Socially Responsible HR in Action: Learning from Corporations Listed on the Dow Jones Sustainability Index World 2018/2019

Abstract

As ethical management, corporate social responsibility (CSR), and corporate sustainability (CS) are increasingly permeating business discourse, contemplating the role of human resources (HR) in helping organizations with socially responsible management is a proactive acceptance of stakeholders’ expectations while reinforcing the field’s identity and contribution. In response, the we examined the HR policies and practices of 46 multinational enterprises (MNEs) listed on the Dow Jones Sustainability Index (DJSI) World 2018/2019 to add new insights to the literature and inform the HR field on how to move forward with socially responsible HR. Content analysis and inductive conceptualization of the MNEs’ HR activities produced a triangular pyramid for socially responsible HR, constructed with eight major themes at the individual, organizational, and institutional levels. Building on the findings, we suggest implications for practice and research, and conclude with urging the HR community to demonstrate leadership in setting the agendas and facilitating change toward socially responsible management.

1. Introduction

Today, “business’s power is ubiquitous and in some sense beyond the reach even of the state.” [1] (p. 95). Some say that made by company makes more sense than made in country, considering it is companies that source materials, technologies, and talent, regardless of national borders, and imprint their name and image in the minds of people across the globe [2,3]. As aggressively stated by Deetz (1992) [4], the “corporate colonization of everyday life” has spread widely to the point that it is nearly impossible to live a life free from the influence of corporations. For example, when an information technology (IT) giant was involved in a data leaking scandal, or a global car manufacturer was accused of manipulating emissions data, the ramifications were so widespread as not to be confined only to their own financial damage, also affecting countless normal lives in many different ways. Having witnessed numerous such cases, forces to counterbalance the skewed attention to nearsighted economic gains have been mobilized to ensure business organizations are more responsible and have them embrace a much wider range of accountability.

As a result, ethical management is now taken for granted as the default code of business conduct [5]; corporate social responsibility (CSR) has been positioned as a crucial managerial consideration [6], and corporate sustainability (CS) increasingly permeates business discourse over the kill the goose mentality [7,8]. Forward-looking enterprises engage in creating shared value (CSV) to secure lasting benefits for both themselves and broader stakeholders [9], and make a concerted effort to adopt socially responsible management as a corporate-level strategy [10]. They intend to do the right thing and at the same time intuitively understand that such moves will lead to practical advantages as well by helping to enhance corporate reputation and customer loyalty, reduce business risks and social pressures, and appeal to their incumbent and potential employees as an employer of choice, to name a few [11]. As such, contemplating the role of human resources (HR) in helping organizations with socially responsible management is a proactive acceptance of stakeholders’ expectations in an evolving business environment, while reinforcing the field’s identity and contribution as a strategic business partner.

The HR field has not been indifferent to this growing call. Although acknowledging insufficient engagement, critical reflections aimed at expanding the HR locus beyond the narrowly defined organizational context have occurred from various angles. For example, Docherty et al. (2002) [12] presented the term sustainable work systems as a way to be responsible for employees’ work and life quality; Bierema and D’Abundo (2004) [13] emphasized that HRD should be socially conscious and help organizations attend to implicit contracts and common good for society; Gond et al. (2011) [14] suggested the HR–CSR interface and HR’s multidimensional roles in building responsible leadership. Clifton and Amran (2011) [15] examined corporate practices geared toward a sustainable world to identify the lack of stakeholder approach in the practices; Dyllick and Muff (2016) [16] developed a typology of business sustainability to shift from business-as-usual to refined shareholder value and true sustainability. Stahl et al. (2020) [17] argued that HRM has failed in contributing to CSR efforts and needs a multidimensional, multi-stakeholder approach that considers consequences for various stakeholders; Aust et al. (2020) [18] proposed the concept of common good HRM as a new type of sustainable HRM. This thread of thought is phenomenal in that it has shaped the discourse on HR’s role in the context of socially responsible management, and provided fundamental frameworks and terminologies upon which to build. However, there is still room for further exploration.

The discourse is lacking in practical applicability due to a paucity of empirical studies that help fine-tune the declaratory propositions and explain how they are translated into organizational processes and practices [19]. Unlike prescriptive concepts that relatively abound, scholarly attempts to research HR policies and practices in line with CSR have been inactive [20]. Even on rare occasions when exemplary cases are introduced, the focus seems to be on highlighting the superiority of such cases rather than synthesizing them for an integrated understanding [21,22]. However, to appeal to a wider audience, ethical imperatives approaches should be elaborated with real-world practices and negotiated with the bottom-line orientation that prevails in the business arena. One promising method to do this is to take an extensive look at leading companies’ actual practices at the intersection of HR and CSR because those practices will provide representations of good causes and bottom-line considerations combined, and inform both theory-building and practical application.

Therefore, the purpose of the current research was (1) to identify and review CS reports prepared by the multinational enterprises (MNEs) listed on the Dow Jones Sustainability Index (DJSI) World 2018/2019, (2) to conduct content analysis of their HR-related policies and practices, and (3) to capture overarching themes of their activities for a conceptual modeling of the CSR–HR nexus. As the DJSI is an authoritative reference for socially responsible investment (SRI) that simultaneously considers CSR and bottom-line outcomes, the activities of MNEs allude to the potential of moving beyond the stalemate of economic and ethical models [23]. The findings add new insights to the literature for theoretical development while informing leaders and practitioners on how to move forward with socially responsible HR.

2. Background

Theoretical and practical developments continue in the areas of socially responsible management, socially responsible investing, and socially responsible HR.

2.1. Socially Responsible Management

A corporation is both a profit-making organization and a moral entity that is required to deliver a social contract [24]. Wisdom accumulated from experience has shaped the notion that such a contract, whether as norms or values, should guide how business is conducted. Many organizations consider ethical management an essential part of business strategy, assuming that it is both ethically right and practically good. Presumably, they also understand social identity theory: employees prefer an organization that promotes ethical behavior, identify with it, and respond with enhanced organizational commitment and work engagement [25].

Business ethics also serves as the base of CSR. CSR is a popular term that refers to the effort to fundamentally cover two areas: a commitment to furthering social good beyond merely obeying the law [26] and concern for various stakeholders including internal, value chain, and external stakeholders [27]. With these two foci, CSR embodies ethics of justice and care [28], helps employees find meaningfulness through work [29], and guides organizations to concrete actions as a responsible corporate citizen [30]. Some take a step toward CSR by making donations and engaging in philanthropic activities; others work on embedding the spirit in their culture; some even endeavor to link business strategies with CSR, and vice versa, as a method to pursue both their competitive advantage and community contributions [31].

CSR also has much in common with the term CS by paying attention to an organization’s social involvement for its lasting success [32]. In recognition of the transnational cause of sustainable development and its omnidirectional connection to many areas including science and technology, international collaboration, culture, and art, to name a few [33,34], CS is a more recent concept suggesting that an organization should meet its present needs “without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” [35] (p. 34). Learning from the collapse of the whaling industry due to overfishing without regard to decreasing stocks [8], for example, CS is concerned with business today as well as tomorrow. Some argue for a hierarchical relationship between CSR and CS, with CS being the ultimate goal [36]; others regard CS as a broader and longer-term consideration than CSR due to its concern with stretched agendas, including the one on the environment [37,38].

That is, CS encompasses economic, social, and environmental considerations, which can be encapsulated as the triple bottom line (TBL) concept [39,40]. With social and environmental components added to the conventional perception of a bottom line, the TBL serves as a framework for responsible accounting and management and helps refresh the perspective on organizational success. TBL, also dubbed the 3Ps (profit, people, and planet) [41], emphasizes a balanced stance and indicates a paradigm shift from a narrowly defined unitary perspective of business to a well-rounded one [42,43]. With these characteristics, CS is often received distinctively but still in harmony with business ethics and CSR in that all these represent the businesses’ heightened awareness of and commitment to their responsibility.

2.2. Socially Responsible Investing

Many corporations, particularly publicly traded ones, are passionate about securing funding from investors and establishing strong investor relations. They strive to appeal to current and potential investors by showcasing their innovative products and services, promising business prospects, and presenting sound financial statements. Additional efforts are currently being directed toward highlighting, for example, their transparency, democratic governance, environmental stewardship, and stakeholder initiatives in response to a growing interest in ethical investing and shareholder advocacy, such as socially responsible investing (SRI).

SRI refers to a form of investment that considers not only financial returns but also the social, environmental, and ethical standings of the companies of interest. SRI is practiced by investors considering accountability and greater value in their investment. It also offers an opportunity for proactive companies that embrace diversity and inclusion, human rights, climate change, and many other social and environmental considerations, with an assumption that responsible management and organizational performance are mutually reinforcing [44,45,46]. Although controversy remains over whether SRI realizes higher returns on investment compared with conventional approaches focused mainly on economic factors (e.g., [47,48,49,50]), it certainly continues to augment the influence today as one of the guiding principles for many institutional investors and funds.

Investors with SRI principles conduct social screening for their investment design. Some execute negative screening to remove businesses deemed harmful to the public and future generations from their portfolio, and others conduct positive screening to seek out those with sound social, environmental, and financial performance. Whether the former or the latter are the focus of screening, they depend on reliable benchmarks such as the FTSE4Good Index published by the FTSE group in the United Kingdom and the DJSI by S&P Dow Jones in the United States, which provide credible information on how individual companies operate in terms of socially responsible management. In particular, the DJSI has served as one of the most-cited benchmarks since its launch in 1999 as the first global index tracking the financial performance of leading CS-oriented companies worldwide [51].

Through an integrated assessment of economic, social, and environmental criteria with a strong focus on a long-term shareholder value, the DJSI World annually announces approximately 10% of the most sustainable companies of the largest 2500 public companies it examines [51,52]. Many companies work on the criteria to be listed and make improvements each year to remain on the index because they recognize the TBL imperatives in an evolving business ecology. They also understand that there is a higher likelihood of enjoying practical advantages such as an enhanced image in the eyes of various stakeholders and capital market incentives resulting from exposure to investors with SRI principles.

2.3. Socially Responsible HR

The field of HR has been committed to ethics and accountability as stipulated by ethical codes such as the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) Code of Ethics and the Academy of Human Resource Development (AHRD) Standards on Ethics and Integrity, and evidenced in a myriad of day-to-day practices. However, the notion of accountability had been somewhat confined to the performativity framework at the individual and/or organization level [53,54] before a series of epistemological expansions emerged in the 2000s. Thereafter, acknowledging that HR should find its role in a broader context, provocative arguments to lay a foundation for socially responsible HR have proliferated from various standpoints.

Some argued that besides the orientation toward performance-centered values, human and societal consequences transcending individual and organizational boundaries should be an explicitly pursued goal of HR. This idea sparked attention on ethical issues surrounding HR practices [1,55], rights and development needs of employees [56], and labor relations in the value chains [57]. Bies et al. (2007) [58] further posited that corporations play a role as social change agents by mobilizing micro, meso, and macro levels of dynamics; Peirce and Madden (2005) [59] advocated for the inseparable relationship between CSR and HR; Kaufman (2006) [60] emphasized the imperative of HR’s mega-level contribution that exceeds the egocentric interests of employees and organizations.

The discussions were ongoing and diversifying in the 2010s. For example, Becker (2011) [61] stressed that the HR function should take the long-term, socially responsible stance in acquiring, developing, and managing employees; Shen (2011) [62] expanded the discussion by placing it in the global context and highlighting legal compliance, employee-orientation, CSR facilitation, and local sustainability contribution as the constructs of socially responsible international HRM. Sison and Fontrodona (2013) [63] argued that firms are responsible for building the common good and HR should remain in alignment with this insight to be socially responsible; Baek and Kim (2014) [64] proposed a stakeholder-based HRD model to shed light on the concern for various interdependent stakeholders who might have conflicting economic, social, and environmental interests. Given the spreading employment flexibilization and gig economy, Zhang et al. (2015) [65] proposed a flexicurity model of HRM to effectively manage agency employees in a socially responsible way, and Scully-Russ and Torraco (2020) [66] called for research interest in worker protections and other structural concerns.

Along with these developments, another research stream explores how to embed these profound ideas in day-to-day business practices. The efforts have been geared toward addressing assertion–action inconsistencies and having the propositions permeate organizational systems. Garavan et al. (2010) [67], for example, analyzed barriers to CSR in organizations and suggested potential interventions for addressing them. The interventions may include boosting awareness of CSR and encouraging personal social action at the individual level [68]; addressing organizational structures and cultures at the organizational level [69]; and responding properly to regulatory, cognitive, and normative forces at the institutional level [70,71]. Others stressed the power of external CSR and internal procedural justice in fortifying employees’ social identity [72], the role of top management in fostering ethical climate by engaging in ethical business and behaviors [73], the basic premise of developing and involving employees as key stakeholders [74,75], the necessity of developing a sustainable HRM system that encompasses a whole range of HR activities [76,77], and the importance of learning and development, change initiatives, and communication to promote CSR in organizations [22]. This line of approach helps place conceptual propositions on practical ground and simultaneously alludes to the nature of corporations’ actions on their path toward sustainable success.

In summary, the evolving business landscape and HR’s role therein place socially responsible management in the focal interest of HR. Many MNEs already engage in incorporating the idea into HR policies and practices and compile them as part of DJSI reporting to make public their endeavor [78]. Research into such activities therefore has the potential to help reveal the growing convergence between CSR and HR and provide guiding themes for socially responsible HR [79].

3. Materials and Methods

In this research, we conducted an extensive review of leading MNEs’ CS reports collected from their individual websites, after which content analysis was employed to identify emerging patterns and themes from selected contents [80]. In particular, a research framework was established to classify the MNEs’ HR activities into distinct categories, and inductive reasoning was applied to identify higher-order themes, as they emerge, for conceptualization [81].

3.1. Materials Reviewed

The DJSI World 2018/19 lists 317 companies in 60 industries, selected high performers in the total sustainability score out of the approximately 2500 largest companies in the S&P Global Broad Market Index [51]. Among those listed, 60 industry-leading companies, one per industry, were announced by RobecoSAM, an institution that specializes in corporate sustainability assessment, 58 of which were initially identified for review, except for two whose reports were unavailable, arguably because activities by these MNEs are likely the best practices of economic, social, and environmental considerations. The reports are publicly released and downloadable from each company’s website.

The actual subject of analysis was the HR-related activities presented in the reports. Guided by such frameworks as the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), United Nations Global Compact (UNGC), and International Standard Organization 26000 (ISO26000), these companies comprehensively report their policies and practices for review by third-party institutions such as the DJSI and for communication with concerned stakeholders. Therefore, the reports were first divided into three types. Type 1 included 24 reports according to GRI Standards, the latest version being effective from July 2018; Type 2 included 22 reports according to the GRI G4 guideline, the predecessor of GRI Standards until July 2018; Type 3 included 12 reports according to other standards such as UNGC, ISO 26000, and various regional or industry-specific standards.

Subsequently, a preliminary investigation into the reporting structures and corresponding content was conducted, and we determined that having all three types for review might lead to a confusing and arbitrary classification/interpretation of data because some were prepared based on apparently different reporting schemes. This resulted in the inclusion of 46 GRI-based reports, excluding Type 3 reports, for a coherent review (

Table A1. The profile of the 46 corporations.

No	Company	RobecoSAM Industry	Nationality	Type
1	Pirelli	Auto Components	Italy	1
2	Peugeot	Automobiles	France	2
3	Bancolombia	Banks	Colombia	2
4	Owens Corning	Building Products	United States	1
5	Hyundai Engineering & Construction	Construction & Engineering	Korea	1
6	Siemens	Industrial Conglomerates	Germany	1
7	CNH Industrial	Machinery and Electrical Equipment	United Kingdom	1
8	ITOCHU	Trading Companies & Distributors	Japan	1
9	Waste Management	Commercial Services & Supplies	United States	2
10	SGS	Professional Services	Switzerland	1
11	Electrolux	Household Durables	Sweden	2
12	Sumitomo Forestry	Homebuilding	Japan	2
13	LG Electronics	Leisure Equipment & Products and Consumer Electronics	Korea	1
14	adidas	Textiles, Apparel & Luxury Goods	Germany	2
15	InterContinental Hotels Group	Hotels, Resorts & Cruise Lines	United Kingdom	2
16	UBS Group	Diversified Financial Services and Capital Markets	Switzerland	1
17	Banpu	Coal & Consumable Fuels	Thailand	1
18	IRPC	Oil & Gas Refining & Marketing	Thailand	1
19	Enagas	Oil & Gas Storage & Transportation	Spain	1
20	Thai Beverage	Beverages	Thailand	1
21	Thai Union Group	Food Products	Thailand	2
22	METRO	Food & Staples Retailing	Germany	2
23	Abbott Laboratories	Health Care Equipment & Supplies	United States	2
24	Essity	Household Products	Sweden	1
25	Allianz	Insurance	Germany	2
26	Norsk Hydro	Aluminum	Norway	2
27	Grupo Argos	Construction Materials	Colombia	2
28	BillerudKorsnas	Containers & Packaging	Sweden	1
29	Newmont Mining	Metals & Mining	United States	2
30	UPM-Kymmene	Paper & Forest Products	Finland	1
31	Telenet Group Holding	Media	Belgium	1
32	Biogen	Biotechnology	United States	2
33	Agilent Technologies	Life Sciences Tools & Services	United States	2
34	Stockland	Real Estate	Australia	1
35	Industria de Diseno Textil	Retailing	Spain	2
36	ASE Technology Holding	Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment	Taiwan	1
37	SAP	Software	Germany	2
38	Atos	IT services & Internet Software and Services	France	2
39	Cisco Systems	Communications Equipment	United States	1
40	Delta Electronics	Electronic Equipment, Instruments & Components	Taiwan	1
41	Konica Minolta	Computers & Peripherals and Office Electronics	Japan	2
42	True Corp.	Telecommunication Services	Thailand	2
43	Royal Mail	Transportation and Transportation Infrastructure	United Kingdom	1
44	Terna Rete Elettrica Nazionale	Electric Utilities	Italy	1
45	Signify	Electrical Components & Equipment	Netherlands	1
46	Engie SA	Multi and Water Utilities	France	2

). The excluded reports, as well as other standards, deserve separate examination, but the scope was judged valid given that the GRI is the most widely used guide for the systematic communication of an organization’s multidimensional efforts and impacts with various interest groups [82,83].

Then, considering the research focus on social responsibility, activities in the social domain, but not economic and environmental ones, were extracted from the reports included and reorganized for in-depth analysis. Specifically, GRI G4 consists of six categories: (a) economy, (b) environment, (c) labor practices and decent work, (d) human rights, (e) society, and (f) product responsibility, the latter four of which fall in the domain of society; the GRI Standards consists of G100 (universal standards), G200 (economic), G300 (environmental), and G400 (social). By mapping the GRI G4 categories of (c), (d), (e), and (f) with G400 of the GRI Standards, the data preparation resulted in hundreds of activities in 39 disclosures under 19 standards of G400 (i.e., 39 disclosures under 25 aspects in (c)–(f) of GRI G4;

Table A2. The result of data mapping between GRI G4 Guideline and GRI Standards.

G4 Guidelines			GRI Standards
Section	Aspect	Disclosure	Standard No.	Standard Title
Labor Practices and Decent Work	Employment	LA1, LA2, LA3	GRI 401	Employment
	Labor/Management Relations	LA4	GRI 402	Labor/Management Relations
	Occupational Health and Safety	LA5, LA6, LA7, LA8	GRI 403	Occupational Health and Safety
	Training and Education	LA9, LA10, LA11	GRI 404	Training and Education
	Diversity and Equal Opportunity	LA12	GRI 405	Diversity and Equal Opportunity
	Equal Remuneration for Women and Men	LA13	GRI 405	Diversity and Equal Opportunity
	Supplier Assessment for Labor Practices	LA14, LA15	GRI 414	Supplier Social Assessment
Human Rights	Investment	HR1, HR2	GRI 412	Human Rights Assessment
	Nondiscrimination	HR3	GRI 406	Non-discrimination
	Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining	HR4	GRI 407	Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining
	Child Labor	HR5	GRI 408	Child Labor
	Forced or Compulsory Labor	HR6	GRI 409	Forced or Compulsory Labor
	Security Practices	HR7	GRI 410	Security Practices
	Indigenous Rights	HR8	GRI 411	Rights of Indigenous Peoples
	Assessment	HR9	GRI 412	Human Rights Assessment
	Supplier Human Rights Assessment	HR10, HR11	GRI 414	Supplier Social Assessment
Society	Local Communities	SO1, SO2	GRI 413	Local Communities
	Public Policy	SO6	GRI 415	Public Policy
	Compliance	SO8	GRI 419	Socioeconomic Compliance
	Supplier Assessment for Impacts on Society	SO9, SO10	GRI 414	Supplier Social Assessment
Product Responsibility	Customer Health and Safety	PR1, PR2	GRI 416	Customer Health and Safety
	Product and Service Labeling	PR3, PR4	GRI 417	Marketing and Labeling
	Marketing Communications	PR7	GRI 417	Marketing and Labeling
	Customer Privacy	PR8	GRI 418	Customer Privacy
	Compliance	PR9	GRI 419	Socioeconomic Compliance

).

3.2. Methods for Conceptualization

Referring to the literature that suggests the levels of activities at the CSR–HR intersection (e.g., [22,67]), we devised a research framework in which all the HR-related activities (i.e., items) were matched with the corresponding levels and therein converged into higher-order themes for conceptualization (Figure 1).

In detail, the first step was to create an unordered meta-matrix that gathered all the items from the 46 cases into one master chart and proceed to arrange the items according to three levels (i.e., individual, organizational, and institutional) of the established research framework. This was an essential process to systematically distribute the items into mutually exclusive levels and ensure the validity of the findings that the following in-depth analysis were to produce.

The second step was an across-category clustering that grouped items with similar characteristics into comprehensive themes. Instead of counting the activities or mutilating their attributes for forced reduction, the qualitative method of content analysis was employed to explore the presence of shared meanings among individual activities and make inferences about their underlying motivations and intentions [84]. Specifically, the forward procedure created tens of clusters with tentative themes, followed by the backward procedure that merged them into several higher-order themes within each of the levels to encompass the tentative smaller ones. Although also reductive in a sense, this approach allowed for context-bound interpretations and progressive sophistication in creating overarching themes. The clustering and thematization were conducted across the GRI numbers, yet within each level in a sequential and iterative way [85] in which initial themes were derived from items in common, item–theme mappings were confirmed or revised, and the themes were fine-tuned to result in the final products, as reported in the following section.

4. Results

As depicted in Figure 2, the content analysis and inductive conceptualization of the HR-related activities of DJSI-listed MNEs produced a triangular pyramid for socially responsible HR constructed with major themes at the individual, organizational, and institutional levels.

4.1. Individual Level

4.1.1. Priorities on Employee Safety and Wellness

We found that safety- and health-related policies were embedded well in management principles with detailed goals and action plans. Practices for safety and health were twofold: for enhanced safety/health awareness and management and for physical and psychological well-being.

MNEs have internal safety and health management guidelines in place in accordance with industrial safety and health regulations; educate employees on safety-related imperatives and continue revamping education systems to cultivate safety capacities; and go beyond legal obligations to create proactive evaluation systems and even extend their reach to affiliated companies. They also consider managing employees’ stress as their role, address employees’ emotional and psychological issues through various interventions, and offer work/life coaching in which professional coaches are brought in to work with employees facing stress or hardship in their personal and professional lives and provide them with tools to effectively resolve it.

One company manages production lines and work stations from an ergonomic perspective in an effort to build a safe and healthy environment, where a team of ergonomists ensures that human engineering is properly factored into workplace settings (case #2); another administers a Work Well index to reliably measure the stress level of employees and links the index score to Employee Assistance Program to support them in coping with private or work-related psychosocial issues (case #25).

4.1.2. Fair and Learning-Centered People Management

Learning and long-term growth were emphasized for employees’ career development, rather than simply administering routine evaluations and mechanically applying them to workforce management. Terms such as fair and transparent appeared frequently in terms of promotion and placement.

MNEs tend to facilitate continuous learning and appreciate the growth and expertise of their people while ensuring fairness in staffing and promoting employees. They implement job postings for those ready to assume higher-level responsibilities and job rotations for those pursuing well-rounded growth; have a system in place to provide mentoring, coaching, and developmental feedback within work settings; and adopt succession planning policies and practices for long-term talent development. They uphold fairness and transparency in placement and promotion by implementing a merit-based system that focuses on an employee’s genuine achievements and capabilities.

One implements a mileage-type system, called the Promotion Point System, which is designed to accumulate and convert the results of competency and performance evaluations into points to be used for placement and promotion decisions (case #5); another fills 60% of vacancies at the executive level with time-tested, loyal leaders in line with a talent philosophy of promotion from within (case #45).

4.1.3. Extended Accountability for Career Transition

Attention was paid to not only career development for incumbents but also career transition for both departing and incoming employees, which demonstrated extended accountability for employees before and after employment in an era of labor market flexibility.

MNEs provide those who are resigning or retiring with outplacement programs that offer a wide range of opportunities, such as workshops for change management and financial design, one-on-one consulting for start-up ventures, and training for reemployment. They also operate internship and work-study contract programs, as well as vocational education programs for secondary school graduates. In concert with recruiting and talent acquisition initiatives, such programs are becoming more visible as a first-hand growth opportunity for prospective employees and labor market entrants.

One operates an employment extension system, called the Transition Assistance Program, to help those beyond the set retirement age with a smooth transition (case #4); another maintains partnerships with social entrepreneurs to assist promising talent with limited job market access in finding career opportunities (case #31).

4.2. Organizational Level

4.2.1. Organization Development for Internal Stakeholders

Efforts to assess and develop leadership and the organization were found to be notably prevalent. Whether explicitly CSR-oriented or not, efforts were made as an endeavor to transform the organization into a better and more responsible one.

MNEs diligently diagnose both leadership and employee engagement to facilitate organization development. They conduct regular and/or special surveys to see how employees perceive their work and management, organizational culture, labor–management relations, level of ethical management, and so forth. Some assess categories such as work–life balance and well-being to gather information on the quality of life of employees and feed the results back to inform leaders and foster organizational environments. They seem to recognize that the significance of organizational diagnosis lies in communication with internal stakeholders for continuous organizational change.

One evaluates leaders, including the CEO, based on economic, social, and environmental sustainability objectives (case #1); another conducts an organizational diagnosis of diversity and inclusion in terms of gender, age, culture, and people with differing abilities, to name a few (case #38).

4.2.2. Coalition with Business Partners

An expanded partnership or relational contracting between buyers and sellers, based on business ethics and good faith, was the focal interest. The ultimate goal was a win-win partnership for all involved, although the method to achieve it varied.

MNEs provide not only financial but also technical and management consulting support to help suppliers and subcontractors satisfy societal requirements and enhance their internal capabilities for socially responsible management. They strengthen communication to share principles and methodologies for legal compliance and ethical management; manage processes to prevent CSR risks associated with business partners, such as ethical supply chain management (SCM); and offer them various programs regarding safety, the environment, and quality. Some execute an internal audit process to ensure fair and mutually beneficial transactions with those in the value chain.

One considers supply chain minorities, such as businesses owned by women and persons with disabilities or LGBT (lesbian, gay, bi, trans), and operates processes to prevent any discrimination as part of ethical SCM (case #32); another takes a staged supplier sustainability management approach to help suppliers with sustainability requirement clearance, risk assessment, validation, and improvement (case #36).

4.2.3. Promotion of Corporate Citizenship

Community involvement was found to have become a taken-for-granted formula in the business–society relationship. Typically, rather than just donating money or equipment, it took the form of strategic philanthropy by contributing corporate expertise and intellectual/technological assets to solve community issues.

MNEs encourage employee volunteering in charitable and pro bono activities, provide outreach programs for the domestic and global community they inhabit, and further address bigger societal issues, such as digital and social divides. Some partner with relevant external bodies to co-create values for both business and society, sign a CSR charter with suppliers to reinforce commitment to the value coalition, and foster a corporate culture that nurtures citizenship from top to bottom.

One operates a policy called the Workday Volunteer Program that allows paid leave for employees to invest a whole day in volunteer activities (case #13); another runs a foundation to support educational projects for young children and teachers in an effort to stimulate children’s curiosity in scientific subjects and improve their capacity to learn science and technology (case #23).

4.3. Institutional Level

4.3.1. Institutionalization of Fundamental Values

Essential ideas to uphold fundamental human values have permeated codes of conduct and internal regulations. Concrete protocols and procedures were devised to better respect human rights and dignity, empower the contributions of people with diverse backgrounds, and treat stakeholders with integrity.

MNEs stipulate in their internal regulations that they will prevent child and forced labor at domestic and overseas operations in compliance with laws as well as the Abolition of Forced Labor Convention by the International Labor Organization (ILO). Stressing that no employee should be discriminated against based on gender, religion, race, and age in the process of hiring, promotion, training, and retirement, they embed the idea into codes and/or educational courses to prevent discrimination and human right violations. Simultaneously, they implement programs to raise awareness of human rights and inclusion, stimulate practices for intergenerational exchanges, and have a mechanism in place to check if anyone is disadvantaged in the hiring and promotion process due to genetic or social backgrounds.

One implements a practice called Social Responsibility Audits to detect and prevent forced labor, discrimination, and sexual harassment in the workplace, to name a few (case #10); another operates affinity groups such as the African American Resource Group, Women’s Information Network, and Connections, to appreciate an increasingly diverse workforce, drive the engagement of all, and reinforce internal and external connections (case #4).

4.3.2. Workplace Democratization

Communication was highlighted as a method to become more transparent, participatory, and democratic. It was considered instrumental for effective management and a healthy culture, and various communication strategies were devised to facilitate employees’ participation in and commitment to the decision-making process.

MNEs strive to empower discussions on core value systems and keep upgrading agendas to strengthen employees’ commitment to shared values. They launch a variety of change initiatives aimed at enhancing internal communication between employees and management, and endeavor to respect democratic processes in decision making for concerned parties. Some run a junior board composed of employees below the manager level that voices opinions on company strategies and represents a corporate culture of communication and trust. Others operate a due diligence process to ensure external communications are transparent and adopt a guideline that specifies principles and various forms of stakeholder engagement for democratic relationships.

Many have organizational initiatives and relevant bodies set in place, such as Next Leader Board (case #5) and Sponsor Board (case #14), to enhance communications with employees and invite their participation; one even states that all lobbying and political networking activities should be conducted in accordance with the Lobbying Code of Conduct to have every political engagement and policy development remain transparent and democratic (case #25).

5. Discussion

The field of HR has evolved, building on its prestigious endeavor to satisfy the needs of business and its people by managing and developing talent, helping enhance organizational effectiveness, and securing competitive advantages and core competencies. All these aspects are of critical importance and will continue to remain relevant to its contribution. However, if these are all that HR does, its stance would be regarded as not much different from the doctrine that:

there is one and only one social responsibility of business—to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud.

[86] (p. 63)

While this conception may have once prevailed and still does not seem to commit any active violations, it might not be the best possible value proposition for contemporary businesses, and even more so for HR.

With a growing call for business to go beyond creating profits and jobs to be more accountable, HR should dive deep into the quest to advise organizations on how to do so. The HR field is tasked with devising a frame of reference with which to help organizations reflect on their relationship with society and stakeholders, and redefine their identity in a socially responsible way. As such, we examined HR-related activities of DJSI-listed MNEs to present guiding principles and discuss implications for socially responsible HR.

5.1. Practical Implications

The changing business environment urges the HR field to re-examine its value propositions through the lens of ethical and social responsibility [87]. In addition to productivity and economic returns that follow, far-reaching social impacts need to be considered as a critical success factor for corporate HR. The field should also ask if the agenda is being discussed sufficiently to result in proactive applications or dealt with as an ancillary subject. An answer to this inquiry will determine the degree of HR’s thought leadership and readiness for change. Upon these calls, HR professionals may have to challenge a narrowly defined functional perspective to embrace a wider range of stakeholders within their value systems [55,88]. They should keep abreast of social and epistemological shifts surrounding business and renew insights for business risk management and the sustainable success of organizations. Fortunately, the field’s inbuilt ability to learn and translate strategic agendas into practical actions will help in doing so [89].

Field professionals are invited to refer to the proposed themes and triangular pyramid as a guidance in practicing socially responsible HR. Unlike GRI and other reporting tools that serve designated purposes, mainly for third-party review and recognition, the themes and conceptual framework could act as working references in planning and evaluating HR policies and practices, regardless of an intention to attain any external certification, because they represent what industry leaders perceive as paramount in being socially responsible. They will also provide benefits particularly for those in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). SMEs can neither secure as much resources as conglomerates nor afford the time and staff to report their activities at such a magnitude, but this does not mean that they are indifferent to evolving social and stakeholder expectations. It rather implies that they would welcome a concise yet inclusive reference, such as the framework proposed herein, on which to craft their unique approach to socially responsible HR [90].

HR may attempt to pursue systemic change by helping organizations view larger systems, collaborate across boundaries, and actualize desired futures [3]. In the era of the new normal, an organization is less likely to secure legitimacy from internal and external stakeholders if it is doing only what is required by law. For a holistic organizational transformation, HR should help organizations comprehend the evolving business ecosystem, connect with various interdependent stakeholders (e.g., those in a supply chain, industry, client base, local community, institutional bodies, and non-governmental organizations, as well as employees), and envision the future that socially responsible management would create. To this end, HR should demonstrate leadership to diffuse the discourse in organizations, extend it to systemic organization development activities, and help social responsibility become internalized among people and business practices.

5.2. Research Implications

The research findings and limitations provide an opportunity for future research. First, the proposed themes and framework can be used for empirical research in relation to organizational performance or employee behavior. Considering the undeniable interest in whether socially responsible HR is beneficial, empirical research to test the benefits will be a highly regarded contribution. In fact, studies have found that CSR positively affects employees’ organizational commitment [91,92], work engagement [93], performance [94], and creative work involvement [95]. However, given the lack in number and contextual diversity, these studies are not yet sufficient to convince business-minded stakeholders and construct a strong theoretical base. Therefore, studies regarding the impact of CSR on not only various positive but also negative criteria, such as employee disengagement, customer boycott, and public disapproval, would add to the wisdom and confidence in the field.

Another research possibility is to test the scientific validity of the themes and levels presented herein. Although derived from an in-depth analysis of sizable data from CSR-exemplary MNEs, some might criticize that they are neither mutually exclusive nor collectively exhaustive with overlapping and/or missing parts. Research of a qualitative nature can rarely be immune to this line of criticism unless supported by quantitative evidence, and the current research is no exception. Others might suspect the theoretical base, citing that the concepts are based not on a synthesis of scholarly findings but on the reported practical activities, aside from a debate on whether the reporting system is sufficiently valid. Therefore, one research avenue might be a review of the scholarly literature to complement the findings and bolster the theoretical foundation; another could be devoted to developing measurement tools by putting the findings into the quantitative validation process using statistical approaches such as factor analysis and convergent/divergent validity test. Particularly, given the absence of research-based tools to measure socially responsible HR, the development of measurement will be meaningful on its own and beneficial for the research community to engage in various empirical explorations.

Lastly, we examined activities in the social domain when there are two more in the TBL: economic and environmental domains. For organizations to be sustainable, it is imperative to consider all the bottom lines because they are interconnected and because one may place an organization in jeopardy or even complete failure if compromised. The concept of sustainable HRM is a timely response to this awareness by arguing it will help achieve the TBL and reproduce the long-term HR base [96]. As introduced above, the GRI Standards have the economic (G200) and environmental (G300) domains, and there are other frameworks with a similar purpose. Therefore, researchers are invited to consider all these domains and keep this line of research moving forward for economically, environmentally, and socially responsible management and HR.

6. Conclusions

The current research was initiated to explore and suggest the role that HR should play in evolving business environments. We examined socially responsible HR in action in 46 DJSI-listed MNEs and derived penetrating themes, which include: priorities on employee safety and wellness, fair and learning-centered people management, and extended accountability for career transition at the individual level; organization development for internal stakeholders, coalition with business partners, and promotion of corporate citizenship at the organizational level; and institutionalization of fundamental values and workplace democratization at the institutional level. Unlike existing studies built on normative ideas or conducted with a positivist approach using psychometric data, this research provides a distinctive contribution by learning from real-world practices and converting them into context-rich propositions. These propositions, although not definitive, will help constitute the requirements for socially responsible HR in practice and serve as scaffolding to support relevant discussions for continued renewals.

In conclusion, we urge the HR community to demonstrate leadership in setting the agendas and facilitating change toward socially responsible management. HR will remain appreciated as a responsible value provider when in sync with the shifting business paradigms but will find no place in the future if otherwise.