Social Responsibility Journal

Corporate social responsibility influences employee engagement

Georgios Tsourvakas, Ioanna Yfantidou,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Georgios Tsourvakas, Ioanna Yfantidou, (2018) "Corporate social responsibility influences employee engagement", Social
Responsibility Journal, Vol. 14 Issue: 1, pp.123-137, https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-09-2016-0153
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-09-2016-0153
Downloaded on: 25 August 2018, At: 06:47 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 72 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1395 times since 2018*
Downloaded by University of Kentucky At 06:47 25 August 2018 (PT)

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

(2014),"Does corporate social responsibility impact on employee engagement?", Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 26 Iss
3/4 pp. 232-247 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/JWL-09-2013-0070">https://doi.org/10.1108/JWL-09-2013-0070</a>
(2014),"Determinants of employee engagement and their impact on employee performance", International
Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 63 Iss 3 pp. 308-323 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/
IJPPM-01-2013-0008">https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-01-2013-0008</a>

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:381648 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 Corporate social responsibility influences
employee engagement
Georgios Tsourvakas and Ioanna Yfantidou

Abstract Georgios Tsourvakas and

Purpose – The purpose of this study is to explore the influence of corporate social responsibility (CSR) Ioanna Yfantidou are both
on employee engagement, motivation and job satisfaction on the staff members of two multinational based at Aristotle
companies in Greece (Procter & Gamble [P&G] and Unilever). University of Thessaloniki,
Design/methodology/approach – A quantitative methodology in the form of statistical analysis of the
Downloaded by University of Kentucky At 06:47 25 August 2018 (PT)

Thessaloniki, Greece.
results was derived from the responses on an employee engagement questionnaire.
Findings – Findings show that employees are proud to identify themselves with companies that have a
caring image. CSR is also positively linked to employee engagement for both companies.
Research limitations/implications – The small size of the sample is a limitation because it leaves no
room for generalising the findings. Secondly, although some of the hypotheses were backed by the data,
he findings are not strong enough, as the reported correlations are too small.
Practical implications – Practitioners and marketing professionals can benefit from this research by
absorbing the fact that employees feel engaged, satisfied and motivated when they play a positive role in
the society through their work. As a result, it would be constructive for professionals to plan CSR
strategies and involve employees both in planning and execution of those strategies.
Originality/value – Unlike other studies, the authors tried to examine the link between CSR and
employee behaviour amid Greece’s financial difficulties.
Keywords Job satisfaction, Corporate social responsibility, Employee engagement, Staff motivation
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
The most commonly used definition of corporate social responsibility (CSR) has been
derived from Davis (1973) who describes it as a combination of social benefits and
economic gains where companies empower the society’s betterment. In the past two
decades, CSR has grown into a very popular idea (Nan and Heo, 2007) for businesses
around the world. The benefits of CSR for both firm and society have been widely
acknowledged by consumers, NGOs, governments and media (Kerr et al., 2008).
Extensive literature brings to light the corporate external profits of CSR (Zappalà, 2004; King
and Lenox, 2002). For example, empirical research has shown an indirect positive
relationship between responsibility and turnover increase (McGuire et al., 1988). Similarly,
the stakeholder theory invites businesses to displace the mono-stakeholder concept and
establish a multi-stakeholder approach (Cornell and Shapiro, 1987; Freeman, 1984; Wood
and Jones, 1995; McGuire et al., 1988).
Received 4 September 2016
On the contrary, literature supports that there are important internal gains for sustainable Revised 14 March 2017
1 May 2017
companies. Hence, it is believed that corporate citizenship can have a strong influence on Accepted 2 June 2017
employee morale, motivation, commitment, loyalty and training (Weiser and Zadek, 2000; The authors thank Procter &
Zappalà, 2004; Orlitzky et al., 2003). Quite parallel to what this research paper aims to Gamble, Greece, and Unilever,
Greece, for giving consent to
confirm, Waddock and Graves (1997) note that organisations with CSR activities can benefit publish their names and the
from empowering and encouraging their staff’s commitment and productivity. The author research findings.

DOI 10.1108/SRJ-09-2016-0153 VOL. 14 NO. 1 2018, pp. 123-137, © Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 1747-1117 j SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL j PAGE 123
 also links increased staff productivity to an increase in financial performance. Equally,
Peterson (2004) found a positive correlation between employees’ perceptions of CSR and
organisational commitment, mainly when organisational values and ethics are in agreement
with the employees’ personal values and norms.
Similar to this study, in the research studies by Kim et al. (2009), Babcock-Roberson and
Strickland (2010) and Glavas and Piderit (2009), additional employee-centric variables and
their relationship to CSR policies were statistically measured, such as employee
commitment to the company, employee identification with their firm and staff’s creative
involvement. Their studies were based on the organisational level (CSR activities) and
individual level (employee-centric variables). Correspondingly, this study aims to show the
correlation between CSR strategies (organisational level) and employee engagement,
motivation and job satisfaction (individual level).
Regarding recruiting, Cave (2002) notes that money is no longer the most critical force that
influences staff motivation. The author states that employees are also looking for meaning in
their work [. . .] they want to know they are making a difference to the community in general
(Cave, 2002, p. 32). Thus, literature supports that responsible companies are a magnet for
more talented workforce and inspire their staff to work harder (Zappalà, 2004; Cave, 2002).
Nevertheless, literature advocates that the relationship between CSR and employee attitude
Downloaded by University of Kentucky At 06:47 25 August 2018 (PT)

is culture driven (Zappalà, 2004; Collier and Esteban, 2007). Similarly, Sethi (1975)
highlights the importance of distinguishing the various CSR definitions due to variations in
culture, economic, political and social characteristics. For example, firms that operate in
Western countries have a more constructive position towards CSR (Franke et al., 1991).
Other scholars note that citizenship is not only dependent on culture but is also strongly
linked to the country’s social system; thus, the CSR strategy has to be adjusted accordingly
(Metaxas and Tsavdaridou, 2010). This study took place in Greece, a country with two key
characteristics: hit by a major financial crisis since 2010 and although a Western culture 
responsibility is still in its formative years. Consequently, it is of interest to examine whether
people’s perception of responsibility has shifted due to their personal economic losses.
In particular, this study examines the association between CSR and employee engagement,
motivation and job satisfaction among the staff of two multinational companies in Greece,
Procter & Gamble (P&G) and Unilever. Both companies gave consent to publish their
names and the research findings. These two organisations belong to the consumer goods
industry, which is a business area that has a negative outcome on the environment (Deloitte,
2010). Therefore, it is motivating to study the impact of CSR activities on employees who
work for organisations linked to environmental and social casualties in a rather CSR-
unfamiliar country. Finally, the study attempts to form an understanding of how employees
view responsibility amid rapid wage cuts or benefit loss.

2. Literature review
2.1 CSR in Greece
As CSR policies differ among countries due to diversities in culture, economic development,
social systems, legal and political formation and expectations (Franke et al., 1991; Wotruba,
1997), it is essential to capture an overview of citizenship in Greece.
Greece is positioned as a rather CSR-unfamiliar place (Skouloudis et al., 2011; Metaxas and
Tsavdaridou, 2010). For example, a research conducted by the National and Kapodistrian
University of Athens (2006) among managers shows that 53 per cent of them believe that
CSR is rarely adopted. The same survey found that Greek companies are mostly interested
in promoting their brand name and increase sales through CSR (National and Kapodistrian
University of Athens, 2006). According to the survey, responsibility for Greek organisations
is mainly about equal opportunities, education and environment, while 54 per cent of the

PAGE 124 j SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL j VOL. 14 NO. 1 2018

 respondents admit that their firms’ CSR strategy has either minimum or zero cost (National
and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 2006). Likewise, as reported by the World Business
Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), all Mediterranean countries view CSR in a
similar way, along with some countries of Eastern Europe (Titan, 2007). A decade ago, the
European Commission encouraged Southern and Eastern European countries to adopt
CSR drives to shore up a European agenda of CSR (Albareda et al., 2007). For example,
the Greek Ministry of the Interior, Public Administration and Decentralisation adopted EU’s
directive to support gender equality in businesses (Metaxas and Tsavdaridou, 2010).
Authors have affirmed different acumens for why CSR performance is poor in Greece.
Metaxas and Tsavdaridou (2010) support that Greece’s extensive corruption as the main
CSR barrier. Galanaki et al. (2009) found that there is under-representation of women within
Greek companies, and Ringov and Zollo (2007) note that masculine businesses are more
doubtful towards the importance of CSR.
To name a few research on responsibility in Greece, Metaxas and Tsavdaridou (2010)
found that 34 per cent of CSR activities in the country were addressed as internal functions
of the company (i.e. human resources; HR), and 60 per cent of Greek organisations relate
their CSR strategy with increase in financial performance. Unfortunately, only 2 per cent of
the Greek companies publish a sustainability report, while 28 per cent attach some social
Downloaded by University of Kentucky At 06:47 25 August 2018 (PT)

and environmental details in their annual financial reports (KPMG, Universiteit Van
Amsterdam, 2002). Skouloudis et al. (2011) believe that Greek firms’ lack of enthusiasm to
report is a failure in building up stakeholder engagement and disclose their corporate
accountability to the general public. The European Social Survey (2003) notes that the
Greeks are suspicious and it seems difficult for them to accept organisations’ “goodwill” as
truthful. In addition, Skouloudis et al. (2011) highlight that 99.5 per cent of organisations in
Greece are small and medium enterprises, with limited resources or knowledge to take up
CSR activities.
Not unexpectedly, the Hellenic Network for CSR (2000) was only established in 2000. The
network, based in Athens, was founded by 13 companies and now approximately 60 firms
have enrolled. The network’s role is to share information with its members regarding CSR
development, to support joint social projects and complete regular surveys to understand
societal needs and update their approach accordingly (Hellenic Network of CSR, 2009).
Finally, Stavroulakis (2009, p. 149) quotes “Greece having been a rural country for long still
lacks business tradition and ethics”. Sustainability consciousness is still in its early years in
the country, with the exception of a few large corporations. Not surprisingly, Skouloudis
et al. (2011) pessimistically state that the current economic decline in Greece will, sooner or
later, hit donations and result in managers’ oversight CSR.

2.2 Employee engagement

Kahn (1990) was the first academic to conceptualize work engagement as the amount of
energy, commitment and devotion that employees put into their job. On the other hand, the
Institute of Employment Studies (IES), an independent consultancy firm in HR issues, notes
that engagement is a positive attitude held by the employee towards the organisation and
its values (IES, 2016). This study adopts Kahn’s (1990) definition as it is believed that it
offers a holistic description which takes into account the physical, emotional and cognitive
dimensions of employee engagement.
An engaged employee is familiar with business perspective and works along with
colleagues to progress performance within the job for the benefit of the organisation.
Companies should launch a two-way relationship between the employer and the employee
to boost engagement (Robinson et al., 2007). Among the drivers of employee engagement
are appraisals, efficient communication, developing career, bonuses, worklife balance

VOL. 14 NO. 1 2018 j SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL j PAGE 125

 opportunities, working conditions, job satisfaction, immediate management and team work
(Robinson et al., 2007).

2.3 Employee motivation

Work motivation is described by Pinder (1998, p. 11) as “a set of energetic forces that
originate both within as well as beyond an individual’s being, to initiate work-related
behaviour and to determine its form, direction, intensity, and duration”. Thus, motivation is a
psychological notion formed by the interaction between the person and the environment
(Latham and Pinder, 2005).
McGregor (1960) related motivation to self-identity. This is in accordance with the social
identity theory, where people prefer to associate with groups with which they identify
themselves.
Steers and Sanchez-Runde (2002) believe that work motivation highly depends on national
culture. They also note three key factors that affect work motivation:

1. people’s self-concept;

2. norms about work ethic; and

Downloaded by University of Kentucky At 06:47 25 August 2018 (PT)

3. environmental factors such as economic and social status (Steers and Sanchez-Runde,
2002).

It is also believed that these three features serve not only as a source of motivation but also
as predictors of job performance (Steers and Sanchez-Runde, 2002).

2.4 Job satisfaction

In the early days of research around job satisfaction, Roethlisberger and Dickson (1939)
described job satisfaction as nothing less than the outcome of the interaction between the
person and his work environment. Later, Locke (1969, p. 316) portrayed job satisfaction as
“the pleasurable emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job as achieving or
facilitating the achievements of one’s job values”. The author believes that job satisfaction
cannot be found solely in a job; rather it is the association between the job itself and the
person. He also acknowledges that although compensation and benefits are important for
one to be satisfied with their job, emotions also have a central role (Locke, 1969).
Rosen and Rosen (1955) were the first to embrace the concept of values in their description
of job satisfaction, indicating that if employees’ value standards are pleased, this leads to a
feeling of satisfaction.
Valentine and Fleischman (2008) believe that, nowadays, business ethics programmes and
responsibility initiatives are important for job satisfaction. They describe their principle as
“an informal contract” between the employer and the employee, according to which the
organisation has to offer the desired business ethics and values that lead to job satisfaction
(Valentine and Fleischman, 2008; Table I)

3. Hypotheses
Employees may be informed about their organisations’ CSR efforts internally by their seniors
or externally by the media and their own personal experience (e.g. community service
experience). To measure the influence of citizenship on employee behaviours, it has to be
clear whether employees perceive their employers as socially and environmentally
responsible. Even if a company is well known to the world as being responsible, it is
preferable to assess the appeal of the companies’ CSR strategies on the views of the
employees.

PAGE 126 j SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL j VOL. 14 NO. 1 2018

 Table I Theoretical background
Authors and date Type of study and sample Country Main findings

Babcock-Roberson and Surveys on 91 employees USA Significant positive relationship between work
Strickland (2010) engagement and organisational citizenship
behaviour (OCB) and between leadership and
OCB
Corporate Leadership Surveys on 50.000 employees, Worldwide Community involvement and organisational
Council (2004) from 59 organisations from 30 culture drive employee engagement
countries
Valentine and Fleischman Surveys on 313 business USA CSR mediates the positive associations
(2008) professionals between ethics programmes and job
satisfaction
Yousaf, et al. (2016) Surveys on 163 employees of Pakistan Internal CSR has a direct positive impact of
five major commercial banks employee engagement
Cullen et al. (2003) Online surveys on 411 Netherlands Benevolent climates are positively linked to
employees of a telephone employee commitment
company (study 1) and 139
employees (study 2) of smaller
firms
Baden et al. (2009) A combination of 25 interviews UK There is positive connection between employee
with 49 respondents of an online motivation and retention to CSR
Downloaded by University of Kentucky At 06:47 25 August 2018 (PT)

survey (both worked at SMEs)

Ferreira and Real de Online surveys on 193 Portugal Employee engagement show different levels
Oliveira (2014) employees and observation when staff is exposed to different CSR
based on three scenarios situations. Employees exposed to internal CSR
are more engaged compared to those that
attended external CSR activities

In accordance with Ritch et al.’s (2010) view, we believe that doing good to the community,
through your work, will raise the engagement levels. Therefore, we hypothesize that
employees’ perceptions of their company’s CSR efforts are positively related to engagement.
H1. Perceptions of CSR and employee engagement are positively related.
Csikszentmihalyi and Hunter (2003) believe that when people find meaning in their work,
they are further motivated to work harder, which in turn leads to increased productivity.
Willard (2004) found that organisations with CSR activities provide a meaningful workplace
for their staff. Combining the above-mentioned notions, we hypothesize that favourable
perceptions of CSR and job motivation are positively related.
H2. Perceptions of CSR and job motivation are positively related.
McWilliams and Siegel (2001) believe that CSR satisfies all the stakeholder groups,
including staff. Similarly, we hypothesize that the adoption of CSR promotes individuals’ job
satisfaction.
H3. Perceptions of CSR and job satisfaction are positively related.

4. Methodology
4.1 Research design
A quantitative methodology is used in the form of statistical analysis of the results derived
from the responses on an employee engagement questionnaire.
In theory, the purpose is to:
n find a positive connection between employee engagement, motivation and job
satisfaction with CSR;

VOL. 14 NO. 1 2018 j SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL j PAGE 127

 n find if citizenships stimulate employees to work harder; and
n develop the existing literature on the control of citizenship in a somewhat “CSR-
unaware” country.
The authors contacted the HR departments of P&G and Unilever in Greece to seek approval
for the research. The study’s objectives and data collection process were both outlined to
the HR managers. After organisational permission was ensured, the survey was formed and
sent out via email to the HR departments of both companies for approval. The HR
departments raised no objection and the survey was then sent out via HR email to their staff.

4.2 Questionnaire design

The survey was created in a way to ensure that research objectives are met; valid and
reliable data is obtained; respondents’ contribution is highlighted; and participants are able
to clearly understand how to answer all the questions. Consequently, the questionnaire was
translated into Greek and distributed to over 200 employees of both companies. Participants
were informed about the questionnaires’ content and the fact that all data and results will be
used by academic staff only. Confidentiality and anonymity were both guaranteed.
After the introduction and the instructions sections in the questionnaire, the participants
Downloaded by University of Kentucky At 06:47 25 August 2018 (PT)

were asked to answer five questions about themselves including gender, age, how long
they have been working for this company, their position in the company and the department
that best described their nature of work.
The second part of the questionnaire was piloted in accordance with analogous surveys that
have been conducted by large consultancy firms and measures employee engagement and
organisational behaviour in general. In the survey, there were statements with which participants
had to decide whether they agree or not by selecting one of the five-point Likert-type scale (1 =
Strongly agree, 2 = Agree, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Disagree and 5 = Strongly disagree).
It is useful to briefly describe how three of the largest consultancy firms measure employee
engagement in their surveys. Firstly, Towers Perrin’s (2008) employee engagement index is
measured according to the following nine questions:
Q1. I think my job is considered important in my company.
Q2. I am likely to speak well of my company.
Q3. I am proud to work for my company.
Q4. I believe strongly in my company’s future direction and key priorities.
Q5. I understand my company’s future direction and key priorities.
Q6. I am personally motivated to help my company be successful.
Q7. I am willing to put in a great deal of effort beyond what is normally expected to help
my company succeed.
Q8. At present time, are you seriously considering leaving your company?
Q9. I would recommend my company as a good place to work.
Secondly, Best Companies found eight key factors that drive employee engagement. These
factors and their meanings are explained in Table II.
As a result, the Best Companies engagement index provides the following five survey
questions that best measure staff engagement levels (Best Companies, 2016):
Q1. I love to work for this organisation.
Q2. I would miss this place if I left.
Q3. I feel proud to work for this organisation.

PAGE 128 j SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL j VOL. 14 NO. 1 2018

 Table II Best Companies’ employee engagement drives
Factor Meaning

Leadership Measures how people feel about the senior management and head of their company
Well-being Measures the balance between work and personal life
My manager Measures how people feel about their immediate manager
My team Measures how people feel about the other members of their team, whether they care or have fun with them
My company Indicates how much employees value their company and feel proud to work for them
Personal grow Measures whether employees feel that their work leads to the kind of the future career that they want, if their skills
are used
Fair deal Measures how people feel about their compensation and benefits
Giving something Measures how employees feel about their company’s efforts towards the public well-being and whether they believe
back that the firm’s activities are driven by profit motives

Q4. I feel I can make a difference in this organisation.

Q5. I believe I can make a valuable contribution to the success of this organisation.
Thirdly, the Institute of Employment studies (IES) has provided a model of ten factors that
Downloaded by University of Kentucky At 06:47 25 August 2018 (PT)

also drive employee engagement. As a result, the IES developed 12 questions (or
statements that should be answered positively) that should be asked to measure
engagement (IES, 2003):
Q1. I speak highly of this organisation to my friends.
Q2. I would be happy for my family and friends to use this organisation’s products or
services.
Q3. This organisation is known as a good employer.
Q4. This organisation has a good reputation generally.
Q5. I am proud to tell others that I am a part of this organisation.
Q6. This organisation really inspired the very best in me in the way of job performance.
Q7. I find that my values and those of the organisation are very similar.
Q8. I always do more that is actually required.
Q9. I try to help others in this organisation whenever I can.
Q10. I try to keep abreast of currents developments in my area.
Q11. I volunteer for things outside my job that contribute to the organisation’s
objectives.
Q12. I frequently make suggestions to improve the work of my team/department.
After disclosing how the above three reputable consultancy firms measure employee
engagement, it is easy to distinguish some similarities between them. Primarily, all of
them refer to drivers of employee engagement that lead to understanding whether or
not an employee is engaged or not to his job. The questionnaire that we conducted
specifically for this research is based on the arguments mentioned above. As for job
satisfaction, the Gallup consultancy firm notes that the key drivers that promote
satisfaction are the compensation and benefits that employees earn, the feedback that
they receive, the safety in the work environment and the possibility of a career
development (Gallup Poll, 2008). Finally, the recognition of employees’ contributions
and their encouragement are considered as drivers of motivation. Table III illustrates 16
of our total 22 questions that measure employee engagement, job satisfaction and
motivation.

VOL. 14 NO. 1 2018 j SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL j PAGE 129

 Table III Questionnaire design for employee engagement, motivation and satisfaction
Employee engagement Job satisfaction Motivation

My job performance is evaluated fairly (q.2) I feel safe to express my opinions in the At work I receive appropriate recognition
company (q.5) for my contributions (q.1)
I think that my job is considered important in I often get feedback on my job performance The company encourages my
the company (q.3) from my supervisor or line manager (q.6) development (q.4)
The people here are pleasant and I believe that all employees have the training Managers support equal opportunities for
cooperative to work with (q.7) they require (q.9) all employees (q.13)
I am proud to work for this company (q.11) I believe that my earnings match my
responsibilities (q.10)
I would recommend the company as a good Working for this company will lead to the
place to work (q.12) kind of future I want (q.16)
I know the goals of my company (q.14)
I believe in the goals of the company (q.15)

Regarding CSR, the survey aims to measure employees’ perceptions of their company’s
efforts towards responsibility by providing six statements that demonstrate whether or not
employees feel satisfied and appreciate the organisation’s current CSR activities (Table IV).
Downloaded by University of Kentucky At 06:47 25 August 2018 (PT)

4.3 Sample
Given the fact that the proper sample size of a research should be at least 10 per cent of
the population (Malhotra and Birks, 2007), and taking into account that P&G counts
approximately 600 employees in Greece while Unilever counts 800, a total of 154 responses
is an adequate sample size for this study (64 from P&G and 90 from Unilever).
SPSS v23 software (originally, Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) was used for
statistical analysis. The data set was checked for errors and one error on a questionnaire
from Unilever was identified. Consequently, 89 valid responses were gathered form
Unilever and 64 from P&G.

4.4 Scales reliability

To check that all scales “hand together”, Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was used (DeVellis,
2003). According to Lamoureux et al. (2007), the reliability of a scale can differ depending
on the sample size. There is high internal consistency in the scale, with a Cronbach’s alpha
coefficient of 0.740 for P&G and 0.764 for Unilever. Both coefficients are above 0.7 which
implies that internal consistency and reliability are high (Malhotra and Birks, 2007;
Lamoureux et al., 2007).
Before running any statistical tests, the variables were grouped into four new variables that
stand for employee engagement, employee motivation, job satisfaction and perceived CSR
(Table V).
The internal consistency of the grouped scales is 0.692 for P&G and 0.707 for Unilever.

Table IV Questionnaire design for employees’ feelings towards CSR

CSR I believe that my I believe that my I am proud of my I believe that my The company has Employees here are
company is trying company is socially company’s efforts company acts fairly clearly defined its encouraged to
to reduce its responsible (q.18) towards both to suppliers values and rules of participate in local
environmental sustainability (q.19) and to consumers conduct (q.21) community
impact (q.17) (q.20) activities (q.22)

PAGE 130 j SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL j VOL. 14 NO. 1 2018

 Table V Variables’ grouping
New variables Questions

Employee engagement q.2, q.3, q.7, q.11, q.12, q.14, q.15

Motivation q.1, q.4, q.13
Job satisfaction q.5, q.6, q.9, q.10, q.16
CSR q.17, q.18, q.19, q.20, q.21, q.22

5. Results
5.1 P&G
Most of the respondents from P&G are females (62.5 per cent) and males represent only
37.5 per cent of our sample. More than two thirds of the respondents work for P&G between
6 and 20 years, while only 11 and 9 people are working for less than 5 and more than 21
years, respectively. The majority of the respondents were employees with no managerial
responsibilities (45.3 per cent), followed by 29.7 per cent of managers with no employees
reporting to them and 25 per cent managers with employees reporting to them. Finally, most
Downloaded by University of Kentucky At 06:47 25 August 2018 (PT)

of the respondents (23.4 per cent) reported to work at the Engineering department, 18.8
per cent at Marketing and Sales, 15.6 per cent at the Safety, Health and Environment
department and 10.9 per cent at Legal. Percentages less than 10 per cent were indicated
for the departments of Communications and Public relations (PR), HR, Finance and
Accounting and IT.
5.1.1 H1. The relationship between employee engagement and CSR was investigated using
Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient. Preliminary analyses were performed to
ensure no violation of the assumptions of normality and linearity. The findings indicate a
weak positive relationship between the two variables (r = 0.251, n = 64, p < 0.05). However,
academia also tends to believe that an r value that is so close to 0 (r = 0.251) should be
interpreted carefully (Malhotra and Birks, 2007). Nevertheless, Malhotra and Birks (2007,
p. 577) comment that “values close to 0 do not indicate that the two variables are unrelated,
rather there could be a non-linear relationship between them which could not be captured
by r”. The coefficient of determination was calculated to get an idea of how much variance
our two variables share. The r value was squared and multiplied by 100 (0.251  0.251 =
0.063  100 = 6.3 per cent). This implies that 6.3 per cent indicates less overlap between
the two variables. Thus, it is proposed that H1 is confirmed for P&G with the correlation
being too small.
5.1.2 H2. Regarding H2, there is no accurate evidence that there is a relationship between job
motivation and responsibility (r = 0.200, n = 64, p > 0.05). The Pearson correlation coefficient
is too low (r = 0.200) and the significance value is quite greater than 0.05 (p = 0.114). Thus, H2
is not supported for P&G.
5.1.3 H3. Pearson correlation coefficient was also used to test H3. The results indicate that
all 64 cases had scores on both scales. According to the findings, there is no relationship
between job satisfaction and CSR as the Pearson correlation coefficient is very low and the
significance value is higher than 0.05 (r = 0.195, n = 65, p > 0.05). Hence, there is no
accurate evidence that H3 is confirmed for P&G.

5.2 Unilever
Unilever respondents are mostly males (57.8 per cent) and females are only 38 (42.2 per
cent). The majority of the respondents are young adults under 35 years (74.9 per cent).
Almost 85 per cent of the respondents work for Unilever from 1 to 10 years, while 15.6 per
cent work for the company for more than 11 years and no one works for the firm for more

VOL. 14 NO. 1 2018 j SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL j PAGE 131

 than 21 years. Approximating P&G, the majority of the respondents from Unilever are
employees with no managerial responsibilities (41.1 per cent), whereas 32.2 per cent are
managers with no employees reporting to them and 26.7 per cent are managers with
employees reporting to them. Regarding company departments, most of the participants
work at the Engineering (22.2 per cent) and the Safety, Health and Environment department
(20 per cent). In addition, 18.9 per cent of the sample works at the Marketing and Sales and
10 per cent at Legal. The remaining four departments account for smaller representation
(Communications and PR 8.9 per cent, HR 5.6 per cent, Finance and Accounting 6.7 per
cent and IS/IT 7.8 per cent).
5.2.1 H1. The results indicate that 90 cases with scores on both scales have been used
in this analysis, and hence, there are no missing cases. Similar to the P&G sample,
there is a weak positive relationship (r = 0.281, n = 90, p < 0.01) between the two
variables. The coefficient of determination was calculated (0.281  0.281 = 0.078 
100 = 7.89 per cent) to determine 7.89 per cent of variance shared by the two
variables. As mentioned earlier, the different points of view from Cohen (1988) and
Malhotra and Birks (2007), regarding the acceptable level of an r value, indicate that a
Pearson correlation of 0.281 is supports our hypothesis to some extent. Thus, H1 is also
accepted for Unilever.
Downloaded by University of Kentucky At 06:47 25 August 2018 (PT)

5.2.2 H2. Unlike P&G, there is a weak but positive relationship between job motivation and
responsibility for Unilever subjects (r = 0.248, n = 90, p < 0.05). By calculating the
coefficient of determination (0.248  0.248 = 0.061  100 = 6.15 per cent), a little overlap of
the two variables (6.15 per cent) was found. Although the Pearson correlation coefficient is
very small (r = 0.248), it can still be considered as a relationship between the two variables;
hence, H2 is confirmed.
5.2.3 H3. All 90 cases are reported to have scores on both scales used for this analysis. The
findings indicate that there is a weak positive relationship between job satisfaction and
responsibility (r = 0.292, n = 90, p < 0.01). The coefficient of determination at 8.52 per cent
indicates that CSR and job satisfaction shares low variance [0.292  0.292 = 0.085  100 =
8.52 per cent]. Consequently, H3 is confirmed for Unilever.

6. Discussion and concluding remarks

This study aims to highlight similarities and differences between CSR and employee
behaviour among two multinational companies in Greece. Regarding H1, the results for
both companies indicate that a small correlation between CSR and employee
engagement, which is consistent with literature (Glavas and Piderit, 2009; Ferreira and
Real de Oliveira, 2014). The findings promote the view that employees are willing to go
the extra mile if they believe that their work is significant for the community (Glavas and
Piderit, 2009). As work engagement has been described as commitment and loyalty to
one’s job (Peterson, 2004; Kim et al., 2009) and strongly linked to a feeling of pride, it is
reasonable to assume that the respondents are proud to identify themselves with
companies that have a caring image.
Different results were found for P&G and Unilever for H2 and H3. There was lack of
correlation between motivation and job satisfaction to CSR for P&G, whereas a small
correlation between the variables was reported for Unilever. After visiting Unilever’s
corporate website, we were able to identify that there is an annual CSR report that highlights
Unilever’s dedication to providing a safe and healthy workplace and they admit that
engaging and motivating employees is a top priority for them (Unilever, 2014). Surprisingly,
employee engagement and motivation is equally underlined by P&G’s annual report (P&G,
2015), even though we were unable to find any correlations in our study. A possible
explanation is given by Adkins et al. (2001) who believe that job relations are highly
influenced by job insecurity during times of financial downturn; thus, CSR is meaningless

PAGE 132 j SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL j VOL. 14 NO. 1 2018

 compared to job insecurity. It is widely known that Greece has been in financial difficulties
over the past years with job insecurity being the primary concern of employees. Therefore,
another explanation might be the different work conditions and compensation cuts that
each company implemented. For example, while the Greek government legislated wage
cuts of 11 per cent in 2012, some companies individually chose not to cut staff benefits. We
are unaware of any such wage or benefit cuts for P&G and Unilever.
In addition to the three hypotheses, it was also found that the correlation between CSR and
employee engagement is stronger for females than males for only Unilever. Moreover, the
relationship between CSR and motivation and CSR to job satisfaction were both stronger for
the women employees of only P&G. A possible justification derives from a report published
by the National Statistical Service of Greece which shows that the current unemployment
rate for females is 20 per cent as opposed to 14.1 per cent for males. It is possible that
females feel more insecure today and thus they feel more engaged, motivated or satisfied
when being employed.
This study strengthens Sethi’s (1975) opinion that people’s views on corporate responsibility
are highly affected by culture and the current circumstances that take place in the country
under investigation. It is possible that the financial crisis has negatively influenced lots of
people’s opinions on CSR. It looks like spending corporate money on charities while at the
Downloaded by University of Kentucky At 06:47 25 August 2018 (PT)

same time imposing salary cuts on staff is an uncomfortable condition.

All in all, this study aims to disclose that not only customers reward organisations for acting
responsibly but also employees seem to value their employers’ philanthropic stance. It was
found that CSR improves staff’s organisational commitment in general even amid crises,
which is a very interesting finding for decision makers to bear in mind as an indirect but
useful drive for organisational performance.
Practitioners and marketing professionals can benefit from this research by absorbing
the fact that employees feel engaged, satisfied and motivated when they play a
positive role in society through their work. It would be constructive for HR
professionals to plan CSR strategies and involve employees in both planning and
execution of those strategies. Another implication for businesses is to internalise CSR
so that employees act as corporate volunteers, which may result in higher
engagement and commitment scores. Finally, we encourage companies to publicize
sustainability reports and make sure that employees are aware of the firm’s social
stance to increase staff motivation.

7. Limitations
Evidently, the small size of the sample is a limitation for this study because it leaves no
room for generalising the findings. Secondly, although some of the hypotheses were
backed by the data, the findings are not strong enough as the reported correlations
were too small.
The research was conducted at the Greek department of two multinationals, P&G and
Unilever. Taking into consideration that academia segments Greece as a rather CSR-
unfamiliar country, the findings cannot be applied to other countries or other companies.

8. Future research
The present study is one of the few that have been conducted within the Greek
business community and the only one to examine employee engagement in relation to
corporate citizenship amid economic troubles. An important research direction would
be to continue exploring the influence of CSR on Greek employees and possibly
combine the findings with either Western or Eastern European countries. A qualitative

VOL. 14 NO. 1 2018 j SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL j PAGE 133

 study is also recommended as it will provide the reasons behind employees’
behaviours and attitudes.
Further research could also examine if the present correlations are strengthened or
weakened over time while the Greek financial difficulties continue, as it is possible that lots
of companies will choose to minimize additional spending. Future studies could monitor
possible links between responsibility and other aspects of employee performance (i.e.
innovation). Such a study, combined with earlier findings, can be useful to organisations
and managers to develop employee performance.

References
Adkins, C.L., Werbel, J.D. and Farh, J.L. (2001), “A field study of job insecurity during a financial crisis”,
Group and Organization Management, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 463-483.
Albareda, L., Lozano, J.M. and Ysa, T. (2007), “Public policies on corporate social responsibility: the role
of governments in Europe”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 74 No. 4, pp. 391-407.
Babcock-Roberson, M.E. and Strickland, O.J. (2010), “The relationship between charismatic leadership,
work engagement, and organizational citizenship behaviours”, The Journal of Psychology, Vol. 144 No. 3,
pp. 313-326.
Downloaded by University of Kentucky At 06:47 25 August 2018 (PT)

Baden, D.A., Harwood, I.A. and Woodward, D.G. (2009), “The effect of buyer pressure on suppliers in
SMEs to demonstrate CSR practices: an added incentive or counterproductive?”, European
Management Journal, Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 429-441.
Best Companies (2016), “The 8 factors of workplace engagement”, available at: www.b.co.uk/factors/
(accessed June 2016).
Cave, M. (2002), “Go ahead, motivate me!”, BOSS Magazine, Australian Financial Review, pp. 30-36.
Cohen, J. (1988), Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edition, Taylor and Francis Inc.
Collier, J. and Esteban, R. (2007), “Corporate social responsibility and employee commitment”, Business
ethics: A European Review, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 19-33.
Cornell, B. and Shapiro, A.C. (1987), “Corporate stakeholders and corporate finance”, Financial
Management, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 5-14.

Corporate Leadership Council (2004), Driving Performance and Retention through Employee
Engagement, Corporate Executive Board, Washington, DC.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. and Hunter, J. (2003), “Happiness in everyday life: the uses of experience
sampling”, Journal of Happiness Studies, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 185-199.

Cullen, J.B., Parboteeah, K.P. and Victor, B. (2003), “The effects of ethical climates on organizational
commitment: a two-study analysis”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 127-141.

Davis, K. (1973), “The case for and against business assumption of social responsibilities”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 312-322.

Deloitte (2010), “Accelerating complexity: regulatory trends in the consumer goods industry”, available
at: www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/global/Documents/Consumer-Business/dttl_cb_Regulation
%20in%20CP_POV.pdf (accessed 20 August 2011).

DeVellis, R.F. (2003), Scale Development, Sage, Thousand Oaks, Vol. 26.
European Social Survey (2003), “Exploring public attitudes, informing public policy”, available at: www.
europeansocialsurvey.org/docs/findings/ESS1_5_select_findings.pdf (accessed July 2016)
Ferreira, P. and Real de Oliveira, E. (2014), “Does corporate social responsibility impact on employee
engagement?”, Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 26 Nos 3/4, pp. 232-247.
Franke, R.H., Hofstede, G. and Bond, M.H. (1991), “Cultural roots of economic performance: a research
note”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 165-173.
Freeman, R.E. (1984), Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, Pitman, Boston, and RE
Freeman: 1994, “The Politics of Stakeholder Theory: Some Future Directions”, Business Ethics Quarterly,
Vol. 4, pp. 187-200.

PAGE 134 j SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL j VOL. 14 NO. 1 2018

 Galanaki, E., Papalexandris, N. and Halikias, J. (2009), “Revisiting leadership styles and attitudes
towards women as managers in Greece: 15 years later”, Gender in Management: An International
Journal, Vol. 24 No. 7, pp. 484-504.
Gallup Poll (2008), “US workers’ job satisfaction is relatively high”, available at: www.gallup.com/poll/
109738/us-workers-job-satisfaction-relatively-high.aspx (accessed 12 July 2011).
Glavas, A. and Piderit, S.K. (2009), “How does doing good matter”, Journal of Corporate Citizenship,
Vol. 2009 No. 36, pp. 51-70.
Hellenic Network for CSR (2000), “The CSR in Greece: issues and prospects”, available at: www.
csrhellas.org/csr_last2/portal/images/stories/files/DiktioAggliko.pdf (accessed 10 August 2016).

Hellenic Network of CSR (2009), available at: http://csrhellas.eu/?page_id=6012 (accessed 10 August

2016).
IES (2003), The drivers of employee engagement, available at: www.employment-studies.co.uk/system/
files/resources/files/408.pdf (accessed June 2016).
IES (2016), Report published in 2016, available at: www.employment-studies.co.uk/report-summaries/
report-summary-drivers-employee-engagement (accessed June 2016).
Kahn, W.A. (1990), “Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 692-724.
Kerr, G., Johnston, K. and Beatson, A. (2008), “A framework of corporate social responsibility for
Downloaded by University of Kentucky At 06:47 25 August 2018 (PT)

advertising accountability: the case of Australian government advertising campaign”, Journal of

Marketing Communications, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 155-169.
Kim, H.J., Shin, K.H. and Swanger, N. (2009), “Burnout and engagement: a comparative analysis using
the big five personality dimensions”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 28 No. 1,
pp. 96-104.
King, A. and Lenox, M. (2002), “Exploring the locus of profitable pollution reduction”, Management
Science, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 289-299.

KPMG, Universiteit Van Amsterdam (2002), “KPMG international survey of corporate sustainability
reporting 2002”, available at: http://old.gppi.net/fileadmin/gppi/KPMG2002.pdf (accessed August
2011).

Lamoureux, E.L., Pallant, J.F., Pesudovs, K., Rees, G., Hassell, J.B. and Keeffe, J.E. (2007), “The
impact of vision impairment questionnaire: an assessment of its domain structure using confirmatory
factor analysis and Rasch analysis”, Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science, Vol. 48 No. 3,
pp. 1001-1006.
Latham, G.P. and Pinder, C.C. (2005), “Work motivation theory and research at the dawn of the twenty-
first century”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 56 No. 1, pp. 485-516.

Locke, E.A. (1969), “What is job satisfaction?”, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 4
No. 4, pp. 309-336.
McGregor, D. (1960), The Human Side of Enterprise, Vol. 21, McGraw-Hill Education, New York, NY,
pp. 166-171.
McGuire, J.B., Sundgren, A. and Schneeweis, T. (1988), “Corporate social responsibility and firm
financial performance”, Academy of management Journal, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 854-872.
McWilliams, A. and Siegel, D. (2001), “Corporate social responsibility: a theory of the firm perspective”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 117-127.
Malhotra, N.K. and Birks, D.F. (2007), Marketing Research: An Applied Approach, Pearson Education,
London.

Metaxas, T. and Tsavdaridou, M. (2010), “Corporate social responsibility in Europe: Denmark, Hungary
and Greece”, Journal of Contemporary European Studies, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 25-46.
Nan, X. and Heo, K. (2007), “Consumer responses to corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives:
examining the role of Brand-cause fit in cause-related marketing”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 36 No. 2,
pp. 63-74.
National and Kapodistrian University of Athens (2006), Survey Mainstreaming CSR in SMEs Results
Report, Department of Communication and Media Studies, Athens.

VOL. 14 NO. 1 2018 j SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL j PAGE 135

 Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F.L. and Rynes, S.L. (2003), “Corporate social and financial performance: a meta-
analysis”, Organization Studies, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 403-441.
P&G (2015), “Annual report”, available at: www.pginvestor.com/Cache/1001201800.PDF?O=PDF&T=&
Y=&D=&FID=1001201800&iid=4004124 (accessed 27 August 2016)
Peterson, D.K. (2004), “The relationship between perceptions of corporate citizenship and organizational
commitment”, Business and Society, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 296-319.
Pinder, C.C. (1998), Motivation in Work Organizations, John Wiley & Sons, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Ringov, D. and Zollo, M. (2007), “The impact of national culture on corporate social performance”,
Corporate Governance, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 476-485.
Ritch, B.L., Lepine, J.A. and Crawford, E.R. (2010), “Job engagement: antecedents and effects on job
performance”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 53 No. 3, pp. 617-635.
Robinson, D., Hooker, H. and Hayday, S. (2007), Engagement: The Continuing Story, Institute for
Employment Studies, London.
Roethlisberger, F.J. and Dickson, W.J. (1939), Management and the Worker, Mass, Cambridge.

Rosen, R.H. and Rosen, H. (1955), “A suggested modification in job satisfaction surveys”, Personnel
Psychology, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 303-314.

Sethi, S.P. (1975), “Dimensions of corporate social performance: an analytical framework”, California
Downloaded by University of Kentucky At 06:47 25 August 2018 (PT)

Management Review, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 58-64.

Skouloudis, A., Evangelinos, K. and Nikolaou, I. (2011), “An overview of corporate social responsibility in
Greece: perceptions, developments and barriers to overcome”, Business Ethics: A European Review,
Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 205-226.

Stavroulakis, D. (2009), “HRM practices in view of internationalization: evidence from business in

Greece”, MIBES Transactions, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 147-156.

Steers, R.M. and Sanchez-Runde, C. (2002), “Culture, motivation, and work behavior”, The Blackwell
Handbook of Cross-Cultural Management, Blackwell Publishers, Oxford.

Titan (2007), “Corporate social responsibility and sustainability report”, available at: www.titan.gr/
UserFiles/File/csr/social2007_en.pdf (accessed June 2016).

Towers Perrin (2008), “Employee engagement/global workforce study”, available at: www.towersperrin.com/
tp/showhtml.jsp?url=global/publications/gws/key-findings.htm&country=global (accessed July 20111).
Unilever (2014), “Making sustainable living commonplace: annual reports and accounts 2014, strategic
report”, available at: www.unilever.com/Images/ara-2014-strategic-report_tcm244-421153_en.pdf
(accessed at 27 August 2016).

Valentine, S. and Fleischman, G. (2008), “Ethics programs, perceived corporate social responsibility and
job satisfaction”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 77 No. 2, pp. 159-172.

Waddock, S.A. and Graves, S.B. (1997), “The corporate social performance-financial performance link”,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 303-319.

Weiser, J. and Zadek, S. (2000), Conversations with disbelievers: Persuading Companies to Address
Social Challenges, The Ford Foundation, New York, NY.
Willard, B. (2004), “Teaching sustainability in business schools”, Teaching Business Sustainability,
Greenleaf Publishing, Sheffield, pp. 268-281.
Wood, D.J. and Jones, R.E. (1995), “Stakeholder mismatching: a theoretical problem in empirical
research on corporate social performance”, The International Journal of 0Organizational Analysis, Vol. 3
No. 3, pp. 229-267.

Wotruba, T.R. (1997), “Industry self-regulation: a review and extension to a global setting”, Journal of
Public Policy & Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 38-54.

Yousaf, H.Q., Ali, I., Sajjad, A. and Ilyas, M. (2016), “Impact of internal corporate social responsibility on
employee engagement: a study of moderated mediation model”, International Journal of Sciences: Basic
and Applied Research, No. 1.

Zappalà, G. (2004), “Corporate citizenship and human resource management: a new tool or a missed
opportunity?”, Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 185-201.

PAGE 136 j SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL j VOL. 14 NO. 1 2018

 Further reading
Ackerman, R.W. and Bauer, R.A. (1976), Corporate Social Responsiveness: The Modern Dilemma,
Restron Pub, Reston, VA.
Best Companies (2018), available at: https://bestcompaniesguide.co.uk/how_it_works.aspx (accessed
August 2016).
Carroll, A.B. (1979), “A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 497-505.
Freeman, R.E., Harrison, J.S., Wicks, C.A., Parmar, B.L. and Colle, S. (2010), Stakeholder theory: The
State of the Art, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

IES (2014/2015), “IES annual review 2014-2015”, available at: www.employment-studies.co.uk/system/

files/resources/files/annrev15.pdf (accessed 5 August 2016).
Turban, D.B. and Greening, D.W. (1997), “Corporate social performance and organizational
attractiveness to prospective employees”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 658-672.
Zadek, S. (2001), Third Generation Corporate Citizenship, The Foreign Policy Centre, London.

Corresponding author
Georgios Tsourvakas can be contacted at: gtsourv@jour.auth.gr
Downloaded by University of Kentucky At 06:47 25 August 2018 (PT)

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

VOL. 14 NO. 1 2018 j SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL j PAGE 137