Corporate Social Responsibility and Employee Volunteerism: A Broad Overview of CSR Through Volunteerism

Sudeepta Pradhan, Makhmoor Bashir; Sanjit Roy, and Bang Nguyen


The concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR) has been widely, vehemently discussed and debated over the past few decades. Businesses being socially responsible has become a norm and everyone assumes firms are involved in CSR activities (Porter & Kramer, 2006; Langan & Kumar, 2019). Extant literature assumes firms go beyond their normal course of business and making profits and ‘do good’ for society (Carroll, 1979; Clarkson, 1995; Porter & Kramer, 2006). CSR may be practiced due to statutory reasons; meet stakeholders’ expectations; gain public appreciation or make up for wrong doings of the industry; differentiate themselves; enhance their corporate reputation (Schwaiger, 2004); improve innovation and business process efficiency; and boost employee motivation, brand image, and customer and employee satisfaction (Pradhan, 2018). For potential job-seekers, CSR acts as an indicator of organizational attractiveness (Greening & Turban, 2000), while employees get a boost in their self-image. Given the significance of CSR activities, firms have come up with numerous ways to act in a socially responsible manner. Involving employees, i.e., employee volunteerism, is one of the ways of doing this that has been considered by 90% of Fortune 500 companies in the last few years (Cycyota, Ferrante, & Schroeder, 2016). The ‘2010 Executive summary: Deloitte volunteer impact survey’ found that companies have reduced their cash donations to social activities, but a larger number of them have started implementing corporate volunteerism programs. Corporate volunteerism is the “big tent” with a variety of corporate-supported activities (Allen, Galiano, & Flayes, 2011). Employee volunteerism is an effective strategy to make socially responsible activities effective. Such initiatives should be carried out to increase CSR effectiveness and also ensure that CSR activities fit the corporate strategy (Peloza, Hudson, & Hassay, 2009). Employee volunteerism has become an integral part of CSR strategy in most of the Best Companies, despite variations in volunteerism methods. Most volunteerism programs are designed to function formally, where companies dictate the time and compensation for volunteering employees (Caligiuri et al., 2013).

In this chapter, we focus on the conceptualizations and benefits of employee volunteer programs. This chapter is organized as follows. First we provide a review of literature on the relevant topics, namely employee volunteerism, corporate support for employee volunteer- ism, and internal and external benefits of such volunteerism programs. We state the practical instances of various types of employee volunteerism programs. We focus on a specific company and its employee volunteerism programs.

This chapter has the following learning objectives:

  • 1. To understand the concept of employee volunteerism and the ditferent types of employee volunteerism programs.
  • 2. To discuss the various benefits to internal and external parties from such volunteer programs.
  • 3. To understand the relevance of employee volunteerism under the gambit of CSR.
  • 4. To familiarize readers with different ways major companies are practicing volunteerism programs.

Review of literature

CSR as an organizational activity (Vlachos, Panagopoulos, & Rapp, 2014) has potential effect on firm values (Servaes & Tamayo, 2013; Pradhan, 2016), corporate reputation (Brammer & Pavelin, 2006), corporate identity (Pradhan, 2016), and financial performance (Orlitzky et al., 2003; Pradhan, 2016). Internally, it improves the perceptions of employees and attracts new talent (Rupp et al., 2013), organizational commitment (Kim et al., 2010; De Roeck et al., 2016), and job satisfaction (Valentine & Fleischman, 2008). Research in this field shows that CSR perceptions play a role in enhancing the motivation and performance of employees (Korschun et al., 2014) and their sense of responsibility (Vlachos et al., 2014; Farooq et al., 2016; Tian & Robertson, 2019). We therefore focus on the concept of citizenship behavior by employees, as well as the motivations and consequences of the same.

Employee volunteerism

CSR activities have a strong relationship with the strategic intents of a firm and help in strategic differentiation. Firms have opted to encourage their employees to be directly involved in such activities for better results. This has additional benefits for the firm as well. Volunteerism has the ability to improve the firm’s image as well as the society at large, attract potential employees (who have a sense of social responsibility), enhance corporate culture, and be reputable for “doing good” (Brown & Ashcraft, 2005). The concept of volunteerism strives for the value maximization of multiple stakeholders, which can be substantiated by the ‘stakeholder theory’ (Freeman, 1984) and the ‘theory of shared value’ (Porter & Kramer, 2011). The concept of employee volunteerism is gradually gaining support worldwide (Davidson, 1994) to meet the demands of the local community (Mahoney, 1996). Employee volunteerism is one of the ways in which employees can take an active role in CSR activities of the firm (Caligiuri, Mencin, & Jiang, 2013) while simultaneously adding value to the business and society in the process (Mirvis, 2012, p. 95). Companies anticipate gains from such programs (Miller, 1997) through the improvement of employee morale and productivity (Davidson, 1994). There is also a “spill over” effect on the job by improving employee productivity (Geroy, Wright, & Jacoby, 2000). As per McGlone, Spain, and McGlone (2011), employee volunteerism is the process of actively spending one’s time, energy, talents, or skills on a charitable organization without any returns or expectations.

When a firm facilitates its employees taking paid leave to serve non-profit organizations of their own choice (Peloza & Hassay, 2006) it encourages volunteerism (Hagenbuch, Little, & Lucas, 2015). Rodell (2013) categorized the following activities as volunteerism: actively spending time and/or skills rather than simply donating money (Musick & Wilson, 2008) on planned activities (Clary & Snyder, 1999) in a charitable organization (Musick & Wilson, 2008) (as stated in Cycyota et al., 2016, p. 322). It helps employees build relationships with the government and with the private sector (Caudron, 1994, p. 1). Sieber (1974) identified four positive dimensions of volunteerism, namely privileges gained, status security, status enhancement, and personality enrichment. Personality enrichment through such volunteerism improves work skills and perspectives (Huffman & Lober, 1995).

There are a lot ways employees engage with volunteer programs, with different levels of help and support from employers, as well as involvement of employees and industry. There are other programs where employees work during weekends or after work hours (Caudron, 1994). There are programs where money is donated to charities using funds received from volunteering activities. These programs also vary in time involvement, say monthly or through a month or several years or annually (Finney, 1997).

Corporate support for employee volunteerism

It has been observed that companies encourage employee volunteerism as a response to the needs of their stakeholders and existing employees, and to attract potential employees (Cycyota et al., 2016). Companies that desire engaged and trusting employees tend to practice employee volunteerism. Amongst the list of Fortune 100 Best Companies to Work For, every company publicly discloses elements of employee volunteerism. Each of these companies practice employee volunteerism uniquely and as per their convenience, and include it as a part of their CSR reports or other public disclosures. Companies support employees in terms of time allowance, association with the society, providing designated days for volunteering, providing volunteering opportunities as per employees’ interests and skills, philanthropic activities in focused activities (Cycyota et al., 2016), etc. In Table 6.1, we provide

TABLE 6.1 Community involvement statements


Community involvement statements


The community involvement at 3M gives employees a lot more flexibility than any other company. They encourage their employees to find a cause they are passionate about, rather than assigning them random things to work on. The company offers a wide range of support to their employees like flexible work schedules, providing them dedicated two weeks for their 3M impact skills-based program. The company believes in empowering its employees to use their time and skills to improve lives.


Apple drives efficiency across operations by using clean power, to reduce the impact on climate change. Whether it’s the Apple offices, data center, store, or even the facilities, Apple has maintained a standard of running each one of them on 100% renewable energy. This is the reason why Apple products contain low carbon materials.


Carbon, energy, ecosystems (comprising food, agriculture, and biodiversity), water, and the circular economy (including waste reduction) are the five areas where Microsoft focuses on environmental sustainability work.


Community involvement statements


Through on-demand community volunteering, in 2011, IBM launched preventive eye-care for children, which is still active as of today. This program has given IBM volunteers the opportunity to participate through a network of 43 government agencies (including orphanages), non-profit organizations, and schools in the screening of less fortunate children. IBM volunteers identify children in need of eyeglasses, educate these underprivileged children on eye health, and even guide them for any needed surgery. All these initiatives are done free of charge.


Elon Musk, the CEO of Tesla motors made a very unusual announcement in 2014 that the company would permit other individuals and even organizations to use its patents. This statement of the CEO is in line with the corporate citizenship strategy of Tesla motors, which satisfies stakeholder group interest of benefiting from the advanced technologies. The CSR strategy benefits communities, usually in those projects that involve technologies. Taking a cue from the Tesla’s mission and vision statements, all these initiatives undertaken by Tesla emphasize sustainable energy solutions.

Tata Motors

Tata Motors, through its CSR activities, launched a process known as “Leadership One". This process was launched for fast trackers within the company with an overall objective of instilling sensitiveness towards societal commitments through an eight week long CSR and Affirmative Action (AA) stint. To promote development and address social causes, the senior leadership of the company has taken up sustained volunteering programs. Volunteering programs primarily through the pro-engage format leverages managerial competency to fortify the AA projects. Tata Motors has emerged as a leader for these initiatives, as over 40% of its employees volunteered in a year.


The employee volunteering programs at Dupoint are all about making a difference in the lives of neighbors by empowering and rewarding employees. The overall purpose of the company is to empower the world at large by bringing in essential innovations. However, employees are encouraged at all levels around the world to be involved in their communities in any way they can, while nurturing a progressive spirit of association with one another.



Southwest employees have a policy of supporting a company-wide spirit program every year. E.g., in 2008 “Backpack Brigade” was the company-wide program, which was in partnership with Operation Hontefront to raise support for the military families of troops who were stationed in Afghanistan and Iraq. The employees of Southwest at each of their locations across the country donated binders, folders, pencils, and markers. They filled 1,000 backpacks that were sent to the children of the military personnel serving overseas for the start of the new school year. This project was very close to the company because many of its employees have served in the US military.


Motorola, in coordination with, launched a unique way

encouraging employees to volunteer by planting a tree in honor of each employee that volunteered. Further, a second tree would be plated when the employee volunteer used the same t-shirt from the previous event of the company. Many thousands of employees have participated in the “Protect an Acre” campaign, a philanthropic effort where employee donations help climate change initiatives.


Education, health, and the community are the three key areas where Samsung’s corporate responsibility initiatives are concentrated. Samsung encourages employees to volunteer as per their interests.. Volunteering ranges from beach cleaning to hospital visits. The company believes that this will empower people across the organization to share their precious time, experience, and know-how.

specific statements from websites of companies involved in community. (The statements have been collected from the CSR statements or disclosures by the company, from individual company websites. Additional examples are available from the authors upon request.)

Internal benefits of employee volunteerism

In order to understand the effectiveness of CSR through employee volunteerism, it is important to understand the motivations and attitudes behind such programs. An employee may be motivated by altruism (Pajo & Lee, 2011), organizational citizenship, to attain a feeling of meaningfulness, role variety, societal welfare, and/or other personal reasons (Cycyota et al., 2016). An employee can be motivated by his intent to help others, his employer, and ultimately himself (Peloza & Hassay, 2006). Employees with a positive attitude towards volunteerism tend to be more participative in volunteer activities (Peloza, Hudson, & Hassay, 2009). They tend to acquire several skillsets through such volunteering activities, which has positive effects on their job as well. A lot ofjobs tend to have depleted tasks, social, and knowledge with lapse of time, because of employees getting complacent. Volunteering activities can be a substitute for enriching any such depletion in jobs (Grant, 2012). Volunteerism activities also augment efficiencies and foster a sense of morale/team (Peloza & Hassay, 2006), increasing satisfaction with the job and the organization as well. Millennials feel personally responsible for being socially active and making a difference, and prefer working for a socially responsible firm (McGlone et al., 2011, Cone, 2008).

Employees are believed to create and dissipate knowledge across the work group, unit, and firm (Nonaka, 1994; Smith, Collins, & Clark, 2005). This is crucial for firms to develop a competitive advantage over a period of time. Employees can be sent to participate in volunteerism programs to develop skillsets that can be subsequently utilized by the corporate unit. Such projects develop the employees’ knowledge regarding social, cultural, and economic issues, as well as an awareness of managerial acumen and competence (Bartel, Saavedra, & Van Dyne, 2001, p. 367). For instance, volunteers of IBM’s Corporate Service Corps learned to appreciate the effects of global differences and gained expertise in new areas in the process (Bartel et al., 2001; Marquis & Kanter, 2010).

External benefits of employee volunteerism

Employee volunteerism programs has several potential benefits for the employee as well as for the organization. Such programs positively affect the firm’s reputation and financial performance and enhance stakeholder engagement (Cycyota et al., 2016). Community involve- ment/CSR activities have established consequences for firms, namely satisfaction, loyalty, legitimacy (Liu & Ко, 2011), trust (Basil, Runte, Easwaramoorthy, & Barr, 2009), brand equity, reputation (Godfrey & Hatch, 2007; Pradhan, 2016, 2018), and financial performance (Ameer & Othman, 2012; Pradhan, 2016) to name a few. When employer-supported volunteering programs are implemented successfully, it legitimizes the company’s image in the eyes of society and employees as well.

CSR and employee volunteerism activities have strategic impacts such as comparative advantages (Hess, Rogovsky, & Dunfee, 2002) despite intense competition, unique competencies, strategic networks, and high involvement with various stakeholders through such programs. Volunteerism programs enhance employee engagement and provide positive

Framework of the contributions of employee volunteerism to a firm’s CSR strategy. Source

FIGURE 6.1 Framework of the contributions of employee volunteerism to a firm’s CSR strategy. Source: Cycyota et al. (2016, p. 326).

identification of employees with employers (Bhattacharya, Sen, & Korschum, 2008; Pajo & Lee, 2011). The programs provide employees with a “feel good” experience or a “helper’s high” and have a positive impact on their morale (Post, 2005) and attitudes. Figure 6.1 as provided by Cycyota et al. (2016, p. 326) summarizes the internal and external consequences of volunteerism programs.

Planning for effective employee volunteer programs

Points of Light Corporate Institute and the Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship (BC-CCC) are major organizations that provide resources for forming etfective employee volunteer programs (Boccandro, 2009). Theftrst step begins with assessing an employee volunteer’s skills and interests, needs of the local community, and their own goals and strategies. The firm can question employees, locals, and community members to integrate the organization’s culture, values, and core competencies, as well as the employee’s skills and the needs of the community. When companies select activities with maximum employee engagement, it leads to high morale, improved productivity, skills, and retention (Points of Light Corporate Institute, 2014). The second step in an etfective volunteerism program is to secure support from top management, to encourage employee involvement across all levels. When top management is enthusiastic about a cause/program, it helps boost the volunteerism program, especially new ones. Collaboration among the government, private bodies, and non-profits helps in boosting external support for volunteerism programs. Additionally, formulating a specific managerial position for such program may have positive etfects. The third step is to develop policies for the program and assessment measures to ensure the initiatives meet the goals. The fourth step is to collectively celebrate the success of a program and publicize the efforts. In the context of NGOs, three steps have been established, viz. project meaningfulness, prospects for volunteers to employ their expertise, and volunteer experience through social support. Existing employee volunteer programs can be improvised by disclosing their objectives and performance. The programs should be planned so as to benefit the organization through employee engagement for high effectiveness. A Forbes article, dated January 18, 2012, stated that the higher the number of employees engaged in volunteer activities, the larger the profits. Highly engaged employees have been observed to have at least three times higher operating margin and four times higher EPS as compared to companies with low employee involvement. This highlights the fact that employee volunteering has an impact on the bottom line of the company, depending on how effectively the management matches the skillset with the interest of the employees.

Employee involvement in volunteerism practices: the case of PwC

There has been a considerable social progress in the world over the years (Porter, 2015). Despite significant reduction in poverty levels and improvements in the child mortality rates, still more than 71 million people are unemployed globally. A research conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) concluded that 88% of millennials tend to have a preference for companies with a well-defined and structured CSR program. A whopping 86% of millennials said they would not hesitate to quit their jobs if the CSR activities of the employer failed to meet their expectations. Keeping in the mind the changing mindset of prospective employees, in 2018, PwC set a highly ambitious target to invest in the development of 15 million people, NGOs, and social and micro enterprises, to enable them in capacity development and maximizing their potential by the year 2022 (PwC annual Report). PwC. through its extensive pool of skills, talent, and human resources within the organization, launched several employee volunteering programs to help create communities conducive to the growth of individuals, businesses, and society. These volunteering efforts at PwC intend to enable organizations tap diverse people to achieve positive change. PwC allows its staff to spend almost 7.5 hours annually participating in community development, which may be extended up to 15 hours. In the year 2019 alone, 925,000 hours were contributed by over 61,000 PwC employees. Of this, employees spent more than 676,000 hours sharing their professional competence and expertise (Table 6.2).

TABLE 6.2 Community investment by PwC





% Change

Cash and in kind donations





Volunteer hours





Pro bono and discounted engagements





Management costs





Total community investment






Volunteering at PwC

The prime emphasis is to invest in the next generation by helping young individuals upgrade their skillsets by developing mainly the digital and technology skills they would require to thrive in the new world. PwC encourages any not-for-profit or educational institute to register on their volunteering platform and then makes the volunteering opportunity available to employees. In the next stage, the opportunity is sent to the social impact team for review, where they match the required skills with the interest. Once the required skills are matched and are employees identified, they are allowed to volunteer at the required projects.

Skill-based volunteering: One of the most successful professional development programs from PwC over the years has been the skill-based volunteering program (SBV), where the professional skills of a volunteer are used in a different capacity to benefit non-profit organization. It is a practice implemented by PwC to use professional expertise in their volunteering projects (financial or strategic skills). PwC focuses on sharing skills in order to ‘Maximize the Potential' of individuals, by educating them in SMEs and NGOs. This has multi-fold benefits for the organization as well. Employees develop their day-to-day skills through participation in such programs. Research reveals that employees active in SBV programs acquire 142% higher job related skills as compared to their peers who participate in being traditional volunteers. Secondly, PwC suggests that employees develop other important skills away from the office, because it encourages them to break away from their comfort zone. PwC is involved in SBV activities like advisory (strategy formation, IT infrastructure, financial modelling, etc.), assurance (reporting and compliance), tax and legal services, and internal firm services (e.g., human resources, marketing, operations, branding, etc.).1

Overseas Community Projects (OCP) - PwC and the YMCA collaborate with each other to arrange for overseas community projects (OCPs), for employees to be involved in community activities across South East Asian countries. The activities range from educating youth to building schools and roads. Since 2005, PwC employees have volunteered at different levels in cities across six countries: Pathein, Phnom Penh, Shanghai, Sichuan, Siem Reap, Tambaliza, Luang Prabang, Koh Rokar, Ho Chi Minh, Dalat, and Bhakunde Besi. These volunteers focused on teaching of English and conducting skills-based workshops for employability and improving infrastructure.2

Arts@Work - This program uses art as a tool for idea generation, relaxation, team building, and employee engagement, with charity. In 2016, PwC conducted an art therapy workshop for children of several charitable organizations and engaged them with art.

Therapeutic massage by the visually impaired - As an attempt towards a more inclusive society, PwC in Singapore invited a mobile massage group from the Singapore Association of the Visually Handicapped (SAVH) to its offices to offer massage services to its staff.

Blood donation drive - PwC conducts annual blood donation drives to meet the rising demands for blood.

In its 2019 sustainability report, PwC sated that “they share their crucial assets - viz. skills, knowledge, and talent of their employees - with the society through community investments and volunteering programs, to create sustainable communities3”. To substantiate the statement, it launched the PwC Singapore Foundation to increase the firm’s reach and social impact.

Future research directions

Companies involved in social activities make a decision on the nature of activity they want to be involved in and the way they want to conduct such activity. They may focus on a single activity or a range of activities and make a choice on whether they are directly or indirectly involved in philanthropy. Being socially engaged in CSR through employee volunteerism is an idea that is gaining popularity among companies. Volunteer programs that require high levels of employee engagement are considered as maximizing the benefits of several stakeholders simultaneously. Strategic decisions of firms should therefore be constructed around the same premise. Volunteer programs of companies vary with the requirements of the community, interest of employees, and the nature of support provided by the firm. So generalizing the studies becomes difficult. Communicating about volunteer programs is another major issue faced by companies. Future studies could look for measures to analyze the nature and effectiveness of such programs. Firms can be analyzed separately based on the industry they operate in, the nature of support they provide to employees, and, most importantly, the effectiveness of such programs.


Employee volunteer programs have numerous advantages but also have a lot of apprehension surrounding it. These programs need to be backed by sufficient funds and political connections to ensure success. Employees volunteering for the same may lack the required level of skills required for an effective program; there may be issues in communicating about the program; there may be complications scheduling the nitty-gritties of the time, the schedules of employees volunteering; there may be legal issues in communicating whether it is mandatory or voluntary in nature, subject to relevant labor laws (Grensing-Pophal, 2013); etc. The liability of employers for injuries to employees during such projects is highly debatable. The firm should also ensure that the employee receives the type of support that he or she actually needs. This can be support in terms of paid leave for volunteering, flexible working hours, and other forms of support (MacPhail & Bowles, 2009).

Companies need to work on communicating the value of their volunteerism programs so that other companies follow suit and the scope of such activities increases. Employee volunteerism is one of the best practices that can be followed by companies for betterment of the business - internally and externally. It is one of the most effective ways to create value for multiple stakeholders in the long run.

Key terms and definitions

Community involvement: It means participating and sharing ideas within the community in which the business operates.

Corporate reputation: It is the perception of internal and external stakeholders regarding an organization, based on its past actions.

Corporate social responsibility: It is an internal self-regulation that contributes to the societal goals of a charitable nature, by supporting activities that benefit the society at large.

Employee engagement: It is the extent to which employees are highly involved with their jobs and organization, and put extraordinary effort into their work.

Employee involvement: It signifies participation by employees to help the organization meet its objectives.

Employee volunteerism: It is the process by which businesses contribute towards society through their employees. Employees are given leave with pay annually, where they volunteer for charitable causes that match their interests.

Stakeholder engagement: It is the process whereby an organization involves any party who is affected or who affects the business (Table 6.3).

TABLE 6.3 Details of company aided volunteerism programs in different companies

Deloitte: Employees working for Deloitte are provided unlimited paid time for volunteering. Jonathan Copulsky, Principal at Deloitte Consulting, suggests that these days employees are highly passionate about giving back. According to Jonathan, “With an increased focus on strengthening our nation’s workforce through our education and veterans initiatives, our people’s volunteer efforts are aimed not just at doing good but also at making a long-term, strategic impact where it matters”. Around 40,000 employees from Deloitte have participated in employee volunteerism. Further, around 28,000 employees from around 80 offices also took part in the company’s impact day, commonly known as “Deloitte’s annual day of service”.

Novo Nordisk: Company policy dictates that employees can get 80 hours of paid time off for volunteering. According to Dianna Blackman, Senior Director for corporate giving and social impact, the company follows a concept knows commonly as “Triple Bottom Line business model”. The policy dictates that Nordisk’s commitment to social responsibility is embedded in almost everything the company does. It is very important that every offsite meeting have a community service component. There is even a dedicated team for organizing community service projects, commonly known as “Novo Nordisk Social Awareness Team”. The company also launched a new portal for employee engagement in 2014, with prime emphasis on finding employee volunteer opportunities, known as “Changing Our Communities”. According to the company, for every project submitted, the company makes a monetary donation in the individual’s or team’s name to one of the company’s signature partner organizations.

NuStar: The company clocked around 93,000 hours of volunteering in 2014. Company policy dictates 80 hours of paid time for volunteering. NuStar hosts many events on annual basis including a golf tournament, which is linked to charity, and another one commonly known as “Casting for a Cause”, in which employees engage in fishing to raise money for the less fortunate, particularly homeless people. Patrick Thompson, an accountant for NuStar, who also serves as the vice president for the volunteer council, argues that he has consistently volunteered throughout his life and one of the prime motivations behind working for NuStar is its culture of volunteerism. According to him, these volunteering activities have helped him get closer to his colleagues. In Thompson’s words, “Those relationships have gone a long way”.

PCL Construction: The firm gives 50 hours off for volunteering to its employees. The

volunteering programs by the company are organized district-wise, which are meaningful in their respective locations. In Denver, over the last 30 years, the company has been organizing a volunteering program known as ‘Brother’s Redevelopment Paint-A-Thon’. The company also organizes volunteer days at the Rescue Mission, Mile High United Way. As far as recognition is concerned, the company has a “volunteer recognition luncheon” program, which gives employees a chance to win a $200 check for their charity of choice. Further, there is also a “Presidential Service Award” plaque, which is given to employees who have clocked over 250 hours of volunteering.

Salesforce: The company gives its employees 48 hours off for volunteering. It is considered one of the leaders in employee volunteerism with its innovative 1-1-1 philanthropy model. The model is all about utilizing 1% of employee time, technology, and resources to help improve communities around the world. Suzanne DiBianca, President of The Salesforce Foundation, stated that the program’s success can be gauged from the fact that it has translated into a million volunteer hours, which has further translated into $80 million grants. Salesforce products have donated to over 25,000 programs. As per DiBianca, “Were getting calls crazy off the hook,” implying that many other businesses have expressed keen interest in implementing a similar program. The company has also launched an application which tracks employee volunteer efforts.

NetApp: The firm provides 40 hours to its employees for volunteering work. According to the company, in 2014 around 3,500 employees volunteered and clocked 50,000 hours. Employees can work at a non-profit school of their choice for around 40 hours of paid time each year. Tim Calder has been with the company since 2002. He volunteers with the Alzheimer’s Association. He has helped raise tens of thousands of dollars for walks in states around the U.S. According to him NetApp is empowering people through its volunteer programs.

Stryker: The firm provides 40 hours to its employees. They have a policy of giving to

organizations that have an alignment with the company’s mission. To make healthcare better Stryker has raised $27.5 million worth of financial support and products. The company has numerous programs in which the employees actively participate. Employees are also given the flexibility so that they can volunteer within their communities. They also launched a volunteering program “Operation Smile”, which is a medical charity that performs safe, effective cleft lip and cleft palate surgery, especially for children.

Cadence: The company provides 40 hours to its employees for volunteering work. Their volunteer program has gone through many changes. A global fundraising effort is hosted by Cadence, called “Stars and Striker”, which is part of team building and fundraising for charity. The event was initially started as a bowling tournament for charity, however, employees had demanded more freedom and flexibility to do something more meaningful. Therefore, taking that into consideration, post-2008 the company decided to allow employees to use their paid volunteering time to do projects beyond the stars and strikes.

E.g., an employee now works with Project Cornerstone, which strives to make Silicon Valley a better place for young people.

Source: /companies-oft'er-incentives-for-volunteering/.


  • 1 based-volunteering-.
  • 2
  • 3


Allen, K., Galiano, M., & Hayes, S. (2011). Global companies volunteering globally: The final report of the Global Corporate Volunteering Research Project. Dulles, VA: International Association for Volunteer Effort.

Ameer, R., & Othman, R. (2012). Sustainability practices and corporate financial performance: A study based on the top global corporations. Journal of Business Ethics, 108(1): 61-79.

Bartel, C., Saavedra, R., & Van Dyne, L. (2001). Design conditions for learning in community service contexts .Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22: 367-385.

Basil, D., Runte, M., Easwaramoorthy, M., & Barr, C. (2009). Company support for employee volunteering: A national survey of companies in Canada. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(2): 387-398.

Bhattacharya, С. B., Sen, S., & Korschum D. (2008). Using corporate social responsibility to win the war for talent. Sloan Management Review, 49: 36-45.

Boccandro, B. (2009). Mapping success in employee volunteering: The drivers of effectiveness for employee volunteering and giving programs and Fortune 500 performance. Boston, MA: Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship.

Brammer, S. J., & Pavelin, S. (2006). Corporate reputation and social performance: The importance of fit. Journal of Management Studies, 43(3): 435-455.

Brown, W. A., & Ashcraft, R. F. (2005). Corporate employee volunteer programs: Considering the interests of multiple stakeholders. The Journal of Volunteer Administration, 23: 15-19.

Caligiuri, P., Mencin, A., & Jiang, K. (2013) Win—win—win: The influence of Company-sponsored volunteerism programs on employees, NGOs, and Business units. Personnel Psychology, 66: 825-860.

Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. The Academy of Management Review, 4(4): 497—505.

Caudron, S. (1994). Volunteer efforts offer low-cost training options. Personnel Journal, 74(6): 38-43.

Clarkson, M. В. E. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. The Academy of Management Review, 20(1): 92-117.

Clary, E., & Snyder, M. (1999). The motivations to volunteer: Theoretical and practical considerations. Current Directions in Psychological Science, S(5):156-159.

Community Involvement, PwC Singapore, Retrieved from - responsibility/our_approach_community.html

Cone. (2008). The 2006 Cone millennial cause study. Retrieved April 3, 2014, from http://www. 2006-millennial-cause-study

Cycyota, C. S., Ferrante, C. J., & Schroeder, J. M. (2016). Corporate social responsibility and employee volunteerism: What do the best companies do? Business Horizons, 59: 321-329.

Davidson, ). (1994). The case for corporate cooperation in community affairs. Business & Society Review, 90: 29-30.

De Roeck, K., El Akremi, A., & Swaen, V. (2016). Consistency matters! How and when does corporate social responsibility affect employees’ organizational identification? Journal of Management Studies, doi: 10.1111 /joins. 12216.

Farooq, O., Rupp, D., & Farooq, M. (2016). The multiple pathways through which internal and external corporate social responsibility influence organizational identification and multifoci outcomes: The moderating role of cultural and social orientations. Academy of Management Journal. doi:10.5465/amj. 2014.0849.

Finney M. (1997) Operations that build smiles, confidence, skills and community goodwill. HRM Magazine, 42(4): 110-116.

Freeman R. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder perspective. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Geroy, G. D.; Wright, P. C., & Jacoby, L. (2000). Toward a conceptual framework of employee volunteerism: An aid for the human resource manager. Management Decision, 38(4): 280-287.

Godfrey, P, & Hatch, N. (2007). Researching corporate social responsibility: An agenda for the 21st century. Journal of Business Ethics, 70(1): 87—98.

Grant, A. (2012). Giving time, time after time: Work design and sustained employee participation in corporate volunteering. Academy of Management Review, 47(4): 589-615.

Greening, D. W., & Turban, D. B. (2000). Corporate social performance as a competitive advantage in attracting a quality workforce. Business & Society, 39(3): 254-280.

Grensing-Pophal, L. (2013). Pitfalls of employee volunteerism and how to avoid them. Society for Human Resource Management. Retrieved from pages/employeevolunteerism.a spx

Hagenbuch, D. J., Little, S. W., & Lucas, D. J. (2015) Beyond association: How employees want to participate in their firms’ corporate social performance. Business and Society Review, 120(1): 83-113.

Hess, D., Rogovsky, N., & Dunfee, T. (2002). The next wave of corporate community involvement: Corporate social initiatives. California Management Review, 44(2): 110-125.

Huffman H., & Lober, D. (1995). Stakeholder benefits of a new conservation tool: Corporate wildlife habitat enhancement programs, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Duke University, Durham, NC.

Kim, H. R., Lee, M., Lee, H. T., tk Kim, N. M. (2010). Corporate social responsibility and employee- company identification. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(4): 557-569.

Korschun, D., Bhattacharya, С. B., tk Swain, S. D. (2014). Corporate social responsibility, customer orientation, and the job performance of frontline employees. Journal of Marketing, 78(3):

20- 37.

Langan, R., & Kumar, A. (2019). Time versus money: The role of perceived effort in consumers’ evaluation of corporate giving .Journal of Business Research, 99: 295-305.

Liu, G., & Ко, W. (2011). Social alliance and employee voluntary activities: A resource-based perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 104(2): 251-268.

MacPhail, F., & Bowles, P. (2009). Corporate social responsibility as support for employee volunteers: Impacts, gender puzzles, and policy implications in Canada .Journal of Business Ethics, 84(3): 405-416.

Mahoney, R. (1996). Taking the initiative on stakeholder rights, Business and Society Review, 97:

21- 26.

Marquis, C., & Kanter, R. M. (2010). IBM: The corporate service corporation. Harvard Business School Case, 9: 409106-PDF-ENG.

McGlone, T., Spain, J., & McGlone, V. (2011). Corporate social responsibility and the millennials. Journal of Education for Business, 86(4) : 195—200.

Miller, W. (1997). Volunteerism: A new strategic tool; companies see bottom-line results in programs encouraging employees to volunteer for community service. Industry Week, 246(16): 13-16.

Mirvis, P. (2012). Employee engagement and CSR: Transactional, relational, and developmental approaches. California Management Review, 54(4): 93-117.

Musick, M., tk Wilson, J. (2008). Volunteers: A social profile. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5: 14-37.

Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., & Rynes, S. L. (2003). Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-analysis. Organization Studies, 24(3): 403-441.

Pajo, K., tk Lee, L. (2011). Corporate-sponsored volunteering: A work design perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 99(3): 467-482.

Peloza, J., tk Hassay, D. N. (2006). Intra-organizational volunteerism: Good soldiers, good deeds and good politics. Journal of Business Ethics, 64(4): 357-379.

Peloza, J., Hudson, S., & Hassay, D. N. (2009) The marketing of employee volunteerism. Journal of Busittess Ethics, 85: 371. doi:10.1007/sl0551-008-9734-z

Points of Light Corporate Institute. (2014). The 7 practices of effective employee volunteer programs. Retrieved from

Porter, M. E. (2015). Social progress: The next development agenda. Social Progress Imperative, The World Bank. Retrieved March 14, 2020.

Porter, M. E., tk Kramer, M. R. (2006). Strategy and society: The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 84( 12): 4-17.

Porter, M. E., tk Kramer, M. R. (2011). Creating shared value. Harvard Business Review, 89( 1/2): 62-77.

Post, S. (2005). Altruism, happiness, and health: It’s good to be good. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 12: 66-77.

Pradhan, S. (2016). Impact of corporate social responsibility intensity on corporate reputation and financial performance of Indian firms. Business: Theory and Practice, 17(4): 371-380.

Pradhan, S. (2018). Role of CSR in the consumer decision making process. Social Responsibility Journal, 14(1): 138-158.

Rodell, J. (2013). Finding meaning through volunteering: Why do employees volunteer and what does it mean for their jobs? Academy of Management Journal, 56(5): 1274-1294.

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

Schwaiger, M. (2004). Components and parameters of corporate reputation - An empirical study. Schmalenbach Business Review, 56(1): 46-71.

Servaes, H., & Tamayo, A. (2013). The impact of corporate social responsibility on firm value: The role of customer awareness. Management Science, 59(5): 1045-1061.

Sieber, S. (1974). Toward a theory of role accumulation. American Sociological Review, 39: 567-578.

Smith, K. G., Collins, C. J., Sc Clark, K. D. (2005). Existing knowledge, knowledge creation capability, and the rate of new product introduction in high-technology firms. Academy of Management Journal, 48: 346-357.

Tian, Q., & Robertson, J. L. (2019). How and when does perceived CSR affect employees’ engagement in voluntary pro-environmental behavior? Journal of Business Ethics, 155: 399-412 https:// 0551-017-3497-3

Valentine, S., & Fleischman, G. (2008). Ethics programs, perceived corporate social responsibility and job satisfaction. Journal of Business Ethics, 77(2):159-172.

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

< Prev   CONTENTS   Source   Next >