Corporate human rights social responsibility and ... - IngentaConnect

0 downloads 0 Views 109KB Size Report
human rights social responsibility (CHRSR) on employee job outcomes among ... Keywords CSR, Africa, Human rights, Kenya, Employee retention, Employee ...
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/1754-243X.htm

IJLMA 56,2

152 Received 1 January 2013 Revised 22 October 2013 Accepted 22 October 2013

Corporate human rights social responsibility and employee job outcomes in Kenya Thomas Kimeli Cheruiyot and Loice Chemngetich Maru Department of Management Science, School of Business and Economics, Moi University, Eldoret, Kenya Abstract Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to identify dimensionality and evaluate effect of corporate human rights social responsibility (CHRSR) on employee job outcomes among three leading Kenya’s horticultural exporters based in Naivasha, Kenya. Design/methodology/approach – Exploratory and explanatory survey was utilized on a sample of 450 employees selected using a multistage sampling technique. Structured questionnaire was used to extract both nominal and ordinal data, the latter’s items were anchored on a five-point Likert scale. Descriptive, principal component analysis (PCA) and multiple regression was used to analyze the data. Findings – PCA of 32 items representing CHRSR yielded ten components while that of employee job outcomes yielded seven components reflecting the multidimensional nature of the constructs. Results showed that the selected firms have largely satisfied both HR and moral expectations. Regression results showed generally significant effect of CHRSR on employee job outcomes such as employee retention, satisfaction, commitment and pride. Research limitations/implications – A business case for CHRSR exists. This implies that compliance with the law, adoption of HR-related corporate social responsibility (CSR) is critical in enhancing employee job outcomes and overall organization performance. Originality/value – The study integrates CSR and HR into CHRSR. It demonstrates its multidimensional nature and utilizes statistical analysis to explore its relationship with employee job outcomes in an African export sector context and argues that CSRHR is more critical in Africa than more regulated contexts. Keywords CSR, Africa, Human rights, Kenya, Employee retention, Employee satisfaction, Corporate human rights social responsibility, Flower exporters, Labor rights Paper type Research paper

International Journal of Law and Management Vol. 56 No. 2, 2014 pp. 152-168 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1754-243X DOI 10.1108/IJLMA-01-2013-0002

Introduction Organization studies on human rights (HR) and corporate social responsibility (CSR) have been fragmented and asymmetrical. In retrospect, few studies on HR have been linked to CSR and vice versa. Accordingly, studies on HR have been peripheral to organization studies, and thus setting HR and the corporate organization worlds apart (Lozano and Prandi, 2005). Whilst, concern for HR in Africa has been on the rise, this has not been commensurate with rise in scholarly work. Until very recently, HR has played a rather minimal and peripheral role in the conceptualization of CSR (Wettstein, 2009). Consequently, CSR has been prominently perceived as internal, and HR as external to the organization. The authors wish to sincerely thank the Guest Editors: Dr Hakeem Yusuf and Dr Ismail Adelopo and the two anonymous reviewers for their most valuable comments on the earlier manuscripts.

This paper argues that concern for HR is gaining currency among organizations in poor countries (Welford, 2002), particularly in African enterprises and contexts (Cheruiyot and Maru, 2012), partially because of social legislation that is apparently less comprehensive and poorly enforceable. More knowledge is critical, since despite most CSR studies focusing on social and environmental initiatives, CSR discourse associated with HR lags well behind (Utting, 2007), especially so in many African contexts. In Kenya, recent promulgation of a new constitution (KLR, 2010) with rich bill of rights provisions (Articles 41-44) has been lauded as a milestone in HR agenda in the country. This offers a stronger framework for the protection of among others economic, social and cultural rights. Furthermore, given the global context of export firms in Kenya, the implications for CSR and HR are dire. Inevitably, firms must meet global CSRHR standards for their products to be accepted globally. In Kenyan case, horticultural exports to Europe is contingent upon meeting confirmed international labor standards at home (Cheruiyot and Maru, 2012). Specifically, and in the context of the selected firms, the purpose of the article is three fold: (1) to explore dimensions of corporate human rights social responsibility (CHRSR) practices; (2) to examine dimensions of employee job outcomes; and (3) to evaluate effect of CHRSR on employee job outcomes. This paper is organized as follows; first, we clarify the concepts of CSR, HR and CHRSR, explore the link between CHRSR and employee job outcomes and finally, we provide study methodology, results, conclusions and implications. Corporate social responsibility and human rights While some argue that CSR and HR have different meanings, others argue that indeed the two concepts are similar. Thus, CSR is a fuzzy concept with unclear boundaries and debatable legitimacy (Lantos, 2001). And also a transversal issue that impacts the organization in many different ways. Variously described as an oxymoron, arising from its duplicity and multiple initiatives, CSR remains an embryonic and contestable concept (Winsor, 2006). However, the meaning and value of CSR may differ in various contexts, depending on local factors including culture, environmental conditions and legal framework (Galbreath, 2006). Accordingly, different cultures will emphasize different values (Burton et al., 2000) leading to lack of universal CSR and HR position in Africa. CSR represents the commitment by firms to behave reasonably and responsibly and contribute to local economic development while improving quality of life of its employees and the local community (Cheruiyot, 2009). More significantly, CSR is essentially about companies combining economic, social, environmental and HR interests for the good of the company and its stakeholders (European Commission, 2001). Prior studies on CSR generally and employee CSR/HR in particular have provided little attention to African unique situations (Aguilera et al., 2007; Cheruiyot and Maru, 2012). This is critical since HR is the most legitimate and universal framework for determining social dimension of business responsibility and issues of corporate governance. It is based on the internationally agreed standards including the universal declaration of HR. Studies on CSR/HR in African organizations are critical, increasingly because of the continent’s rise in global significance.

Corporate human rights social responsibility 153

IJLMA 56,2

154

From CSR and HR to CHRSR Relationship between CSR and HR is not properly understood with some scholars characterizing them as diametrically unique. While CSR approach tends to be top-down and voluntary, HR is bottom-up, moral and legalistic, with the individual at the centre, not the corporation (Avery, 2006). HR is based on the inherent dignity of every person. They are those basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled. Companies are obliged to respect HR at all times, not just when it suits them. It is rooted in law. Respecting and protecting them is not a matter of choice. It should be part of a mainstream strategy not just as part of its CSR strategy. On the other hand, firms not adopting a HR framework could be fundamentally exposing themselves to risk. While CSR takes a normative approach as it deals with what and how companies should act (Wettstein, 2009), HR is positive since it is based on inherent dignity of every person with basic rights and freedoms, and therefore is universal, indivisible, interdependent and interrelated. CSR is ethical and discretionary in nature (Carroll, 1979). HR debate has focused on negativism, while CSR has hinged on both responsibility and irresponsibility of corporations (Cheruiyot and Tarus, 2012). The above notwithstanding, it is practically untenable for HR and CSR to be separate. Since CSR acts as a normative concept, HR must be central other than peripheral to the practical application of CSR. The legal basis of HR underscores the end to its voluntary nature. CHRSR is therefore CSR seen from the legal prism of HR. It is clear that the discretionary nature of CSR and the legal nature of HR could be denoted as CHRSR. Several authors have attested to the reactive nature of organizations responding to external rather than internal stimulus (Vogel, 2005; Silberhorn and Warren, 2007). Societal development such as the mass media and civil society activism exert control by making company behavior public (Pinkston and Carroll, 1996; Maignan and Ralston, 2002). The pressure increases with supporting legislation on CSR (Silberhorn and Warren, 2007). It is this legally induced CSR that appears bent on transforming corporate behavior. This enhances HR approaches to CSR. In Africa, clear understanding of CHRSR is critical towards practical reversal of perceived HR abuse predominant in African states, institutions and enterprises. Conceptually, features of CHRSR are derived from general characteristics of HR and is denoted as inherent, fundamental, inalienable, imprescriptible, indivisible, universal and interdependent. The integration of CSR and HR and its African contextual relevance calls for an extended focus on exploring dimensionality of CHRSR. Accordingly, it is proposed that: Ho1. CHRSR is multidimensional in nature. Employee job outcomes Whilst some literature focus on labor rights as antecedent to employee job outcomes (Cheruiyot and Maru, 2012) others allude to impact of organizational justice on employee satisfaction and commitment (Ishak and Alam, 2009; Folger and Cropanzano, 1998). The fragmentation in the literature and its diffuse nature could be as a result of among others its multidimensionality. This is particularly critical in African unique work environment. We therefore propose that: Ho2. Employee job outcomes is multidimensional in nature.

Link between CHRSR and employee job outcomes Many scholars conceive CSR as encompassing internal and external dimensions (Jamali et al., 2008). Internally, CSR concerns according due diligence to internal stakeholders by addressing issues such as skills and education, workplace safety, working conditions, human and labor rights, equity considerations, equal opportunity and health and safety ( Jones et al., 2005). External CSR focus on diligence to their external economic, social stakeholders and the natural environment (Munilla and Miles, 2005). This growing body of literature suggests that a firm’s involvement in CSR efforts influence stakeholders’ generalized reaction to the organization. However, relatively neglected in the literature are current and prospective employees as a critical stakeholder group. Inside the firm, attention to CSR could enhance employees’ response to the work environment. As critical stakeholders, employees seek for signals that the organization is concerned with, among others: employee development and advancement, workforce diversity and overall work environment. Such social responsiveness, could lead to improved job attitudes, increased productivity, reduced turnover and general job satisfaction. It satisfies employees’ social requirements of the firm (Valentine and Fleischman, 2008). Since HR is the basis of most CSR practices, it is expected that CHRSR will equally cause positive employee job outcomes as indicated by positive employee perception of the firms CSR activities. The centrality of CHRSR could enhance the congruence between the need of the company and the needs of employees. Contrary to this, when organizations translate moral considerations into strictly utilitarian terms, it leads to individual conflict and cognitive dissonance (Shafer, 2002). Cultivating an integrated HR and CSR activities is likely to create a work situation that yield a greater connection to the immediate employee job outcomes, as well as the broader organizational performance. It is therefore proposed that: Ho3. There are significant effects of CHRSR on employee job outcomes. Study methodology Research design Combination of exploratory and explanatory survey designs was utilized to study relatively unexplored HR-CSR issues and further explain phenomena. Exploratory survey was used to elicit perceptions on HR and CSR. This research design is appropriate for such complex issues. Exploratory studies are appropriate for phenomena that are relatively neglected and require better understanding and explanatory design provides an opportunity to correlate and relate the variables under study (Hair et al., 2006). Sampling design A sample size of 450 employee respondents was drawn from a target population of over 5,000 employees from three largest horticultural exporters in Kenya. The sample size was deemed adequate for large population size. A multistage sampling method was employed. First, purposive sampling of three largest multinational companies in Naivasha, Kenya was adopted. Second, systematic sampling method was employed to select lower level employees in the three multinationals using their payroll numbers with a cap on the maximum sample size of 150 each per company. A structured questionnaire was personally administered to the respondents alongside an introduction letter with guarantee of anonymity and confidentiality.

Corporate human rights social responsibility 155

IJLMA 56,2

156

The questionnaire was pretested prior to the study and a pilot test carried out in another company in Kenya. Few issues identified in the pretest and in the pilot study were addressed before the field study. Measurement and operationalization of variables CHRSR instrument was originally developed by the researchers from the provisions of Universal Declaration of HR Articles 23-25 and then converted into five-point Likert scale. Article 23 provides for the rights as follows: . the right to work, free choice of employment, just and favorable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment; . without any discrimination, the right to equal pay for equal work; . the right to just and favorable remuneration, to guarantee for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection; and . the right to form and join trade unions for the protection of his interests. Similarly, Article 24 provides that everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay. Finally, Article 25 provides the right to: . A standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. . Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance and all children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection. Other major provisions in the instrument are labor rights, right to social security and right to family life. Specifically, satisfaction with overall employee rights, level of job security, amount of pay, personal growth and development opportunities, degree of respect received from supervisor and current duties. Others included working conditions in respect to justice, pride of belonging to and associating with the organizations team, owing to working environment or contingent on available job opportunities; consideration of leaving the organization or actively searching for a new job. Individual profile and behavior such as focus on personal needs, skills and family and less on other people issues, focus on job performance, introvert or extrovert, organization commitment, team player, congruency of organization and personal values and labor union membership and understanding of labor rights. On the other hand, employee job outcomes instrument on such concepts as employee satisfaction, retention and commitment was modified from Cheruiyot and Maru (2012). This later instrument was originally developed from job diagnostic survey (Hackman and Oldham, 1975; Hom and Griffieth, 1991). All the items were turned into a five-point Likert-scale questionnaire (where 1 – strongly disagree, 2 – disagree, 3 – neutral, 4 – agree and 5 – strongly agree) in which a sample of 450 employees were asked to elicit perceptions about their level of agreement or otherwise on CHRSR and employee job outcomes.

Data analysis procedure Prior to data analysis and to standardize the instrument, internal consistency was examined using Cronbach’s a coefficient. This was found to be acceptable (a ¼ 0.818). Data was then sequentially analyzed using three main analytical methods; principal component analysis (PCA) with orthogonal rotation utilized to extract factor loadings and dimensions and finally multiple regression analysis. The performance indicator was subjected to factor analysis for purification of the items given the factorability was acceptable following Kaiser Meyer Olkin measure of sampling adequacy and significant Bartletts test of sphericity. Significant values of , 0.5 were suppressed and items that contributed significant values to more than one component deleted. Preliminary review of construct validity, multi-correlation and normality was done. We validated for the absence of multi-collinearity problem using variance inflation factor (VIF). Since all the VIF values were , 2.0, they were acceptable. Conventionally, other studies have utilized VIF values not exceeding recommended threshold of ten (Cheruiyot and Maru, 2013). Study results This section provides descriptive statistics, factor analyses of CHRSR and finally multiple regression analysis on the effect of CHRSR on employee job outcomes. Response rate and employee profile A total of 450 questionnaires were utilized from respondents. Details on respondent age, education level and current job experience, overall work experience and overall CHRSR perceptions were elicited. Results showed that work experience for respondents was 7.2 years (r ¼ 4.4), overall working experience ranged between one to 30 years and one to 20 years in their current job. As for age, majority 84.1 percent, were between 26 and 45 years. There was employee diversity in the organization as indicated by the variation in their job experience. CHRSR practices CHRSR perceptions showed that respondents somewhat strongly agreed that the job/employer provided for limited working hours and regular, paid holidays, job/employer guaranteed the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, employer provided paid leave/adequate social security to mothers before and after childbirth, they have the right to form and join trade unions at their workplace and also that the employer provided social insurance scheme during maternity. This was demonstrated by mean . 4.0. Overall on this score, the status of the CHRSR in the three selected firms is positive (Table I). Details on what was elicited from each respondent is provided in Tables I and II, such that the former provides descriptive statistics for CHRSR and the later on employee job outcomes. Status of employee job outcomes It was demonstrated that respondents somewhat disagreed that they think, plan or have an intention to quit the organization. They also disagreed that they were satisfied with the amount of pay that they receive. This was demonstrated by mean , 3.0 on both items. Respondents also strongly indicated that they understand their labor rights. Most employee outcomes have high scores indicated by mean . 4.0,

Corporate human rights social responsibility 157

IJLMA 56,2

158

Table I. Descriptive statistics for CHRSR practices

CHRSR (Cronbach’s a ¼ 0.818)

Mean SD

I work under just conditions I work under favorable conditions We have the right to form and join trade unions in our workplace Our social security/insurance is comprehensive and guarantees our future My family life including parental leave is guaranteed by my employer My job/employer guarantee adequate standard of living/continuous improvement of living conditions My job/employer guarantee the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health My education background has guaranteed my full development and sense of dignity My employer/job has promoted and supported my participation in cultural life I feel guaranteed equal access to employment opportunities in the work place I have not faced any discrimination in the workplace We feel the highest level of decency at work I feel we have a fair equal pay for equal work policy My job/employer policy provide a decent living for workers and their dependents My job/employer provide for sufficient rest and leisure My job/employer provide for limited working hours and regular, paid holidays My job/employer policy protects the right to strike I have social insurance scheme to protect against risks of sickness/disability/employment injury My employer provides social insurance scheme maternity I feel the benefits from social insurance scheme is adequate and accessible to all I feel the benefits from social insurance scheme is provided without discrimination My employer provides paid leave/adequate social security to mothers before and after childbirth My employer protects children from economic and social exploitation My job/employer sets a minimum age of employment My job/employer guarantees the right to secure, peaceful and dignified housing I am guaranteed adequate privacy, space, security, lighting and ventilation I am guaranteed adequate basic infrastructure and location with regard to work and basic facilities My employer ensure security of tenure free of discrimination Employer ensures free access to clean water, sanitation, food, nutrition and housing Access to clean water, sanitation, food, housing and nutrition is without discrimination My employer has taken specific steps to improve environmental and workplace health My employer has taken specific steps to create conditions to ensure equal and timely access

3.96 3.12 4.08 3.61 3.75

0.92 1.41 1.10 1.02 0.97

3.88

0.91

4.14 3.81 3.76 3.74 3.42 3.59 3.31a 3.64a 2.97 4.26 3.85

0.88 1.09 1.01 1.17 1.24 1.09 2.77 2.04 1.34 0.91 0.92

3.87 4.13 3.57 3.46

0.97 0.91 1.20 1.16

4.16 3.91a 3.93 3.29 3.10

1.06 1.67 1.35 1.18 1.17

3.32 3.52 3.39 3.48 3.99a

1.34 1.10 1.21 1.23 2.28

3.74

1.09

a

Notes: Perceptions not conforming to normal distribution; based on five-point Likert scale: where 1 – strongly disagree, 2 – disagree, 3 – neutral, 4 – agree and 5 – strongly agree

showing that despite their dissatisfaction with pay they are still motivated by their job and organization. There were high scores in regard to employee job outcomes such as retention, satisfaction, commitment and organization pride (Table II). Dimensions of CHRSR. To identify multidimensionality of CHRSR, 32 items representing the CHRSR practices were subjected to PCA with varimax rotation. This procedure yielded ten dimensions, thus confirming the multidimensional nature of the concept. The ten extracted CHRSR dimensions systematically labeled based on their conceptual indicators and factor loadings are listed and explained below:

Perceived employee job outcomes I am satisfied with the level of job security I am satisfied with the amount of pay that I receive I am satisfied with personal growth and development opportunities in the firm I am satisfied with the degree of respect I receive from the supervisor I am satisfied with my current duties I am proud of belonging to the organizations team I often think of leaving the organization It is very likely that I will actively look for a new job in the next year Owing to the work environment, will leave the organization in the very near future I will leave given an opportunity in another organization I work hard beyond normal expectations in order to help our firm succeed I really care about the fate of this organization This organization really inspires the best in me I am proud to tell others that I am part of this organization My values and organization values are similar I am satisfied with organizations overall employee rights I value working as a team to achieve individual goals I focus on my personal needs, skills and family and less on other people issues My main focus is job performance I belief personal success is possible in this organization Outside the workplace I like participating in outdoor activities Outside the workplace I like staying home Labor union membership is a waste of time I understand my labor rights

Mean

SD

3.70 2.79 3.41 3.84 3.88 3.91 2.57 2.35 2.67 3.04 4.15 4.17 4.04 4.25 4.05 4.03 4.28 4.07 3.81 3.75 3.58 2.20 2.52 4.50

1.35 1.47 1.34 0.94 1.20 1.30 1.53 1.47 1.55 1.53 1.07 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.03 1.09 1.05 0.94 1.35 1.52 1.70 1.38 1.50 0.77

Note: Based on five-point Likert scale: where 1 – strongly disagree, 2 – disagree, 3 – neutral, 4 – agree and 5 – strongly agree

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

job-related rights; right to equality and social protection; right to social insurance; right to social guarantee; right to secure and adequate facilities; right to just and favorable work conditions; right to decency rest and leisure at work; right to strike; right to adequate and improved standard of living; and right to protection of children and mothers.

Component (1) was designated as job-related rights. It consists of seven broad job-related items with their factor loadings that included: job guarantee of highest attainable standard of physical and mental health (0.58), education background guarantee full development and sense of dignity (0.71), job promotion and support of participation in cultural life (0.56) guarantee of equal access to employment opportunities (0.52), existence of a minimum age of employment (0.57), available security of tenure free of discrimination (0.50) and specific steps to create conditions to

Corporate human rights social responsibility 159

Table II. Descriptive statistics for employee job outcomes

IJLMA 56,2

160

ensure equal and timely access (0.68). Similarly, component (2) was denoted as; right to equality and social protection that consisted of three items including: having not faced any discrimination in the workplace (0.76), having social insurance scheme to protect against risks of sickness, disability employment injury (0.71) and access to clean water, sanitation, food, housing and nutrition without discrimination (0.66). Component (3) designated as right to social insurance, consisted of the feeling that benefits from social insurance scheme are adequate and accessible to all (0.82) and feeling the benefits from social insurance scheme are provided without discrimination (0.87). Component (4) denoted as right to social guarantee, consisted of three items namely; having the right to form and join trade unions in the workplace (0.72), social security/insurance being comprehensive and guarantees their future (0.62) and family life including parental leave being guaranteed by employer (0.65) In addition, component (5) designated as right to secure and adequate facilities had two components contributing to it, thus; guarantees of the right to secure, peaceful and dignified housing (0.69) and guarantee to adequate basic infrastructure and location with regard to work and basic facilities (2 0.82). And component (6) namely the right to just and favorable work conditions consisted of three items; working under favorable (0.69) and just conditions (0.70) and having a fair equal pay for equal work policy (0.51). Furthermore, component (7) denoted as right to decency, rest and leisure at work had three items contributed to this dimension, namely: we feel the highest level of decency at work (2 0.50), my employer provides social insurance scheme during maternity (2 0.50) and my job provide for sufficient rest and leisure (0.71). Components (8) and (9), which is the right to strike, and right to adequate and improved standard of living, respectively, has one item each. These were; job policy protects the right to strike (0.79) and guarantee adequate standard of living/continuous improvement of living conditions (0.61), respectively. Finally, component (10) namely rights of children and mothers had two items: employer provides paid leave/adequate social security to mothers before and after childbirth (0.70) and employer protects children from economic and social exploitation (0.60). Dimensions of employee job outcomes. To test for multidimensionality of employee job outcomes, 24 items were subjected to PCA and varimax rotation, which yielded seven dimensions, confirming the multidimensional nature of employee job outcomes. The seven extracted dimensions labeled based on their conceptual indicators and factor loadings are hereby listed and explained hereinafter: (1) employee retention; (2) sense of organization commitment; (3) sense of employee satisfaction; (4) employee job orientation; (5) sense of organization pride; (6) employee satisfaction with pay and sense of possible success; and (7) employee sense of self. Component (1) denoted as employee retention had four items that include: often thinking of leaving the organization (0.79), very likelihood of actively looking for a new job the following year (0.65), owing to the work environment, intention to leave the organization in very near future (0.89) and leaving is contingent on getting an

opportunity in another organization (0.75). Similarly, component (2) designated as sense of organization commitment consisted of four items namely: working hard beyond normal expectations in order to help the firm succeed (0.74), really caring about the fate of the organization (0.69), satisfaction with organization’s overall employee rights (0.63) and having to value working as a team to achieve individual goals (0.67). Furthermore, components (3) and (4) denoted as sense of employee satisfaction and employee job orientation, respectively, had three items each. Whilst component (3) had satisfaction with; personal growth and development opportunities in the firm (0.81), degree of respect received from supervisor (0.61) and with current duties (0.62), component (4) had; main focus being job performance (2 0.63), participating in outdoor activities (2 0.73) and perceiving labor union membership as a waste of time (0.74). Similarly, component (5) denoted as sense of organization pride, component (6) as employee satisfaction with pay and sense of possible success and component (7) as employee sense of self, each yielded two items. These are: pride of belonging to the organizations team (0.78) and proud of telling others that he is part of the organization (0.52); satisfaction with the amount of pay received (0.76) and belief personal success is possible in the organization (2 0.74); and focus on personal needs, skills and family and less on other people issues (0.78) and understanding of labor rights (0.50), respectively. Effect of CHRSR on employee job outcomes. To test the third hypothesis, several multiple regression models were tested systematically so that each of the seven identified dimensions of employee job outcomes in turn were regressed against the ten CHRSR dimensions and the results are summarized in Table III. The linear multiple regression model was as follows: y ¼ a0 þ b1 x1 þ · · · þ b10 x10 þ e where: y is a set of employee job outcomes, such that: y1

¼ employee retention.

y2

¼ sense of organization commitment.

y3

¼ sense of employee satisfaction.

y4

¼ employee job orientation.

y5

¼ sense of organization pride.

y6

¼ employee satisfaction with pay and sense of possible success.

y7

¼ employee sense of self.

and: x1, . . . , x10 are CHRSR dimensions, such that: x1

¼ job-related rights.

x2

¼ right to equality and social protection.

x3

¼ right to social insurance.

x4

¼ right to social guarantee.

Corporate human rights social responsibility 161

0.98 3.726 * * * 0.26 0.24

2 0.353 2 1.06 0.36 0.35

2 2.74 * * * 2.51 * *

0.22

2 0.63 2 4.07 * * * 2 1.20

2 1.12

2.97 * * * 2.31 * * 1.12

2 1.46 2 3.84 * * * 2 4.61 * * * 1.37

7.56 * * * 4.29 * * *

19.17 * * * 2 4.98 * * *

Note: Significant at: *10, * *5 and * * *1 percent levels

(Constant) Job-related rights Right to equality and social protection Right to social insurance Right to social guarantee Right to secure and adequate facilities Right to just and favorable work conditions Right to decency, rest, and leisure Right to strike Right to adequate and improved standard of living Right to protection of children and mothers R2 Adjusted R 2

Independent variable

Table III. Regression results of effect of CHRSR on employee job outcomes Retention (t ¼ b/1)

3.46 * * *

2.64 * * *

2 1.56 0.20 0.27

0.62

3.22 * * * 0.12 0.09

1.00

2 1.58 0.34

0.210

2.11 * *

1.96 * 1.93 *

0.476 3.84 * * * 2 4.15 * * *

11.70 * * * 2 1.77 *

2.23 * * 2 2.34 * * 0.82

2.47 * * 5.60 * * *

Satisfaction (t ¼ b/1)

1.12 0.27 0.26

21.65 *

2.35 * * 21.26

22.23 * *

22.99 * * *

2.36 * * 20.29 20.15

5.05 * * * 8.23 * * *

Dependent variable Employee job orientation Organization (t ¼ b/1) pride (t ¼ b/1)

20.13 0.11 0.09

2.72 * * *

20.91 1.18

2.82 * * *

2.88 * * *

0.80 0.97 1.07

4.59 * * * 0.15

Satisfaction with pay/ sense of possible success (t ¼ b/1)

162

Organization commitment (t ¼ b/1)

0.99 0.02 0.001

0.12

2 0.23 0.20

0.48

1.52

0.35 0.83 2 0.25

13.44 * * * 0.66

Sense of self (t ¼ b/1)

IJLMA 56,2

x5

¼ right to secure and adequate facilities.

x6

¼ right to just and favorable work conditions.

x7

¼ right to decency rest and leisure at work.

x8

¼ right to strike.

x9

¼ right to adequate and improved standard of living.

x10

¼ right to protection of children and mothers.

a0

¼ intercept.

b1-b10 ¼ regression coefficients. e

¼ error term.

Regression results showed that while there was a significant negative effect of job-related rights on employee retention and significant positive effect on employee commitment, satisfaction and organization pride (r # 0.001), there was no significant effect on satisfaction with pay and sense of possible success and sense of self. Results further showed that job-related rights also affect employee job orientation (r # 0.1). Thus, employee retention corresponds negatively with job-related rights situation in a business enterprise. Job-related rights are quite critical for all other organizational activities. Second, the results of regression of right to equality and social protection dimension on employee job outcomes showed that it had significant effect on organization commitment (r # 0.001), employee satisfaction (r # 0.01) and organization pride (r # 0.01). It also showed that the dimension did not have significant effect on employee retention, employee job orientation, sense of self and satisfaction with pay and sense of success in the organization. Third, the right to social insurance was found to have a significant negative effect on employee retention (r # 0.001) and satisfaction (r # 0.01), and positive effect on organization commitment (r # 0.01) and employee job orientation (r # 0.001). However, it had no significant effect on organization pride, sense of self and satisfaction with pay and sense of success in the organization. Fourth, the right to social guarantee was found to have a significant negative effect on employee retention and employee job orientation and no significant effect on the rest of employee job outcomes. Fifth, the right to secure and adequate facilities, was found to have significant positive effect on employee satisfaction (r # 0.001) and satisfaction with pay and sense of possible success (r # 0.001). However, it had negative effect on organization pride (r # 0.001). Additionally, right to just and favorable work conditions showed a significant positive effect (r # 0.001) on employee satisfaction, employee job orientation and satisfaction with pay and sense of possible success. It also showed a negative effect on organization pride (r # 0.01) and no effect on organization commitment and employee retention. Moreover, right to decency, rest and leisure was found to have a significant negative effect on employee retention and organization commitment both at r # 0.001, and positive effect on employee satisfaction (r # 0.001) and organization pride (r # 0.01).

Corporate human rights social responsibility 163

IJLMA 56,2

164

Furthermore, right to strike showed significant positive effect on organization commitment (r # 0.001) and on employee satisfaction (r # 0.1). However, it had no significant effect on the rest of the employee job outcomes. Nonetheless, right to adequate and improved standard of living showed a significant negative effect on organization pride (r # 0.1) and strong positive significant effect on satisfaction with pay and sense of possible success (r # 0.001). Finally, the dimension of right to protection of children and mothers showed significant positive effect on organization commitment and employee job orientation (r # 0.001) and no significant effects on the rest of employee job outcomes. Conceptual model for effect of CHRSR on employee job outcomes is shown in Figure 1. The focus of the model is to demonstrate the expected effect of CHRSR on employee job outcomes. Discussion, conclusions and implications This article explored the dimensionality of CHRSR and employee job outcomes in a Kenyan context among three leading flower-exporting firms. Further, it examined the link between the two constructs. Apart from establishing the multidimensionality of the constructs, findings also showed a clear link between CHRSR and employee job outcomes. As earlier reported, PCA results on CHRSR items revealed ten components underlying the overall CHRSR practices in the selected firms. Such components for instance job-related rights and right to equality and social protection contributed more to CHRSR practices in the study, whereas right to; social insurance, social guarantee, secure and adequate facilities, just and favorable work conditions, decency, rest and leisure, strike, adequate and improved standard of living and protection of children and mothers had relatively smaller contributions as indicated by their respective factor loadings. Important CHRSR components include those that could be classified as individual and social rights. Such delineation implies that rights related to intrinsic satisfaction are more critical in such enterprises compared to extrinsic related satisfaction. Motivating factors responsible for this approach to CHRSR may range from among others: the firm’s motivation to promote employee productivity, compliance with the law and morality and fear of reputational loss. In Kenya, the CHRSR status in flower-exporting firms has been shaped by external factors than genuine desire to be moral. Similarly, seven employee job outcomes that included: employee retention, organization commitment, employee satisfaction, sense of organization pride, satisfaction with pay and sense of possible success and employee sense of self was extracted from the PCA procedure. This outcome demonstrated the dimensionality of employee job outcomes in Africa generally, and Kenya in particular. Finally, the regression results demonstrated the effect of firm’s CHRSR practices on employee job outcomes. In spite of the variation in the magnitude and direction of the effect, CHRSR influenced significantly employee job outcomes. However, it was observed that sense of self was the only component that was not significantly influenced by any independent variable, a surprising finding. Furthermore, employee job outcomes are linked to the CHRSR practices that have more intrinsic-related rights and hence attract, retain, cause commitment and generally satisfy employees. Two caveats however need to be highlighted in regard to the study. One is that generalizability should be made with caution given that CHRSR and employee job outcomes could vary over time and across cultural contexts. This study applies generally to African cultural setting and Kenyan particularly.

Dimensions of Employee Job Outcomes

Dimensions of Corporate Human Rights Social Responsibility

Corporate human rights social responsibility 165

Job related rights

Right to equality and social protection

Employee retention

Right to social insurance

Sense of organization commitment

Right to social guarantee

Right to secure and adequate facilities Right to just and favorable work conditions Right to decency rest and leisure at work

Right to strike

Right to adequate/ improved standard of living

Sense of employee satisfaction Affects Employee job orientation

Sense of organizational price

Employee satisfaction with pay and sense of possible success

Employee sense of self

Rights of children and mothers

Source: Survey Data (2013)

Second caveat is regarding the interpretation of R 2 as a measure of model fit. On the overall, most of the R 2 values were acceptable (between 0.20 and 0.36), except for satisfaction with pay (R 2 ¼ 0.11), sense of self (R 2 ¼ 0.02) and employee job orientation (R 2 ¼ 0.12). However, this does not invalidate the results of the regression analysis. This is informed by the fact that no generalizable statement can be made

Figure 1. Conceptual effect of CHRSR on employee job outcomes

IJLMA 56,2

about acceptable threshold values of R 2 (Stevens, 1999). It is also clear that several other factors are responsible for various R 2 values and that different disciplines have different thresholds of what is acceptable R 2 value. Social sciences and behavioral research could accept as significant, R 2 values in the range of 0.4-0.6 and up to 0.2, respectively, (Rosenthall et al., 2000).

166

Implications for the study The instrumental utility of CHRSR is not without basis. Several study implications could be derived for organizational practice, policy and further research. In regard to implications for organization practice, corporations should pursue CHRSR friendly policies. Pursuit of social and individual rights such as social insurance, family friendly programs, providing for decency, rest and leisure among others could be particularly helpful in employee retention, because it is a product of both psychological and socio-economic factors. Results show that psychosocial state of employees is linked to the CHRSR practices and thus it is clear that psychological factors have a profound effect on ability of the enterprises to promote employee retention and organization commitment. Second, findings show that firms could utilize CHRSR as instruments of organization performance. For instance CHRSR could be instrumental in promoting organization pride, as they could among others, provide sufficient guarantee of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, ensure that educational background could guarantee full personal development and sense of dignity of employees, enhance and support employee participation in cultural life and guarantee equal access to employment opportunities, set a minimum age of employment, ensure security of tenure free of discrimination and finally take specific steps to create conditions to ensure equal and timely access to basic necessities. Third, since employee satisfaction is critical for any organization, CHRSR is particularly instrumental in assuring employees job-related rights, right to just and favorable work conditions, right to equality and social protection, right to social insurance and also right to secure and adequate facilities. Traditionally, HR was envisaged as crucial for self-confidence and human development. Since the study paradoxically revealed that sense of self could not be influenced by any of the CHRSR components, further research should focus on such paradox. In addition, focus should also be directed to smaller exporting firms, to clarify if the trends are similar. Inter-country comparisons could also be interesting to explore and deepen understanding under different legal environment. References Aguilera, R.V., Rupp, D.E., Williams, C.A. and Ganapathi, J. (2007), “Putting the S back in corporate social responsibility: a multilevel theory of social change in organizations”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 836-863. Avery, C. (2006), “The difference between CSR and human rights”, Corporate Citizenship Briefing, Issue 89, August-September. Burton, B.K., Farh, J. and Hegarty, W.H. (2000), “A cross cultural comparison of corporate social responsibility orientation: Hong Kong versus United States students”, Teaching Business Ethics, Vol. 4, pp. 151-167. Carroll, A.B. (1979), “A three dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 4, pp. 497-505.

Cheruiyot, T.K. (2009), “Strategic corporate social responsibility as a determinant of enterprise competitiveness in classified hotels in Kenya”, unpublished doctorate thesis, Moi University, Eldoret. Cheruiyot, T.K. and Maru, L.C. (2012), “Employee social responsibility practices and outcomes in Kenya’s tourist hotels”, African Journal of Economic and Management Studies, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 23-41. Cheruiyot, T.K. and Maru, L.C. (2013), “Service quality and relative performance of public universities in East Africa”, The TQM Journal, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 533-546. Cheruiyot, T.K. and Tarus, D.K. (2012), “Paradox of community reactions to corporate social responsibility and irresponsibility in Kenyan”, International Journal of Research in Commerce, Economics and Management, Vol. 2, VII, pp. 5-10. European Commission (2001), “Promoting a European framework for corporate social responsibility”, Final edition, Green paper, COM 366, European Commission, Brussels. Folger, R. and Cropanzano, R. (1998), Organizational Justice and Human Resource Management, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA. Galbreath, J. (2006), “Corporate social responsibility strategy: strategic options, global considerations”, Corporate Governance, Vol. 6 No. 6, pp. 175-187. Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, G.R. (1975), “Development of the job diagnostic survey”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 60, pp. 159-170. Hom, P.W. and Griffieth, R.W. (1991), “Structural equation modeling test of turnover theory: cross sectional and longitudinal analyses”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 76, pp. 350-366. Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. and Tatham, R.L. (2006), Multivariate Data Analysis, 6th ed., Pearson/Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Ishak, N. and Alam, S. (2009), “Leader-member exchange and organizational citizenship behavior: the mediating impact of self-esteem”, International Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 4 No. 3, p. 52. Jamali, D., Safieddine, A.M. and Rabbath, M. (2008), “Corporate governance and corporate social responsibility synergies and interrelationships”, Corporate Governance: An International Review, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 443-459. Jones, P., Comfort, D. and Hillier, D. (2005), “Corporate social responsibility and the UK’s top ten retailers”, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 33, pp. 882-893. Kenya Law Reports (2010), Laws of Kenya: The Constitution of Kenya, National Council for Law Reporting, Office of the Attorney General, Nairobi. Lantos, G.P. (2001), “The boundaries of strategic corporate social responsibility”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 7, pp. 595-632. Lozano, J.M. and Prandi, M. (2005), “Corporate social responsibility and human rights”, in Mullerat, R. (Ed.), Corporate Social Responsibility, the Corporate Governance of the 21st Century, International Bar Association Series, Kluwer Law International and International Bar Association, London, pp. 183-204. Maignan, I. and Ralston, D.A. (2002), “Corporate social responsibility in Europe and the US insights from businesses’ self-presentations”, Journal International Business Studies, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 497-514. Munilla, L.S. and Miles, M.P. (2005), “The corporate social responsibility continuum as a component of stakeholder theory”, Business and Society Review, Vol. 110, pp. 371-387. Pinkston, T.S. and Carroll, A.B. (1996), “A retrospective examination of CSR orientations: have they changed?”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 199-206.

Corporate human rights social responsibility 167

IJLMA 56,2

168

Rosenthall, R., Rosnow, R.L. and Rubin, D.B. (2000), Contrasts and Effects Sizes in Behavioural Research: A Correlational Approach, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY. Shafer, W.E. (2002), “Ethical pressure, organizational conflict, and related work outcomes among management accountants”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 38, pp. 263-275. Silberhorn, D. and Warren, R.C. (2007), “Defining corporate social responsibility: a view from big companies in Germany and the UK”, European Business Review, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 352-372. Stevens, J. (1999), Intermediate Statistics: A Modern Approach, 2nd ed., Routledge, New York, NY. Utting, P. (2007), “Beyond corporate social responsibility? Business, poverty and social justice”, Third World Quarterly, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 697-712. Valentine, S. and Fleischman, G. (2008), “Ethics programs, perceived corporate social responsibility and job satisfaction”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 77, pp. 159-172. Vogel, D. (2005), The Market for Virtue: The Potential and Limits of Corporate Social Responsibility, Booking Institute Press, Washington, DC. Welford, R. (2002), “Globalization, corporate social responsibility and human rights”, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environment Management, Vol. 9, pp. 1-7. Wettstein, F. (2009), “Beyond voluntariness, beyond CSR: making a case for human rights and justice, corporate social responsibility, a voluntary affair?”, Business and Society Review, Vol. 114 No. 1, pp. 125-152. Winsor, D. (2006), “Corporate social responsibility: three key approaches”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 93-114. Further reading Kenya National Commission on Human Rights (2011), Making the Bill of Rights Operational Policy, Legal and Administrative Priorities and Considerations, Occasional Report, Nairobi, Kenya. Corresponding author Thomas Kimeli Cheruiyot can be contacted at: [email protected]

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints