The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/2046-9012.htm
EJTD
43,9
860
Received 29 October 2018
Revised 24 January 2019
Accepted 31 January 2019
European Journal of Training and
Development
Vol. 43 No. 9, 2019
pp. 860-872
© Emerald Publishing Limited
2046-9012
DOI 10.1108/EJTD-10-2018-0107
Advancing organizational
corporate social responsibility
(CSR) agenda
Implications for training and development
Katharine E. Miller
Department of Communication, University of Wisconsin-Whitewater,
Wisconsin, USA, and
Mesut Akdere
Department of Technology Leadership and Innovation, Purdue University,
West Lafayette, Indiana, USA
Abstract
Purpose – Given the growth of demand for companies’ engagement in socially responsible and ethical
practices through corporate social responsibility (CSR), this paper aims to expand the literature on such
efforts as currently presented in organizational communication, management, Human Resource Development
(HRD) literature.
Design/methodology/approach – The authors synthesize the topic of CSR across these various
disciplines with a focus on identifying gaps in the literature related to the training and development (T&D)
based CSR-related activities. Thus, the authors provide implications for the training of CSR as called for by
current literature because today’ corporations appear to lack the proper strategies in the understanding and
implementation of such efforts.
Findings – The authors conclude by discussing the pragmatic considerations for this type of T&D and call
for further discussion among scholars and professionals in facilitating future work on CSR in a training
context.
Originality/value – Exploring CSR within the context of T&D presents critical capacities in enabling
organizational CSR agenda across all units.
Keywords Training and development, Corporate social responsibility, Organizational strategy,
Human resource development, CSR practice
Paper type Literature review
1. Introduction
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) has been an emerging idea and priority in the business
world for the past few decades as a result of a pressure to be both ethically and socially
responsible. Although the concept has yet to claim one, consistent definition, CSR can be
broadly defined as:
[. . .] the responsibility of a company for the totality of its impact, with a need to embed society’s
values into its core operations as well as into its treatment of its social and physical environment
(May et al., 2007, p. 30).
Put simply, CSR encourages organizations to consider their business practices in having “a
positive impact on people, planet, and profit” (Zwetsloot, 2003, p. 202). This growing concern
by companies comes from various stakeholder and societal groups – specifically from
shareholders to community members. Extant research (Engen and Di Piazza, 2005; He and Corporate
Lai, 2014; Matten and Moon, 2008; Schuler and Jackson, 2006) argued that CSR is and should social
be a priority of global corporations “one that needs to be a part of corporate strategies,
processes, and cultures” (Garavan and McGuire, 2010, p. 489). Furthermore, it is perceived as
responsibility
an effective strategic marketing tool with significant impact on customer perceptions of the
organization.
While CSR has become an increasingly prioritized objective in management scholarship
and practice, there continue to be issues in corporations’ attempt to understand and 861
implement such practices – particularly considering the debate in defining what constitutes
social responsibility (Fenwick and Bierema, 2008). As previous research (Hemingway and
Maclagan, 2004; Hopkins, 2002) has found, departments and individual employees often
vary in understanding their organization’s CSR efforts, and such policies are not necessarily
integrated into day-to-day organizational operations. Additionally, there is little research on
the considerations and tools for employing socially responsible efforts in an organizational
setting. Thus, this paper aims to review the extant literature related to CSR in management
and organizational research, discuss implications as well as opportunities of CSR within a
training and development (T&D) context, and offer theoretical and practice-related
recommendations for CSR training in organizations while proposing directions for future
research. In short, the goal of this paper is to provide a literature review of the
aforementioned areas, identify gaps in scholarship and offer both practical and theoretical
considerations for the importance of CSR within the training context.

2. Method
This paper aims to provide an integrative literature review of CSR in a T&D context –
specifically in reviewing extant research on the T&D of CSR-related efforts. In preparing for
this literature review, we first explored current literature on the topic of CSR more generally
to define and highlight the concept in a variety of disciplinary work from organizational
communication to management and, more specifically, human resource development (HRD).
This served as the conceptual structuring of the topic for the foundation of the literature
review (Torraco, 2005). We used Torraco (2005) as a guide in completing this review, while
also referring to extant work following a similar model (Burke and Hutchins, 2007; Waite,
2014) Throughout our initial investigation for articles surrounding CSR using various
databases accessed from an institutional library website, we included keyword searches of
“Corporate Social Responsibility” or simply “CSR” as well as T&D and “CSR þ T&D” in
systematically narrowing my review of literature focused on these topics. We began the
search throughout all database types on library site and then searched the same keywords
in two specific databases: Communication and Mass Media Complete and Business Source
Complete, as well as a general search on Google Scholar using our specific keywords. While
more focused in terms of subject, these two databases covered a wide variety of journals and
articles related to the particular disciplines we chose to draw literature from, particularly
given our interest in exploring the connection between CSR and T&D from both business
and communication scholarly domains .
We were unable to find an adequate amount of existing research on CSR from a T&D
perspective to conduct a full, integrated literature review; thus, we expanded the keyword
search to “CSR þ Management” as well as “CSR þ Human Resources,” or “CSR þ HRD.”
This resulted in an integrated literature review which, according to Torraco (2005):
[. . .] is a form of research that reviews, critiques, and synthesizes representative literature on a
topic in an integrated way such that new frameworks and perspectives on the topic are generated
(p. 356).
EJTD Therefore, as we conducted the literature review on the topic of CSR, primarily from an
43,9 internal perspective within an organization, we noted gaps in the literature where work on
the implementation and execution of such efforts in a training context is lacking. In the
selection process through our review of the literature, we chose to include articles that were
preferably within the past decade or so to therefore include the most up-to-date scholarship
in both HRD, T&D, CSR and those few studies that addressed all three topics.
862
3. Literature review
The subsequent sections present the following:
 a brief overview of the historic conceptualization and current literature related to
CSR, specifically in management and HRD research;
 implications for CSR training as evident in current literature and the importance of
such instruction; and
 pragmatic considerations and recommendations for CSR training.

4. Current literature
4.1 Corporate social responsibility
Work on CSR is most prominent in management and organizational studies as well as
business ethics field (Fenwick and Bierema, 2008; Morgeson et al., 2013; Voegtlin and
Greenwood, 2016). Overall, CSR offers a fundamental way for companies to consider their
greater impact on society beyond economical and financial performance priorities. Du et al.
(2010) argued that:
[. . .] by engaging in CSR activities, companies can not only generate favorable stakeholder
attitudes and better support behaviors, but also, over the long run, build corporate image,
strengthen stakeholder–company relationships and enhance stakeholders’ advocacy behaviors
(p. 11).
Fenwick and Bierema (2008) break CSR activities down into six groups or categories:
(1) environmental sustainability;
(2) community outreach;
(3) promoting stakeholder (e.g. employees, suppliers, customer, competitors) well-
being;
(4) accountability and transparency;
(5) legal/honest operations; and
(6) global citizenship.

These are common in various organizational contexts defined as CSR activities – ranging
from philanthropic efforts to labor and marketplace relations.
Most notable to the study and literature on the topic of CSR is Carroll’s (1999) review of
its conceptual evolution. As discussed, the 1960s marked a growth in attempts to formally
define what CSR is – previously referred to as just social responsibility prior to “the modern
corporation’s prominence and dominance in the business sector” (p. 269). During this time,
CSR was seen as a businessman’s obligation to oversee an economic system that met the
expectations of the surrounding public and should enhance socio-economic welfare. Further
definitions of CSR proliferated in the following decade and have been debated both for and
against socially responsible actions by organizations. Carroll (1979) proposed a four-part Corporate
conceptualization of CSR related to corporate social performance (CSP). He argues: social
[. . .] that managers or firms to engage in CSP they needed to have a basic definition of CSR, an responsibility
understanding/enumeration of the issues for which a social responsibility exited (or, in modern
terms, stakeholders to whom the firm had a responsibility, relationship, or dependency), and a
specification of the philosophy of responsiveness to the issues (p. 499).
The 1980s provided fewer operational definitions of CSR, and more attempted research and 863
measuring of CSR, whereas the notion transitioned into alternative conceptualizations in the
1990s, including stakeholder theory, business ethics, CSR and corporate citizenship (Carroll,
1999).
Specifically, past and current research have discussed the importance of management for
the successful implementation and employee buy-in of CSR. During the 1990s, much of the
work focused on the ways in which to convince management to take on socially responsible
practices beyond profit maximization (Dobers, 1996; Dobers, 1997; Glachant, 1994; Perrings,
1991). Current scholarship has taken a turn in focusing on the types of management styles
that “enhance the integration of for instance social and environmental concerns (Schaefer,
2004), or the integrations of CSR into everyday business activities and management systems
(Robinson and Clegg, 1998)” (Dobers, 2009, pp. 6-7). Ardichvili (2013) discussed how past
research has confirmed that:
[. . .] top managers and leaders are playing the central role in modeling and promoting ethical and
responsible behavior in their organizations and, therefore, leadership development is one of the
most important strategies for promoting CSR-related practices. (p. 459).
In general, research confirms that management perceptions of CSR matter – often guiding
their actions regarding such efforts. Thus, scholarship has also explored how managers
view the relationship of business and society and, more specifically, the role of business in
the surrounding community (Pedersen, 2009).
CSR has also been examined in terms of the relationship between these activities and
financial performance and competitive advantage for organizations. In other words, are
socially responsible organizations also profitable and successful organizations (Cochran and
Wood, 1984)? Weber’s (2008) study on the business benefits that can derive from CSR efforts
outlines five key areas:
(1) positive effects on company image and reputation;
(2) positive effects on employee motivation, retention and recruitment;
(3) cost savings;
(4) revenue increases from higher sales and market sharing; and
(5) CSR-related risk reduction or management (pp. 248-249).

In summary, research supports the overall business case for CSR, as “an investment into
human capital, the environment, and stakeholder relationships” (p. 251).
Weber’s (2008) study also highlighted the advantages of CSR for organizations from both
internal and external perspectives – a typical demarcation between social responsibility
initiatives and corresponding messages surrounding them.
A common and more modern view of CSR centers on a stakeholder model, as an
organization’s goal is to treat “the stakeholders of the firm ethically or in a responsible
manner” (Hopkins, 2003, p. 1). Presented and popularized by Freeman (1984), the
stakeholder model in short puts “names and faces on the societal members or groups who
EJTD are most important to business and to whom it may be responsive” (Carroll, 1999, p. 290).
43,9 Stakeholders from this perspective may include the natural environment, communities,
shareholders, customers, or investors surrounding the organization. Articles and
conversation in popular press discuss the need for stakeholders to know what companies are
doing with regards to CSR. As Heismann (2014) argued, most organizations are not doing
this effectively, whether it be that their communication of such efforts is not effective or
864 clear, or that CSR programs are not relevant to stakeholders. Thus, it appears not to be a
priority for those corporations for reasons often unknown – therefore, calling for increased
communication and strategic policies, appropriate selection of the company’s CSR
initiatives. This further suggests a need for increased internal training and both the proper
implementation of appropriate activities (i.e. those that make sense or fit a company’s
business model or mission) and the necessary messages surrounding CSR to various
stakeholder groups. Rupp and Mallory (2015) distinguished between internal and external
CSR efforts from the perspective of which stakeholder groups these particular programs
were targeting or directed toward. For example, charity or activism-based activities such as
community development or nonprofit partnerships were deemed “external.” In contrast,
those programs impacting workplace policies or environments within the organization (e.g.
diversity, ethical labor practices, daycare programs) were termed “internal.” However, given
the relatively scare amount of CSR scholarship focused on internal stakeholders (i.e.
employees), we focus on the communicating, organizing and training of these latter
initiatives. Thus, the subsequent section of this paper discusses literature on CSR from an
internal perspective – the implications and considerations for HRD.

4.2 Corporate social responsibility and human resource development

While scholarship is limited in the consideration and implementation of CSR in T&D, extant
research has explored these practices from an HRD perspective. Namely, Garavan and
McGuire (2010) discussed the role of HRD professionals in embedding CSR, sustainability
and ethical practices in their organizations. Thus, HRD should consider an organization’s
triple bottom line – focusing on its economic, social and environmental impacts. From this
perspective, CSR is often conceptualized as “actions taken by a firm that exceed those
required by law and which are designed to advance some social good” (Sheehan et al., 2014,
p. 379). While often considered from a macro-perspective, CSR is increasingly being argued
for as a micro-concept – one that positions the role of HRD. From this view, HRD is defined
as “a set of practices that help organizations to engage in CSR activities, to implement CSR,
and to contextualize it” (p. 379). Thus, HRD professionals can play a vital role in the
communication and dissemination of information around a company’s CSR efforts,
particularly because of HRD’s part in various organizational actions – such as navigating
change or facilitating employees of all levels to consider broader issues such as climate
change or sustainability, for example Sheehan et al. (2014).
Additional research (Colbert and Kurucz, 2007; Sheehan et al., 2014) discusses an
extended view of HRD as “societal HRD” or “HRD practices that make an explicit link
between HRD, CSR and sustainability with a strong focus on the triple bottom line”
(Sheehan et al., 2014, p. 380). This view presents an opportunity for HRD professionals to
develop and implement CSR practices and effectively communicate corporate strategies and
messages associated with CSR. Similarly, Ulrich (1997) argued that HRD unit potentially
holds four roles: strategic partner, administration expect, change agent and employee
champion – enabling “socially responsive activities to be embedded in the organization and
ensure their effective integration with all business operations” (Garavan and McGuire, 2010,
p. 502). In short, HRD can contribute to an organizational culture, and one that promotes and
supports various CSR activities (Garavan and McGuire, 2010). However, Sheehan et al. Corporate
(2014) argued that the understanding of the benefits of CSR efforts and their connection with social
HRD in scholarship remains relatively understudied.
In addition, extant work has explored the implications of HRD for CSR or ethically
responsibility
related activities (Alizadeh et al., 2018; Ardichvili, 2013; Jang and Ardichvilli, 2018).
Ardichvili (2013) proposed a theoretical model for connecting HRD, CSR, corporate
sustainability (CS) and business ethics – emphasizing HRD as the linking force between the
three as HRD professionals hold a role in promoting such efforts. While T&D can promote 865
organizational awareness of CSR activities, Ardichvili (2013) argued that the long-term
development of both ethical and responsible cultures comes from HRD. In other words, the
mindset(s) (i.e. beliefs and attitudes which control a person or organization’s outlook and
behavior) held by organizational members can contribute to the creation of responsible and
ethical cultures. Organizational culture, therefore, seems important in terms of CSR and how
these efforts are engrained into the nature and day-to-day practices of a corporation.
In short, existing research suggests that CSR is HRD-driven. As HRD professionals are
often charged with employee and organizational development, Fenwick and Bierema (2008)
argued that these individuals are best suited “to help develop understanding and
implementation of CSR initiatives” (p. 25). Wilkins (2015) considered the connection between
CSR activities and employee development – highlighting both the individual benefits of
employees engaging in socially responsible efforts or initiatives and collective growth at the
organizational level. Furthermore, he discussed that employee participation in such activities:
Can help develop the skills needed for leadership and managerial roles, allowing individuals to
climb the ranks within a business, helping with their retention and can also address skills gaps
and behavioral changes while encouraging individual development (para. 8).
Thus, employee buy-in and understanding of CSR is crucial – suggesting the need for T&D
in this area for the purposes of effectively communicating organizational CSR strategy and
developing employee knowledge base related to CRS.
In conclusion, while research confirms that HRD professionals view CSR as an important
issue (Robertson, 2009), these beliefs do not often immediately transfer into everyday
organizational practices, infrastructure, operations, or strategies. Additionally, a lack of
employee understanding of their company’s CSR strategies and efforts suggests yet another
challenge to implementing, communicating or supporting such initiatives. This presents an
opportunity for a much-needed discussion of the implication for T&D of organizations
implementing CSR activities. The following section provides a review of current literature
including non-academic trends related to CSR within the T&D context. In short, the
subsequent dialogue presents gaps in current scholarship and articulates potential
important considerations for advancing CSR through T&D.

5. Advancing corporate social responsibility through training and

development
Traditionally, social responsibility for T&D relates to the role of training partnerships in
developing certain skills and contributing to local, surrounding communities (Noe, 2017). Noe
(2017) argued that T&D should help organizations achieve their goals and have positive return
on investments to their stockholders. However, this group is only one of many stakeholder
groups having interest in an organization’s activities and success. According to Noe (2017):
[. . .] other important stakeholders include the local community and employees who can also
benefit from training and development. Companies have a social responsibility to help improve
the communities where they are located by protecting the environment, supporting cultural
EJTD activities, and helping reduce poverty and unemployment. Social responsibility also means that
companies need to comply with laws and regulations but perhaps most importantly, take actions
43,9 and create conditions to help all employees grow, develop, and contribute to company goals,
regardless of their background and career issues they are facing (p. 444).
In summary, Noe (2017) defined social responsibility in a traditional light – emphasizing the
need for organizations to engage in activities surrounding community outreach and societal
866 well-being. However, socially responsible actions from a T&D standpoint also connect to
legal, diversity and career issues in the workplace. As previously discussed, literature on
CSR and HRD suggests a need for internal training of such efforts, primarily in the
communication and understanding to and by employees. First and foremost, employees
need to be made aware of their employer’s CSR efforts – both internal or, rather, employee-
directed (e.g. diversity, sustainability, physical and mental health initiatives) and external –
a rationale for the contribution and importance of CSR, and the role they are expected to
have in executing these activities. Thus, employees are an important stakeholder group to
consider by an organization in terms of CSR implementation. While some have begun
to uncover the many complexities associated with employee perceptions and responses to
CSR and other community-focused initiatives enacted by their organization (Edwards and
Kudret, 2017), a gap in connecting such perceptions and efforts to internal T&D exists.
Matten and Moon (2008) presented a comparative understanding of CSR, particularly in
exploring multinational corporations in European countries. This paper presents several
interesting conceptualizations of CSR as a management concept – an organizational practice
considered legitimate once institutionalized. Namely, CSR can be seen as legitimate by
managers if considered a “best practice” in their respective organizational fields. One
example of this is the increase of CSR reporting in Europe throughout the past decade.
Additionally, multinational companies are increasingly:
[. . .] joining business coalitions for CSR (e.g., the U.K. Business in the Community, CSR Europe)
and subscribing to CSR training programs (e.g., the U.K. CSR Academy) in order to learn and
develop CSR practices (p. 412).
The latter suggests that T&D of CSR can be potentially available from external sources. For
example, Skills Training UK (2019) – an “apprenticeship” training service – offers corporate
responsibility training, and takes a stakeholder-centric view (both internally and externally)
in aligning CSR programs to best serve these groups. A different challenge for CSR
understanding and practice exists in countries such as Turkey where national culture
shapes business and organizational norms, may be impeded by philanthropic activities
(Coskun and Akdere, 2017). However, specific, pragmatic ways of approaching and
implementing such training are largely absent in scholarship. And, training from external
providers may not provide a holistic or well-suited view of a particular company’s CSR
efforts. Thus, in-house training through a CSR manager or HRD team may be most effective.
Rangan et al. (2015) explored how and why organizations must refocus their various CSR
efforts back to the fundamental goal of social responsibility: “to align a company’s social and
environmental activities with its business purpose and values” (para. 1). After surveying over
140 leaders attending the CSR executive education program at Harvard Business School from
2011 to 2015, they found that most companies practice various forms of CSR – unsurprising
because of the lack of a cohesive definition in both theory and practice. However:
[. . .] well-managed companies seem less interested in totally integrating CSR with their business
strategies and goals in devising a cogent CSR program aligned with the company’s purpose and
values [. . .] hampered by poor coordination and a lack of logic connecting their various programs
(Rangan et al., 2015, para. 3-4).
This is often due, as Rangan et al. (2015) confirmed, to a lack of initiated and coordinated Corporate
programs by management, and typically without top-level engagement. social
Additionally, Patten (2016) argued that “a corporate’s efforts to spread social
responsibility among their stakeholders through employee T&D remains vital to operating
responsibility
a sustainable business model” (para. 3). The question that remains, however, is how these
efforts are being implemented into organizational practices, how they are communicated to
employees, and how they are understood by members. Thus, this presents an opportunity
for T&D in aiding in such coordination and implementation. And perhaps a more pertinent 867
question to ask is whether companies are even offering training on the topic of CSR more
generally and specific socially responsible activities of organizations. Knox and Maklan
(2004) discussed that the lack of development of CSR efforts could be inhibited “by the lack
of systematic framework linking investment in these responsibilities to social or business
outcomes” (p. 514). This dilemma calls for discussion of the practical considerations and
possibilities of CSR training in organizations. Thus, the following presents both pragmatic
and theoretical considerations and potential recommendations for CSR training.

6. Pragmatic considerations for corporate social responsibility training

Corporate social responsibility in a training context is largely present in popular press and
non-academic conversation. Currently, there exist several websites and organizations
willing to offer training and consulting on the topic of CSR (e.g. One 4 All CSR, Simply CSR,
CSR Training Institute; RMA Environmental Services). Considering how CSR training
should be structured, approached, and what elements of such learning must be included, a
combination of current scholarship and trade-specific resources can be referenced. Research
in the areas of organizational communication, business ethics and T&D focused on CSR
present and suggest a gap in the pragmatic ways such efforts are implemented – and
whether companies expect their employees to inherently know about their CSR programs
and/or if any related training to aid in understanding and execution is available. Thus, this
section, based on the scholarship previously presented and theory in T&D, and current
trends in CSR training discussed in practitioner venues, proposes recommendations and
considerations for such training efforts.
As previously discussed in the literature review, CSR has been commonly connected to
HRD. Specifically, research suggests that HRD is a driving force behind CSR
implementation and communication, and in understanding the business implications of
these programs. However, as Fenwick and Bierema (2008) found, such activities are not
traditionally thought as to be HRD-specific in terms of job description and responsibilities.
Additionally, while HRD professionals may be able to describe various community outreach
or related CSR activities, such integration was not sufficient from the employee perspective.
However, HRD management may be essential or appropriate in aiding in the learning side of
CSR – thus taking part in any associated training. Therefore, one recommendation is the
need for creating a CSR manager position that would particularly facilitate the integration of
CSR throughout training programs.
A CSR manager is primarily responsible for overseeing “the creation and implementation
of an organization’s social responsibility objectives” (Bisk, 2017). Tasks may include the
developing and managing of social responsibility policies, creating internal messages to
reinforce those policies, take part in external and PR communication to deliver CSR-related
messages, and work on leveraging CSR as a branding strategy. Ismail et al. (2014) explored
the role of CSR managers in various organizations and, more specifically, the influencing
factors on their performances in these particular roles. The authors were particularly
interested in the personal qualities and competencies of these individuals in explaining the
EJTD various CSR roles responsible for, namely, monitoring and evaluation corporate
43,9 responsibility performance. CSR managers can serve as the link between the organization
and the broader society. Specifically:
[. . .] management must play a role in every aspect of HRD activities such as educating organizations
about social responsibility and use of HRD strategies to integrate social consciousness in
organizational activities that could potentially affect significant social change (p. 418).
868 While further research on the operational roles of CSR managers is needed, this study
foregrounded a larger conversation on understanding how managers specifically
responsible for CSR can aid in organizational response to societal concerns or issues.
Research suggests that CSR managers must possess certain managerial skills, attitudes
and social influence in addition to specific individual characteristics to succeed in this
specific role (Ismail et al., 2014). First, the individual feature of attitude is important –
explaining his/her emotional involvement in and contribution toward CSR. Openness to
change may be crucial in terms of trends or innovation in CSR programs – but also must be
competence in creating norms to clarify objectives of such efforts. Second, Egri and Herman
(2000) found that this manager should possess certain technical and interpersonal
capabilities to communicate with stakeholders external to the organization. Additionally,
the manager should possess entrepreneurial skills to help the organization promote its
products and/or services while also interacting with all stakeholders and the public on a
broader level. Overall, “a competent CSR manager is of prime importance, as the manager is
a mediator between the corporation and community” (Ismail et al., 2014, p. 420).
Training CSR managers is also a critical process (2014) as these individuals are primarily
responsible for helping develop socially conscious organizational practices. Thus, “the training
and retraining among managers on CSR should have contents with social consciousness (i.e.
striking a balance between business motives and helping the society)” (p. 429); thus, creating a
new role in which “Training should also be about adaptations required by corporation
managers to sociocultural situations of the local community in the implementation of CSR
programs” (p. 429). This would require the participation of all CSR managers to improve their
role and perception of such activities. Finally, the authors suggest in-house training periodically
for CSR managers to focus on training for stakeholders, such as diversity, and “implement
socially, legally, and most importantly, ethically responsible CSR practices which are all
beyond the profit motive” (p. 430). Alternatively, training of CSR may be a joint and
collaborative effort between HRD and CSR managers (Liebowitz, 2010). Once it has been
established who should be charged with the implementation and, most notably, the training of
CSR practices in an organizational context, the next step is to focus in on what should be
included in such training and how CSR may appear in practice.
Because of the often ambiguous nature of CSR in theory and practice, there are several
options for training on this topic. One 4 All CSR (2017), an online consulting resource for
CSR training, states that their program will allow attendees to:
Learn fundamentals, key CSR drivers, and current local and international trends in CSR in order to
explain the business case for CSR’s enhancement of business performance, while they network, share
experiences, and identify potential CSR opportunities to maximize reputation, trust, efficiencies, and
employee motivation (Corporate Social Responsibility-An Introduction, 2017, para. 5).
Common to similar training groups on CSR are the objectives to develop a clear
understanding and conceptualization of CSR; understand current trends and directions of
CSR programs; explore key drivers; and understand the business case for CSR more
generally (Corporate Social Responsibility-An Introduction, 2017). Throughout each
objective could be a number of specific training sessions, customized for the specific
organization, focused on any of the following: communication of CSR; special topics or case- Corporate
studies of CSR programs or campaigns; environmentally sustainability practices; social ROI; social
reporting of CSR activities; organizational implementation; and risks, among countless
others. However, these opportunities and discussions may not have to be found externally.
responsibility
Fenwick and Bierema (2008) discussed the benefits of online training sessions, particularly
for tech-savvy organizations. One topic included in this mode of delivery focused on
standards of business conduct (p. 29). Importantly, as Noe (2017) concluded, an organization
is socially responsible when T&D opportunities are provided to all employees, and are
869
treated fairly in the process. Thus, CSR is enacted not only in the efforts supported or
executed by the organization but also in the encouragement by such entities in providing
accessible training programs to its members. Therefore, specific training on CSR from a
conceptual standpoint – particularly in understanding industry trends and importance of
such activities – and in implementing socially responsible business practices should be
available to employees of all organizational levels and roles. A starting point for this may be
through conducting a need’s assessment to gauge all stakeholders’ understanding or their
level of knowledge and opinions with respect to CSR.
There are potential theoretical implications in regard to implementation and understanding of
CSR from the employee perspective, particularly in both the learning of and exploring potential
implications of these organizational efforts. Social learning theory “emphasizes that people learn
by observing other persons (models) whom they believe are credible and knowledgeable” (Noe,
2017, p. 162). As discussed in the literature review, particularly on the topic of CSR and HRD, it
seems crucial for socially responsible practices and the positive mindset (i.e. support, knowledge,
behaviors and attitudes) behind them on the part of employees to be engrained into an
organization’s culture. From a social learning perspective, if employees are acting or working in a
responsible way (i.e. enacting the organization’s preferred social responsible practices), other
learners are more likely to adopt such observed behaviors – thus transforming an organizational
culture into one supportive of responsible and ethical business conduct. Additionally, as new
employees enter the organization – particularly those from younger generations attracted to a
company’s CSR reputation (Ng et al., 2010) – social learning may be the way in which these
individuals learn about and become drawn to CSR efforts, perhaps even to work on associated
teams. Thus, future research may consider the role of learning at both the individual and
organizational levels in the implementation and understanding of CSR.

7. Conclusion
This paper reviewed current research, operationalization and conceptualizations of CSR,
primarily from a business perspective with a focus on the consideration of such efforts in a
training context. As a result, we found that there is little extant research on the considerations
and tools for employing socially responsible efforts in an organizational setting. Throughout
the discussion on CSR in literature and current opportunities for T&D, it is clear that such
instruction maydepend heavily on the company and the CSR activities or programs specific to
it, and how it is defined from the organization’s standpoint. Thus, future scholarship should
review and empirically study how this may vary by industry, and discuss potential “best
practices” for implementation from a training perspective. Overall, there exist gaps in the
literature on the benefits of CSR training. However, extant research on CSR from a
management and HRD perspective can, and should, influence future work – particularly in
studying the role of a CSR manager, the topics or activities to be included in training sessions,
the variance among industries, the implementation into everyday business practices and
culture, and the communication of CSR efforts to various stakeholder groups.
EJTD References
43,9 Alizadeh, A., Isna, N. and Qui, S. (2018), “Corporate social responsibilities: future implications for HRD”,
Refereed proceedings of the Academy of Human Resource Development International Research
Conference in The Americas.
Ardichvili, A. (2013), “The role of HRD in CSR, sustainability, and ethics: a relational model”, Human
Resource Development Review, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 456-473, doi: 10.1177/1534484313478421.
870 Bisk (2017), “Corporate social responsibility manager: job description and salary for CSR careers”,
Villanova University, available at: www.villanovau.com/resources/public-administration/
corporate-social-responsibility-jobs/ (accessed 28 August 2018).
Burke, L.A. and Hutchins, H.M. (2007), “Training transfer: an integrative lit erature review”, Human
Resource Development Review, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 263-296.
Carroll, A.B. (1979), “A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate social performance”, The
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 497-505, doi: 10.2307/257850.
Carroll, A.B. (1999), “Corporate social responsibility: evolution of a definitional construct”, Business and
Society, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 268-295, doi: 10.1177/000765039903800303.
Cochran, P.L. and Wood, R.A. (1984), “Corporate social responsibility and financial performance”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 27, pp. 42-56, doi: 10.2307/255956.
Colbert, B.A. and Kurucz, E.C. (2007), “Three conceptions of triple bottom line business sustainability
and the role for HRM”, Human Resource Planning, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 21-29.
Corporate Social Responsibility-An Introduction (2017), “One 4 all CSR”, available at: http://one4allcsr.
com/courses/introduction_to_corporate_social_responsibility/
Coskun, A. and Akdere, M. (2017), “Ethical business culture in Turkey: implications for leadership in a
global economy”, in Douglas, J. and Alexandre, A (Eds), Ethical Business Cultures in Emerging
Markets, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, pp. 132-159.
Dobers, P. (1996), “Legislation-induced bubble markets. Driving forces of air pollution control
technology in the area of waste incineration”, Scandinavian Journal of Management, Vol. 12
No. 3, pp. 255-273, doi: 10.2307/255956.
Dobers, P. (1997), “Strategies for environmental control. A comparison between regulation and
centralized control in Germany and reforms leading to decentralized control in Sweden”,
Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 34-45, doi: 10.1002/(SICI?1099-0836
(199702)6:1,34::AID-BSE85.3.0CO;2-N.
Dobers, P. (2009), “Corporate social responsibility: management and methods”, Corporate Social
Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 185-191, doi: http://dx.doi.org/
10.1002/csr.201.
Du, S., Bhattacharya, C.B. and Sen, S. (2010), “Maximizing business returns to corporate social
responsibility (CSR): the role of CSR communication”, International Journal of Management
Reviews, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 8-19, doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00276.x.
Edwards, M.R. and Kudret, S. (2017), “Multi-foci CSR perceptions, procedural justice and in-role
employee performance: the mediating role of commitment and pride”, Human Resource
Management Journal, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 168-188, doi: 10.1111/1748-8583.12140.
Egri, C.P. and Herman, S. (2000), “Leadership in the North American environmental sector: values,
leadership styles, and context of environmental leaders and their organizations”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 571-604, doi: 10.2307/1556356.
Engen, T. and Di Piazza, S. (2005), “Beyond reporting: creating business value and accountability”,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, available at: www.wbcsd.org/DocRoot/
Jjn1cB29B0UG90dx0RMZ/Beyond_rep_final_pressv.pdf
Fenwick, T. and Bierema, L. (2008), “Corporate social responsibility: issues for human resource
development professionals”, International Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 12 No. 1,
pp. 24-35, doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2419.2007.00293.x.
Freeman, R.E. (1984), Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, Pitman, Boston. Corporate
Garavan, T.N. and McGuire, D. (2010), “Human resource development and society: human resource social
development’s role in embedding corporate social responsibility, sustainability, and ethics in
organizations”, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 12 No. 5, pp. 487-507, doi:
responsibility
10.1177/1523422310394757.
Glachant, M. (1994), “The setting of voluntary agreements between industry andfv. bargaining and efficiency”,
Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 43-49, doi: 10.1002/bse.3280030206.
He, Y. and Lai, K.K. (2014), “The effect of corporate social responsibility on brand loyalty: the mediating
871
role of brand image”, Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, Vol. 25 Nos 3/4,
pp. 249-263, doi: 10.1080/14783363.2012.661138.
Heismann, K. (2014), “Why stakeholder engagement is key to successful CSR programs”, Green Biz, available
at: www.greenbiz.com/blog/2014/10/23/stakeholder-engagement-key-csr-online-communities
Hemingway, C.A. and Maclagan, P.W. (2004), “Managers’ personal values as drivers of corporate social
responsibility”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 33-44, doi: 10.1023/B:
BUSI.0000020964.80208.c9.
Hopkins, M.J.D. (2002), “Sustainability in the internal operations of companies”, Corporate
Environmental Strategy, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 1-11, doi: 10.1016/S1066-7938(02)00121-5.
Hopkins, M. (2003), The Planetary Bargain: Corporate Social Responsibility Matters, Earthscan, Sterling.
Ismail, M., Kassim, M.I., Amit, M.O.R. and Rasdi, R.M. (2014), “Orientation, attitude, and competency as
predicators of manager’s role in CSR-implementing companies in Malaysia”, European Journal
of Training and Development, Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 415-435, doi: 10.1108/EJTD-09-2013-0100.
Jang, S. and Ardichvilli, A. (2018), “The role of HRD in CSR and sustainability a content analysis of
corporate responsibility to reports”, Refereed proceedings of the Academy of Human Resource
Development International Research Conference in The Americas.
Knox, S. and Maklan, S. (2004), “Corporate social responsibility: moving beyond investment towards
measuring outcomes”, European Management Journal, Vol. 22 No. 5, pp. 508-516, doi: doi.org/
10.1016/j.emj.2004.09.009.
Liebowitz, J. (2010), “The role of HR in achieving a sustainability culture”, Journal of Sustainable
Development, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 50-57.
Matten, D. and Moon, J. (2008), “‘Implicit’ and ‘explicit’ CSR: a conceptual framework for a comparative
understanding of corporate social responsibility”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 33
No. 2, pp. 404-424, doi: 10.5465/AMR.2008.31193458.
May, S., Cheney, G. and Roper, J. (2007), The Debate over Corporate Social Responsibility, Oxford
University Press, New York, NY.
Morgeson, F.P., Aguinis, H., Waldman, D.A. and 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, Vol. 66 No. 4, pp. 805-824.
Ng, E.S.W., Schweitzer, L. and Lyons, S.T. (2010), “New generation, great expectations: a field study of
the millennial generation”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 281-292, doi:
10.1007/s10869-010-9159-4.
Noe, R.A. (2017), Employee Training and Development, 7th ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Patten, B. (2016), “How learning and development is important to social responsibility”, Just Means,
available at: http://justmeans.com/blogs/how-learning-and-development-is-important-to-social-
responsibility
Pedersen, E.R. (2009), “Modelling CSR: How managers understand the responsibilities of business toward
society”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 91 No. 2, pp. 155-166, doi: 10.1007/s10551-009-0078-0.
Perrings, C. (1991), “Ecological sustainability and environmental control”, Structural Change and
Economic Dynamics, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 275-295, doi: 10.1016/S0954-349X(05)80003-7.
EJTD Rangan, V.K., Chase, L. and Karim, S. (2015), “ The truth about CSR”, Harvard Business Review,
available at: https://hbr.org/2015/01/the-truth-about-csr
43,9
Robertson, D.C. (2009), “Corporate social responsibility and different stages of economic development:
Singapore, Turkey, and Ethiopia”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 88 No. S4, pp. 617-633.
available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-0311-x
Robinson, D. and Clegg, A. (1998), “Environmental leadership and competitive advantage through
environmental management system standards”, Eco-Management and Auditing, Vol. 5 No. 1,
872 pp. 6-14, doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0925(199803)5:1<6::AID-EMA74>3.0.CO;2-I.
Rupp, D.E. and Mallory, D.B. (2015), “Corporate social responsibility: psychological, person-centric, and
progressing”, Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, Vol. 2
No. 1, pp. 211-236.
Schaefer, A. (2004), “Corporate sustainability – integrating environmental and social concerns?”, Corporate
Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 179-187, doi: 10.1002/csr.70.
Schuler, R. and Jackson, S. (2006), Strategic Human Resource Management, Wiley-Blackwell, New York, NY.
Sheehan, M., Garavan, T.N. and Carbery, R. (2014), “Sustainability, corporate social responsibility and
HRD”, European Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 370-386, doi: 10.1108/
EJTD-04-2014-0034.
Skills training U.K (2019), “Skills training U.K.: about us”, available at: www.skillstraininguk.com/about-us
Torraco, R.J. (2005), “Writing integrative literature reviews: guidelines and examples”, Human
Resource Development Review, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 356-367, doi: 10.1177/1534484305278283.
Ulrich, D. (1997), Human Resource Champions, Harvard Business School, Boston.
Voegtlin, C. and Greenwood, M. (2016), “Corporate social responsibility and human resource
management: a systematic review and conceptual analysis”, Human Resource Management
Review, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 181-197.
Waite, A.M. (2014), “Leadership’s influence on innovation and sustainability: a review of the literature and
implications for HRD”, European Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 38 Nos 1/2, pp. 15-39.
Weber, M. (2008), “The business case for corporate social responsibility: a company-level measurement
approach for CSR”, European Management Journal, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 247-261, doi: 10.1016/j.
emj.2008.01.006.
Wilkins, S. (2015), “How CSR can benefit learning and development and HR strategies”, HR Review,
available at: www.hrreview.co.uk/analysis/analysis-l-d/steve-wilkins-how-csr-can-benefit-learning-
development-and-hr-strategies/55146
Zwetsloot, G.I.J.M. (2003), “From management systems to corporate social responsibility”, Journal of
Business Ethics, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 201-207, doi: 10.1023/A:1023303917699

Corresponding author
Mesut Akdere can be contacted at: makdere@purdue.edu

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