CSR, credibility, employees' rights and legitimacy during a crisis: a critical analysis of British Airways, WizAir and EasyJet cases
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-11-2021-0517 |
| Published date | 14 July 2022 |
| Date | 14 July 2022 |
| Pages | 1-20 |
| Subject Matter | HR & organizational behaviour,Industrial/labour relations,Employment law |
| Author | Rasha Kassem,Aly Salama,Chanaka N. Ganepola |
CSR, credibility, employees’rights
and legitimacy during a crisis:
a critical analysis of British
Airways, WizAir and
EasyJet cases
Rasha Kassem
Business School, The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK
Aly Salama
Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, and
Chanaka N. Ganepola
Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, UK
Abstract
Purpose –Using legitimacy and impression management theories, this study examines whether there is
evidence of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) decoupling by critically analysing the cases of three
Financial Times Stock Exchange (FTSE) 350 airline companies (British Airways, WizAir, and Easyjet). The
study focusses on three CSR aspects: community, customer, and employee support.
Design/methodology/approach –Using the case study method, the authors critically analysed the content
of the three companies’websites and verified Twitter accounts between March 2020 and August 2020.
The authors also reviewed news media sources tied explicitly to COVID-19 and the airline industry.
Findings –The study finds evidence of CSR decoupling due to inconsistencies between the three airline
companies’communication about the companies’commitment to customers’health and safety and their
actions. The study also uncovers that the three airline companies have violated employee rights by imposing
unjustifiable and excessive redundancies and pay cuts, freezing planned pay rises, forcing unpaid leaves, and
in some cases, suspending free meals during the crew shifts and exploiting the financial pressure and lack of
jobs resulting from the pandemic by offering employees inferior contracts.
Research limitations/implications –This paper responds to He and Harris’s (2020) call for research to
explore the impact of the global pandemic on CSR practices and Crane and Matten’s (2020) call for research
investigating how specific stakeholders get unvalued during the pandemic. The authors’study argues that the
social responsibility of organisations, especially during crises, should not only focus on voluntary and
charitabledeeds but also on supporting employees, putting employees’well-being at the forefront of employees’
operations, and maintaining credibility and sincerity in employees’communication and actions.
Practical implications –The findings in this paper provide insights and policy implications for managers,
stakeholders, and regulators. The paper sheds light on violations of employee rights, indicating that employees
in the airline sector are amongst the under-appreciated stakeholders during the pandemic. Such knowledge is
essential for practitioners and policymakers who are charting paths forward to address the needs of vulnerable
categories of employees. The paper also elucidates the impact of CSR decoupling on an organisation’s
legitimacy and the significance of maintaining credibility in CSR communications and actions, especially
during a crisis.
Originality/value –Although exploring and analysing CSR practices in organisations has already attracted
considerable interest in recent years, there is minimal knowledge about organisations’genuine commitment
to CSR during the pandemic, and there is a dearth of relevant studies in the aviation industry during the
COVID-19 pandemic. This study addresses this gap by exploring the CSR practices of three airline companies
and the companies’genuine commitment to CSR during the pandemic.
Keywords CSR, Employee rights, Decoupling, Legitimacy theory, Impression management
Paper type Research paper
CSR and
legitimacy
during a crisis
1
The authors would like to thank the editor Professor Dennis Nickson and three anonymous reviewers for
the constructive comments and detailed suggestions on this research.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/0142-5455.htm
Received 29 November 2021
Revised 20 May 2022
22 June 2022
Accepted 24 June 2022
Employee Relations: The
International Journal
Vol. 45 No. 1, 2023
pp. 1-20
© Emerald Publishing Limited
0142-5455
DOI 10.1108/ER-11-2021-0517
1. Introduction
Organisationsneed to be profitable and moral, and the ethical dimensions to be covered for a
“license to operate”have widened to includeprotecting employeerights (Kolk and Pinkse, 2010).
From a stakeholder theoryperspective, companies are builton the foundationsof society and
are partof it and have to serve society.Companies are thereforeaccountable not only toowners
but also to all stakeholder groups directly or indirectly affected by the actions of a company,
including employees, customers, investors, and society (Freeman, 1984). The stakeholder
theory is based on legitimacy considerations: “Legitimacy and social norms and values
constrain the actionstaken by individual organisations”(Dowling and Pfeffer, 1975,p. 131).
Supporting this view, the world business council for Sustainable Development defines
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) as “the continuing commitment by business to behave
ethically and contribute to economic development whilst improving the quality of life of the
workforce and their families [and] the local community and society at large”. Similarly, the
World Bank viewed CSR as “the commitment of businesses to contribute to sustainable
economic development by working with employees, their families, the local community and
society at large to improve their lives in ways that are good for business and development”
(Starks, 2009, p. 465). In a more diverse and broader CSR definition, which includes a range of
“often-conflicting responsibilities”(Dhanesh, 2014, p. 132) an organisation has to society,
Carroll (1991) defines CSR as “The total [CSR] of business entails the simultaneous fulfilment of
the firm’s economic, legal, ethical, and philanthropic responsibilities. Stated in more pragmatic
and managerial terms, the CSR firm should strive to make a profit, obey the law, be ethical, and
be a good corporate citizen”(p. 43).
Nowadays, many scholars represent CSR as it includes product safety and quality,
environmental protection, ethical beh aviour, community relations, and protect ion of
employee rights (e.g. Tang et al., 2012;Marquis and Qian, 2014;Risi and Wickert, 2017).
From a CSR point of view, it has then been agreed that organisations have certain obligations
toward customers, communities, and employees (Matten, 2006). Winstanley et al. (1996)
question how the overall organisational goals are considered ethical and suggest an ethical
framework that focusses on social justice, community development, protecting human rights,
and creating “decent”jobs to protect employee rights. The working conditions for “decent”
jobs include equal employment opportunities, fair pay and treatment, a safe workplace, job
security, the right not to be fired without just cause, career prospects, and respect for
employee rights (e.g. Littig, 2017).
Accordingly, CSR-committed organisations need not only to support corporate
philanthropy (i.e. voluntary donations to charitable deeds) and community relations to
enrich a publicly favourable social reputation amongst stakeholders (e.g. Muller and Kr€
aussl,
2011) but also must adopt employee rights protection to be ethical and enhance their
legitimacy, or “license to operate”(Murphy and Schlegelmilch, 2013). Dhanesh (2014) argues
that CSR is proposed as a relationship management strategy, especially in employee
relations, and calls for more focus on employees in CSR research.
The COVID-19 pandemic, as a crisis, is not merely a public health emergency posing the
threat of economic turmoil; it is also a challenge to CSR practices in various sectors and urges
us to revisit some essential stakeholders’rights and interests-related questions. Kniffin et al.
(2021) expect that COVID-19 will exacerbate inequalities and continue to grow precarious
work even amongst ostensibly “essential”workers. He and Harris (2020) argue that the
pandemic crisis has spotlighted organisations’genuine commitment to CSR. They
interestingly deduce the following inquiry: Will organisations recognise that “we are in
this together”, proactively engage with their CSR strategies and agendas, and realise that their
long-term survival and development depend on a delicate balance between societal
expectations and financial objectives? In a recent article in the Financial Times, Hill et al.
(2020, p. 1) added:
ER
45,1
2
To continue reading
Request your trial