Do Millennials pay attention to Corporate Social Responsibility in comparison to previous generations? Are they motivated to lead in times of transformation? A qualitative review of generations, CSR and work motivation

During these dynamic, transformative and even disruptive times our world is experiencing, it is more essential than ever to include sustainability in CSR business strategies. This topic has been under discussion for some years now (Allen & Craig, 2016; Pisani, Kourula, Kolk, & Meijer, 2017; Turner, McIntosh, & Buckley, 2019). For example, employees perceive and judge the way their companies pro-actively engage within the environmental pillar of CSR. At present, it is critical to increase attention here by placing a serious focus on the stakeholder approach, including ethical values for global business (see Kolk, 2016), as opposed to greenwashing or pseudo-responsibility in the form of an image campaign or as bribery for business deals. Coping with global, disruptive challenges means, for example, going beyond providing excellent products and services to customers by actively managing internal vs. external stakeholders. Particularly responsible, engaged employees and leaders should be enabled to take the lead in managing the current business transformations together in the twenty-first century.

In academic reviews (e.g., Kolk, 2016; Pisani et al., 2017; Turner et al., 2019), the impact of CSR pillars on business outcomes (employees, customers and financial) is analyzed and examined. Moreover, the external CSR actions for the benefit of society and the environment drive the employees’ CSR perceptions. The benefits of a CSR-HRM framework (i.e., employee outcomes) include increased organizational commitment, work engagement and ultimately higher employee performance (see meta-analysis of Wang, Xu, & Wang, 2020 and review of Turner et al., 2019). However, whether the majority of working employees (Generation Y) perceive CSR differently compared to other generations has rarely been focused on. In our review, we consider this generational perception of CSR and link it to HRM concepts.

Corporate social responsibility is based on the stakeholder approach to sustainable business by achieving an obligation to internal vs. external stakeholders, impacting our society and our environment (Carroll, 1979). Our review relies on the definition of CSR by Glavas (2016, p. 2): “context-specific organizational actions and policies that take into account stakeholders’ expectations and the triple bottom line of economic, social, and environmental performance” by following the definition of Aguinis (2011, p. 855). Historically, the definition of CSR is based on the four pillars of Carroll (Carroll, 1979, i.e., economic, legal, ethical and philanthropic responsibility), which remain relevant for business today: A current global business example is BASF SE, a chemical global player and the current CSR winner of the German government (BASF, 2020), which introduced the value-to-society approach to measure the impact of business activities on society.

To cope with these current business transformations, companies should consequently pay attention to their committed and responsible employees. If the companies actively implement a CSR concept by integrating this in their business strategies, the employees’ CSR perceptions will positively impact their work attitudes and behavior (see current HRM review of Turner et al., 2019 and Wang et al., 2020). We elaborate on this framework, linking CSR and HRM by perceiving CSR as an integrated part of a modern HRM approach, as Turner et al. (2019) do. We differentiate internal vs. external CSR by referring to Brammer, Millington, and Rayton (2007a, 2007b). Like Turner et al. (2019), we narrow down the overall CSR perspective by focusing on internal CSR (Workplace CSR, European Commission, 2008, 2011) rather than on external CSR dimensions (e.g., marketplace/customer and environmental CSR). According to ISO 26000 (ISO (International Organization for Standardization), 2010), internal CSR (ICSR) involves acting in an ethical and transparent way that contributes to the health and welfare of society and employees. Hence, the internal stakeholder approach keeps an eye on the employees as the company’s stakeholders. This ICSR fits perfectly to the soft HRM approach of perceiving employees as the company’s assets, who add value to organizational performance (e.g., Ferreira & de Oliveira, 2014; Low, Ong & Tan, 2017; Obeidat, 2016; Radwan, 2015; Soni & Mehta, 2020; Turker, 2009; Wang et al., 2020). According to ISO 26000 and to diverse ICSR operationalization in empirical research (see Glavas, 2016; Mory, Wirtz, & Göttel, 2015, 2016, 2017; Wang et al., 2020), common ICSR features cover the following important dimensions: diversity/equal opportunities, work-life balance, social benefits, health & safety, training & development, job security, and labor relations which are in line with modern HRM best practices/measures in global companies.

Our review mainly contributes by showing empirical ICSR evidence throughout this HRM employee life cycle, focusing in particular on three important ICSR phases of this cycle: attracting future candidates, then developing and retaining them, and increasing leadership motivation for talented employees to become future leaders. Moreover, the generational perspective is the additional layer of CSR in the HRM framework.

Four underlying theories form the basis for reviewing the empirical evidence of this CSR in the HRM framework: the attraction-selection-attrition (ASA) model of Schneider (1987) as the employee life cycle model of HRM, the signal theory of Rynes, Bretz Jr., and Gerhart (1991) for the evaluation process between employee and company, the social identity theory of Tajfel and Turner (1985, 1986) for identifying with the company as an employee as a social category, and the organizational commitment model of Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, and Topolnytsky (2002) for the work behavior of employees. Schaefer, Terlutter & Diehl (2020) relied on the last two theories by examining and confirming their evidence in their CSR experiment.

For our review, studies on the ICSR concept are discussed for three phases of the HR cycle. In addition, studies on generational expectations of ICSR are included in our review of whether the generational perceptions of ICSR matter for these specific HRM phases. The goal of the review is to figure out if ICSR in the HRM framework needs to be customized for age groups, especially Millennials. The following Table 1 illustrates the review structure for ICSR in the HRM framework.

As employees are the human capital for enhancing business success, professional HRM concepts should meet the expectations of the working generations by analyzing their work attitudes and work behavior. In particular, it is worth taking their beliefs into account in internal CSR and work motivation as predictors for their positive, supportive work engagement, as major HR objectives include motivating and retaining the working employees.

By 2025, 75% of the global workforce (EY, 2015, 2016) will be comprised of a Generation Y called Millennials; this generation is the main focus of our review. The term generation is used to define a cohort of people who were born in and shaped by a particular span of time. Although each generation possesses a variety of individuals with different attitudes and behaviors, Generation Y (born between 1980 and 1994) is globally described as special in popular studies (e.g., EY, 2015, 2016). Generation Y seems to attract a special focus internationally, as this generation covers the majority of the current employees. In popular studies, Generation Y is described as having different expectations of their work life and a different work ethic than more experienced colleagues: A balanced work-life situation, flexible working hours, constant feedback, transparency, and freedom in their work organization are the most important expectations of this generation (Hohaus, 2014). All of the Millennial expectations mentioned are covered by the features of an ICSR approach; thus this approach (e.g., Glavas, 2016; Mory et al., 2015, 2016, 2017) is worth adding to the generational research analysis to adjust current HR systems if generational differences occur in ICSR perceptions (Rank, 2020).

The aim of our review is to discuss research evidence concerning work beliefs, i.e., internal CSR perceptions, work, and leadership motivation in the light of the generational differences. We applied the qualitative review method by searching for the key words “generations, work values, leadership motivation, CSR, ICSR, external CSR (ECSR), and HRM” within academic databases (e.g., EBSCO) in relation to academic studies and studies by well-known consulting companies. The timeframe for the major search was from 2000 to 2020, even though some early “historical” studies are included as a starting point for our review. About hunderd studies were ultimately integrated in our qualitative review.

The structure of this paper is as follows: After discussing the research on generational work values, we structured our later ICSR review along different HR phases of the employee life cycle, i.e., the attracting, recruiting, developing and retaining, and leadership motivation of different generations. Finally, we draw conclusions about theoretical and practical implications for HR professionals (including limitations) concerning how to specify and define the existing HR measures for attracting, recruiting, developing, and retaining those generations in their business careers.

The first insight in generation research is: Why do we consider generations at work rather than just categorize by age groups, and is this correct from a research perspective? Generational cohorts are defined as being distinct from each other mainly because of the year of birth. As a consequence, they grew up with similar life experiences, similar values, and common historical and social events that are shared by all members that belong to this cohort. These shared features of individuals born in the same period influence their social patterns and behaviors in their personal and professional work life. Previous studcies describe and stereotype various generations each owning distinct differences and characteristics (Gentry et al., 2011; Tolbize, 2008; Twenge, Campbell, & Freemann, 2012; Twenge, Campbell, Hoffman, & Lance, 2010). Even though each generation naturally consists of heterogeneous and diverse individuals, they nevertheless share a common value system and thoughts distinguishing them from other generations. Currently, the following generations are still in the workforce: retiring Baby Boomers, middle-aged Generation X and young Generation Y. As the new Generation Z is entering the workplace and currently not the majority of the workforce (Scholz, 2018), our focus excludes this generation, but future research should have an emphasis on this generation. Different authors use slightly different birth ranges to categorize generations. As an example, for Generation Y the lowest year of birth indicated in research is 1978, while the upper limit goes as high as 2002 (DGFP e.v., 2011; Tolbize, 2008). Table 2 shows the range of years that is usually used to study the three generations.

According to a comprehensive research review by Jorgensen (2003), generational differences are actually not that strong. The generalizations the popular media makes about generational cohorts rarely match the findings of scientific research (Wong, Gardiner, Lang, & Coulon, 2008). While some research shows large distinctions among these three generations, other research shows that they tend to be more similar than different (Gentry et al., 2011). Therefore, the researchers recommend being careful and not relying on stereotypes when interpreting small generational differences, related attitudes and behaviors. Although previous research shows that generational differences in values are not as strong as could be expected, differences in the way generations behave in work settings can still be observed (Jorgensen, 2003; Wong et al., 2008).

As stated before, today four generations are working side by side in companies to cope with the challenging, disruptive transformations. Many countries are facing an aging workforce population in general and an impending shortage of experienced executive managers in particular (e.g., Germany, China, Japan). The retirement of older generations and the influx of members of Generation Y to the workplace are significant issues for companies. Thus, there are practical implications when it comes to the recruitment and management of organizations’ workforce and future leaders (Twenge et al., 2010; Twenge et al., 2012). Understanding the biggest generation in the workplace, Millennials or Generation Y, helps to understand how they will behave as future leaders in organizations. Because they grew up in times of economic uncertainty and insecurity, Generation X developed a greater sense of skepticism about employer loyalty, but feels more individualistic and tolerant of risk when it comes to work. Just like Generation Y, they value a work-life balance and are more technologically advanced than the Baby Boomers (Tolbize, 2008). Generation X is often said to be stuck in between the Baby Boomers and Generation Y when it comes to their work values, attitudes and expectations.

The important longitudinal study of Twenge et al. (2010) examines generational differences in work values with data collected over time in three different years (US high school students in 1976, 1991, and 2006) to separate generational differences from age and career differences. This time-lag method, compared to one-off studies, analyzes people at the same age at different time periods. Consequently, any differences between them must be caused by the generational cohort they belong to rather than by their age. Values are defined as indicators of people’s decisions and actions, whereas work values are defined as the outcomes of what people desire and feel they have to attain through their professional work. Twenge et al. (2010) differentiate between extrinsic and intrinsic values. Extrinsic work values are tangible rewards that are external to an individual and the outcome of work achieved (e.g., income, status, or advancement opportunities). Intrinsic values are intangible rewards of work. They focus on the process of work itself rather than the outcome (e.g., the opportunity to be creative or the learning potential work offers). Some other work values include influence, autonomy, job security, social and leisure rewards (Twenge et al., 2012). In comparison to older generations in the workforce (Baby Boomers and Generation X), Generation Y places a stronger value on leisure time (Twenge et al., 2012). Furthermore, Generation Y values work that provides extrinsic rewards more than previous generations, which actually seems contrary to their value of more leisure time. On the other hand, Generation Y shows a declining importance attributed to intrinsic values. As a result, they do not necessarily search for meaningful and satisfying work. However, this is contradicted by various other popular German studies (Huber & Rauch, 2013; Ries, Wittmann, & Wagner, 2012). These authors asserted that social rewards are rated lower by Generation Y than the previous two generations, indicating that they feel less of a need to belong to work groups (Twenge et al., 2010; Twenge et al., 2012). One reason for this might be that Generation Y does not rely on their professional work to make friends (Twenge et al., 2010). Likewise, Twenge et al. (2012) extended their value structure of life goals and included values like concern for others and civic orientation among three different generations. Compared to Baby Boomers at the same age, Gen Xers and Millennials rated goals related to extrinsic values (money, image, fame) more highly than intrinsic values (self-acceptance, affiliation, community).

According to cross-sectional study results of Ng, Schweitzer, and Lyons (2010), five predominant themes can be identified concerning the work expectations of Generation Y. Generation Y places a strong emphasis on a substantial work-life balance, and chooses work that does not excessively compromise their private life. They expect good and fair pay and benefits from their work, which might reflect their sense of entitlement and also their self-imposed high personal standards. In connection with that, Generation Y expects the prospect of fast advancement when it comes to job promotions or pay raises, while also receiving constant feedback from superiors and team members in order to improve. Generation Y expects their work to be meaningful and fulfilling with an organization that is also aware of its corporate social responsibility. Lastly, this generation seeks challenging and stimulating work, combined with a chance to broaden their horizons, and national and international job mobility (Ng et al., 2010). Linking these results to the ICSR concept, all ICSR features are covered in this study and positively valued by Generation Y.

Further, according to the popular survey Deloitte’s Millennial Survey (2014), more than half of Generation Y’s future leaders might not favor traditionally organized business, preferring to work independently and on their own individual terms. Some even go as far as describing Generation Y as “Generation Career Deniers”, because their motivation and willingness to strive for a career in a leadership position is apparently diminishing for some young people, at least when it comes to the “traditional” form of leadership positions and career aspirations (Werle, 2012). We questioned whether this is really true.

The differences related to the work values, attitudes and expectations attributed to Generation Y reported in our review seem to indicate that Generation Y is somehow “special” in comparison to the previous generations concerning their work values: The difference is slight rather than as large as assumed. However, the scientific evidence is inconclusive, because methodological constraints may occur, i.e., effects related to work experience, tenure with the company or gender might interact with the generation or an age group effect (see review of Parry & Urwin, 2011).

Employee perception of the external CSR activities of their companies (i.e., social performance in communities and legal or ethical behavior of companies) was the first focus of CSR studies: Brammer, Pavelin, and Porter (2009) specified a general CSR attitude from corporate social performance (CSP). CSR is a perception based on CSP resulting from an evaluation of the concrete external CSR activities of a company for the benefit of society or social welfare. Paul, Meyskens, and Robbins (2011) defined CSR as a mindset or sensitivity for CSP. They found that students from the USA with a high cross-cultural sensitivity were more sensitive to CSR. Their conclusion was that a global mindset of international managers requires external CSR and cross-cultural sensitivity. Intercultural differences occur between countries concerning whether civil rights are respected or not (Brammer et al., 2009) and whether CSR has a basic national infrastructure (Halkos & Skouloudis, 2016). Research discovering the link between internal CSR and organizational attractiveness concentrates on the external CSR reputation related to social welfare as well as on the internal CSR related to the workplace (see Glavas, 2016; Gond, El Akremi, Igalens, & Swaen, 2010).

First, we briefly review ICSR research by focusing on two phases of the HRM employee life cycle: attracting & recruiting and developing & retaining. Concerning the first phase, attracting and recruiting, most of the research was conducted by exploring CSR perceptions of students in the USA representing the young job-seeking generations. In other cases, the sample and the country are specified below. For each of the HR phases, we finally focus on our specific key issues of whether studies report generational differences in CSR perceptions.

Due to a focus of Generation Y on more extrinsic work values (Twenge et al., 2010), we suppose that Generation Y could be less interested in the challenging job of a leader. The role of a leader’s motivation and personality plays an important part in leadership research as a predictor for a leader’s success (Felfe & Gatzka, 2012). Generation Y’s attitude and their assumed decreasing leadership motivation make it imperative to learn more about and closely examine their potential as future leaders in the work environment. With the impending retirement of many older workers and the entering of young talent in the form of Generation Y, it is necessary to analyze these issues in terms of succession management identifying new talented employees as future leaders. Furthermore, it is important to understand this generation’s motivation toward assuming leadership positions.

Leadership research (e.g., Van Iddekinge, Ferris, & Heffner, 2009) proposes a multistage model including distal, semi-distal and proximal drivers for leadership performance. Examples of distal drivers are cognitive ability or personality traits, examples of semi-distal influencers are leadership motivation or experience, and finally proximal antecedents include knowledge, skill, and abilities as good examples. Our research assumption concerning Generation’s Y motivational stage for a leader’s workplace focuses on one element of this leadership model. One can especially postulate whether their specific work values influence their potential leadership motivation to become a future leader.

According to Felfe and Gatzka (2012), motivation comes through specific motives, which convert neutral aspects into incentives and, as a consequence, generate goals. Felfe and Gatzka (2012), who build on Chan and Drasgow’s (2001) research, define Motivation to Lead (MTL) as the individual preference to assume leadership responsibilities (Elprana & Hernandez Bark, 2014). Further, MTL is identified as a strong predictor for leadership potential, participation in leadership training, leader emergence, and leadership performance (Stiehl, Gatzka, Elprana, & Felfe, 2015). Felfe and Gatzka (2012) adapted their German construct for use in English and changed or extended the items in the questionnaire for counseling purposes (Elprana & Hernandez Bark, 2014). It includes two main concepts that investigate leadership motivation based on motives (Felfe & Gatzka, 2012). The first relevant concept concentrates on implicit or learned motives and explains people’s behavior based on three fundamental individual motives: power, achievement, and affiliation. This motive constellation is labeled the Leadership Motive Pattern (McClelland & Boyatzis, 1982): Leaders with such a motivational profile are more successful in a long-term study than leaders without these characteristics. However, high power, high achievement and, to a low extent, affiliation motives are considered general motives and are not necessarily specific concepts connected to the adoption of leadership responsibility (Felfe & Gatzka, 2012).

Based on Chan and Drasgow (2001), Felfe and Gatzka (2012) developed the core elements of MTL, split into three different facets shown: the affective facet (emphasizes positive and internal emotional feelings toward leadership tasks), the calculative facet (does not look for any advantages or disadvantages coming from leading) and the normative facet (stirred by a feeling of duty and expectations of others, Felfe & Gatzka, 2012).

Empirical studies confirmed the validity of the construct: If all motives are congruent, a strong intrinsic motivation develops, while a deviation will lead to barriers and inner conflicts concerning leadership responsibility (Felfe & Gatzka, 2012). Leadership-like interests reflect incentives that additionally motivate someone to assume a leadership position. They make leading attractive and cover the six fields of interest. The four components (basic motives, MTL, leadership interests, and motivational barriers) are analyzed to see whether a person has a certain leadership motivation. The basic motive, MTL, and motivational barriers of Felfe & Gatzka (2012) were elected to discover generational differences in leadership motivation.

Before stepping into our research assumptions, a brief literature review on generational differences in leadership motivation is relevant: Wong et al. (2008) compare managers vs. young professionals with regard to personality traits and motivation. They showed differences in personality and motivational drivers between generations Y and X. However, leadership motivation was not explicitly assessed. Dries, Pepermans, and De Kerpel (2008) explored generational differences in career types, and in general, no generational differences were found. D’Amato and Herzfeldt (2008) researched by surveying a sample of managers: Generational differences were identified among managers in learning orientation and leadership development intentions. In their study in the USA, Deal et al. (2013, p. 1) tested whether managerial level explains work motivation better than generation does: “Although Gen Xers, Late Boomers and Early Boomers did differ in external and introjected work motivation, there was substantially more variance in work motivation explained by the managerial level. Individuals at lower managerial levels had higher levels of external motivation than those at higher managerial levels, whereas individuals at higher managerial levels had higher levels of intrinsic, identified, and introjected motivation”. However, Generation Y was not included.

To sum up, there is a lack of research analyzing the leadership motivation across age groups or generations. Affective MTL is probably the most important motive to have when assuming a leadership position, and it is the most effective predictor of leadership emergence (Elprana & Hernandez Bark, 2014). Generation Y might assume leadership positions in order to expect benefits from it, receiving motivation through a cost-benefit balance that is in their favor. This is a complex scope, but it supports the results of Twenge et al. (2010): Generation Y is guided by extrinsic values (income, status) more than by intrinsic values (learning potential, creativity). They might only take on leadership positions out of their own conviction if they believe that their own personal development could benefit and retain their work-life balance with enough leisure time. Therefore, we argue that Generation Y possesses a higher calculative MTL than previous generations and takes on leadership roles if there are extrinsic values. In consequence, they might possess a lower affective MTL, as they are cautious about enjoying leading and losing their leisure time. Similarly, Generation Y might also possess a lower normative MTL than previous generations. They would move on to the next company if they believed that their own personal development stopped. Lastly, in relation to the previous hypotheses, Generation Y shows higher leadership avoidance, meaning they have higher motivational barriers to accepting leadership positions than their predecessor generations in order to save their work-life balance credo. Naturally, managers who already assume leadership positions do not have high leadership avoidance, since that would be contrary to their job. They would not be managers in leading positions in the first place if they would possess high leadership avoidance. One reason for the lowest score of Generation Y could be that they still have some concerns about what exactly their path to a leadership position could look like, as they are young professionals. In a nutshell, Generation Y should possess higher leadership avoidance than the previous Generation X, who already assumes a leadership position. Interaction effects with age and maturity need to be tested, too. Within companies, the motivational differences for leadership should be carefully considered for retention programs of future leaders. The cross-cultural and generational view of leadership motivation is especially interesting for international companies, as they need to recruit and develop future international leaders in Generation Y. The challenge for HR managers might be to customize employer branding programs and leadership development programs to expectations/ICSR beliefs of different generations, genders, and cultural demands.