If you were to position your organisation on a sliding scale of ‘acting with corporate responsibility’, where would it sit? It’s a question to which you might well respond: ‘How can you give scale to corporate responsibility?’

Which is precisely the issue. In the corporate world, anything that can’t be measured, quantified and ultimately linked back to a competitive advantage is ignored. Such is the cold, hard reality of free markets.

That being said, most organisations will strive to act responsibly. We all (presumably) have a personal moral code that is embodied in our work. But can acting responsibly with respect to the environment, the community or each other be linked back to how well an organisation fares in the market? Are there organisational benefits beyond the warm and fuzzy feeling associated with taking the moral high ground?

According to some recent evidence, yes there are. Researchers at Ipsos MORI make a business case for engaging in sustainable business practices – for the sake of one of an organisation’s most important stakeholder groups: its employees.

Their 2004 study explored the role corporate responsibility plays in employee engagement. It described employee engagement as being a composite of:

1. Employer advocacy – the degree to which an employee sings the praises of their organisation
2. Commitment – an employee’s intention to stay with the organisation in years to come; and
3. Motivation – how invested an employee is in the success of the organisation.

The study collated the responses of 2,518 working adults within the UK. The vast majority of respondents (86%) felt that it was important that their employer act responsibly with respect to society and the environment.

Of those who felt their employer was adequately addressing environmental and sustainability concerns, three quarters (75%) were advocates for their organisation, stating they would recommend their employer to a friend or family member. This compared to just under half (43%) of those respondents who thought their organisation was not paying enough attention to the environment.

When it came to commitment to staying with an organisation, similar numbers were seen. Again, three quarters (75%) of those who felt their employer was adequately addressing environmental concerns were highly committed to their present job. This compared to 49% of those who felt their organisation was not addressing these issues.

Employers’ actions with regard to the environment appeared to have an even greater effect on the motivation of employees. When asked whether their motivation was increasing, remaining stable or decreasing, 23% of individuals who felt their employer was environmentally savvy said their motivation was increasing. Of those in the opposing group, only 8% cited their level of motivation as increasing. Conversely, 42% of those who said their employer was environmentally inept stated their motivation was decreasing, compared with only 16% in the opposing group.

While this was only preliminary research, the IPSOS study shows that as environmental responsibility is added to our collective moral checklist, we begin to demand it in all aspects of our life. Since we spend an average 260 days a year at work, it only makes sense that general sentiment regarding environmental awareness spills over into the workplace.

We look forward to having similar – and even more broad-reaching – data in Australia in the coming months, with the publication of the joint Beaton, WellmarkPerspexa and Nossal Institute study on business sustainability. In the meantime, you may like to start asking your employees where they stand on your organisation’s CSR agenda.

Dr Rebecca Sheils is Director of Research at Beaton, a research and consulting firm that has worked with some of the world’s largest and most prestigious knowledge-intensive organisations.

Where do you stand?

Add comment (2)  |  Trackback  |  Follow comments (RSS)  |  More by Rebecca Sheils