact on employee outcomes because they fulfill morality-based needs, which often supersede self-interest-based needs. To test our theorizing, we explored the impact these different CSR practices have on prospective employees’ required annual salaries, allowing us to monetarily quantify the value of each type of CSR. Across two experiments (Study 1a, 1b) and a field study (Study 2), we find that authentic CSR practices lead to lower required salaries among prospective employees and active job seekers than organizations without CSR practices or with inauthentic CSR practices. Furthermore, we find that authentic external CSR practices lead to the lowest required salaries – an effect mediated by moral-need fulfillment. Our results suggest that when implemented authentically, CSR practices can lead to both positive social change and quantifiable organizational benefits.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".