Beyond Wages and Working Conditions:

A Conceptualization of Labor Union Social

Responsibility Cedric Dawkins

ABSTRACT. This article integrates theory and concepts

from the business and society, business ethics, and labor

relations literatures to offer a conceptualization of labor

union social responsibility that includes activities geared

toward three primary objectives: economic equity,

workplace democracy, and social justice. Economic,

workplace, and social labor union stakeholders are iden-

tified, likely issues are highlighted, and the implications of

labor union social responsibility for labor union strategy

are discussed. It is noted that, given the breadth of labor

unions in a global work environment, labor union social

responsibility also has implications for NGOs, corpora-

tions, and how corporate social responsibility is viewed

going forward. This article concludes by noting that the

nexus of labor relations and corporate social responsibility

warrants more attention in management and labor rela-

tions literatures.

KEY WORDS: labor unions, corporate social responsi-

bility, social responsibility

‘‘We have first the typical assumption of all reformers

in all ages … that economic and social conditions can, by deliberate human intervention, be changed for the

better.’’ Industrial Democracy, Sidney and Beatrice

Webb – 1897

The issues currently driving the discussion about

corporate social responsibility (CSR) – the proactive

engagement in stakeholder issues to assure positive

societal impact while enhancing corporate viability –

are increasingly complex; human and workers’

rights, global supply networks, and governance (or

the lack thereof), issues that also involve the gov-

ernments, non-governmental organizations (NGOs),

and labor unions with whom corporations interact.

As a consequence, CSR research is expanding

beyond how business firms address their responsi-

bilities, to how those responsibilities are framed

altogether. Some research employs the term corporate

citizenship to describe the social role of business and

suggests that as powerful public actors businesses

have a responsibility to provide and respect basic

civil, social, and political rights (Matten and Crane,

2005; Wood and Logsdon, 2001). Some other

research studies suggest that global supply networks

are political and economic entities that are best

viewed from a political perspective (Levy, 2008;

Scherer and Palazzo, 2007), or emphasize the

growing role of NGOs as partners in CSR efforts

(Jamali and Keshishian, 2008). Largely absent from

these discussions are the labor unions, who are the

vital corporate partners and important organizations

in their own right.

Labor union’s reticence toward CSR begins with

skepticism about the voluntary nature of CSR that

circumvents the contractually binding provisions of

collective bargaining. There is also general labor

union’s 1

wariness about the stakeholder framework,

and specific concerns about CSR programs that it

tends to equate labor unions with other stakeholders.

Some unionists believe stakeholder status implies a

separate and subsidiary role, alongside the local

community and others, rather than recognizing

unions as equal partners in the business enterprise.

Moreover, while CSR stresses the importance of

identifying and engaging stakeholders, it emphasizes

unilateral managerial decision making and rarely

refers to the type of power that workers exercise

through their trade unions (Justice, 2003). As a

result of these misgivings, some labor unions have

Journal of Business Ethics (2010) 95:129–143 � Springer 2009 DOI 10.1007/s10551-009-0342-3

concluded that CSR is simply another management

system that will be used to undermine union stature

and influence. They prefer a version of CSR that

complements, but does not replace, legislation on

economic and social rights and environmental stan-

dards and is more deferential to collective bargaining

(Mather, 2006; Preuss et al., 2006).

Other labor union leaders believe unions should

collaborate with organizations concerned about the

social ramifications of business. They contend that

CSR is an enduring part of the business landscape

and failing to engage social responsibility merely

plays into the hands of businesses that are trying to

use CSR to forestall regulation. Engaging CSR also

affords union leaders an opportunity to promote

compliance with regulatory standards and respect for

the role of labor unions (International Confederation

of Free Trade Unions, 2001). Hence, labor unions

should lay claim to a role in CSR, make their

viewpoints known, and take on the challenge of

thwarting business attempts to supplant government

regulation with CSR (FNV Mondiaal, 2004).

As the loyal opposition, and hybrid organizations

that simultaneously embrace and challenge the cor-

porate structure, labor unions are uniquely posi-

tioned to present a view of social responsibility that

speaks to both benefactors and beneficiaries. More

importantly, in the current business and social

environment, labor unions will also be challenged

regarding the social ramifications of their activities.

For example, even as most Americans recognize the

need for labor unions, they question union pro-

ductivity and economic impact (Panagopoulos and

Francia, 2008). Even so, there is no clear formulation

of labor union social responsibility. While the

management literature has focused on CSR, as if

corporations are the only organizations with social

responsibilities, labor relations research is largely

devoid of discussion about labor union responsibil-

ities to society. Labor unions, however, were early

purveyors of the tenets of CSR – an equitable wage,

humane working conditions, due process for

workers, and concern for marginalized communities.

The objective of this article is to provide a con-

ceptual model of social responsibility for labor

unions and discuss its implications. In what follows, I

will contend that labor union social responsibility (a)

is derived from institutional imperatives and the

social contract, (b) occurs within the context of

expected functions, day-to-day activities, (c) requires

the control or influence of something of value, (d) is

directed toward stakeholders, and (e) has ramifica-

tions for strategy and practice.

Foundations for labor union social

responsibility

Social responsibility connotes organizations having a

role in society that extends beyond laws and regu-

lations to maintaining a level of behavior that is in

concert with the prevailing social norms, values, and

expectations (Sethi, 1975), and encompasses a wide

range of economic, legal, ethical, and philanthropic

activities that society expects of powerful organiza-

tions (Carroll, 1991). Institutional and social

exchange theories and deontological ethics are bases of

social responsibility that have primarily been directed

toward other organizations, but provide a sound

rationale for labor union social responsibility as well.

According to institutional theory, institutions such as

government, professional groups, and interest groups

jointly specify rules, procedures, and structures for

organizations as a condition for granting legitimacy –

the general perception that the actions of an entity are

acceptable within the normative parameters of society

(Meyer and Rowan, 1977; Suchman, 1995). To the

extent that an organization’s interactions and contri-

butions are viewed favorably, it achieves the legiti-

macy – congruency between the values, norms, and

expectations of society and the activities and outcomes

of the organization (Ashforth and Gibbs, 1990) – that

is essential to its viability and vitality (Aldrich and Fiol,

1994; Scott, 1995). Labor unions, such as other social

institutions, depend on society’s acceptance and must,

therefore, operate in a manner that garners societal

approval.

A second source of labor union social responsi-

bility is the social contract. According to Blau

(1964), an implicit social contract is established when

one party provides something of benefit to another

that produces a reciprocal obligation. In order to

discharge this obligation, the second must furnish

benefits to the first in turn. Donaldson and Dunfee

(2002) refer to implicit understandings or ‘‘con-

tracts’’ that bind industries, companies, and eco-

nomic systems into moral and ethical communities.

These social contracts are necessary because society

130 Cedric Dawkins

confers privileges on certain organizations that

contribute to important societal goals. That privi-

lege, however, must be accompanied by constraints

because privilege can result in a number of trou-

blesome social outcomes (Aldrich, 1999; Valasquez,

1996). For example, because labor unions monop-

olize labor, their actions can disrupt the availability

of vital goods and services. Societal institutions

provide the prerogative for organizations to operate

in the public sphere, but to maintain legitimacy,

those organizations must reciprocate with benefits

for society.

The final source of labor union social responsibility

is ethical obligation. Deontological ethics focuses on

the actions themselves, rather than on consequences,

and its tenets of moral duty and justice form the ethos

of the labor movement. Samuel Gompers, first pres-

ident of the American Federation of Labor, empha-

sizes moral standing in tandem with the teleological

objective of equitable demands by stating,

Labor needs to be strong through … the justice of its cause, and the reasonableness of its methods. It relies

on moral suasion because of its conviction that its

demands are generally equitable, and picketing is as

necessary to the employment of moral influence as the

boycott is necessary to the proper use of the moral

power wielded by labor and its sympathizers (U.S.

57th Congress, 1902, p. 61).

As a consequence, institutions such as the Catholic

Church and the United Nations have supported

labor unions as a vehicle for improving working

conditions and recognizing human potential (Paul

XXIII, 1991; Thomas, 2009; United Nations,

2008). This support is based on the perceived

morality of labor union appeals and the expectation

that unions will continue their commitment to

moral causes.

Labor union voice

Responsibility, giving account for conduct and

obligations, implies that an entity is consequential in

that it influences, possesses, or produces an outcome

of value. For labor unions that outcome of value is

voice. According to Hirschman (1970, p. 30), voice is

‘‘the ability to change, rather than accept or escape

from, an objectionable state of affairs,’’ and is often

accompanied by the capacity to provide due process

in the hearing of a concern, information about issues

of interest, and safeguards against reprisals for

unpopular views (Budd and Scoville, 2005). As a

direct channel of communication between workers

and employers, voice enables workers to express dis-

content and change the workplace relation without

quitting, slowdowns, or sabotage.

It is often assumed that a union’s most important

asset is its ability to improve the earnings of its

members, but wages are a deficient indicator of

labor union value. After voice is established

through collective action, workers can employ that

voice to any number of interests, including wages.

The market, however, tends to constrain the union

wage premium to approximately 15% such that it

has been relatively stable (Hirsch and Macpherson,

2000; Wunnava and Peled, 1999) or declining

(Bennett and Kaufman, 2007; Blanchflower and

Bryson, 2004) over the last several decades. Thus,

rather than unions having voice because of their

monopoly wage power, it is the promise of voice –

monopoly wage power is derived from collective

bargaining – that inspires workers to form unions.

In a survey of union members, Waddington and

Whitston (1997) found that 72% chose support if I

had a problem at work as a reason for joining a labor

union, compared to 36% that cited improved pay and

working conditions. 2

This outcome is consistent with

classic labor union research (e.g., Parker, 1920;

Tannenbaum, 1951) maintaining that preserving

workers’ dignity is the primary motive for union-

ization.

If, as proposed here, the primary union activity is

to articulate its members’ concerns, then the cur-

rency for labor unions is voice, not wages. Gross

(2002, p. 70) states, ‘‘a full human life requires the

kind of participation in the political, economic, and

social life of the human community that enables

people to have an influence on the decisions that

affect their lives.’’ Of course, labor union members

are the primary beneficiaries of voice, but the fun-

damental necessity of voice makes it valuable to

other union stakeholders as well. Since voice is the

currency of labor unions, labor union impact on

society occurs through advocacy, the use of voice to

advance its interests and objectives.

131A Conceptualization of Labor Union Social Responsibility

Objectives of labor union social

responsibility

With the exception of egregious behavior, social

responsibility usually does not require a radical

departure from an organization’s normal operations,

but rather engaging in their roles and activities in a

way that is consistent with prevailing ethical stan-

dards and societal expectations. With that in mind, a

characterization of labor union social responsibility

must address a central question, where do unions

have societal impact? As shown in Table I, I draw

from a range of perspectives on labor union roles and

activities to identify three primary objectives: (a)

economic equity, which is geared toward gaining

equitable wages and benefits, (b) workplace

democracy, which is centered on social standing at

work through democratic processes and procedures

(e.g., due process), and (c) social justice, which

focuses on justice in the broad societal context

through participation as a members of the polity.

Freeman and Medoff (1984) describe two faces of

unionism, the monopoly face whereby unions em-

ploy collective bargaining to provide wage and

benefit premiums to their members, and the col-

lective voice face whereby the union establishes

mechanisms for fair treatment in the workplace.

These two faces of unionism coincide with the

economic equity and workplace democracy objec-

tives of social responsibility. Godard’s (1997) survey

of Canadian workers resulted in five union roles: (a)

economic, maximizing wages and benefits; (b)

workplace democratization, securing worker rights

and protections; (c) integrative, providing orderly

conflict resolution mechanisms; (d) social demo-

cratic, addressing broader social issues, and (e) con-

flict, countervailing the corporate agenda as a general

advocate for workers. Godard’s economic role is

consistent with the economic equity objective and

the workplace democratization and integrative

functions are subsumed in the workplace democracy

objective. The social democratic and conflict activ-

ities are entailed in the social justice objective

because the social interests of workers are largely

addressed by competing against businesses for

favorable regulations and social legislation.

Based on the experience of European labor

unions Hyman (1996) offers four union identities:

(a) collective bargaining, maximizing wages and

benefits; (b) workplace governance, establishing due

process mechanisms and limits to arbitrary employer

authority; (c) schools of war, advocacy of regulatory

and macroeconomic policies that effect wage rates;

and (d) advocacy on quality of life issues such as the

environment and consumer protection. The collec-

tive bargaining and workplace governance activities

that Hyman identifies align with the economic

equity and workplace democracy objectives of union

social responsibility, while the schools of war and

quality of life identities align with the social justice

objective. Budd et al. (2004) propose that the three

primary objectives for the employment relationship

are efficiency, equity, and voice. Their objective of

efficiency equates to the economic equity objective

and the equity and voice objectives equate to

the workplace democracy objective. They do not

make a connection between the objectives pursued in

the workplace and social conditions on the outside.

Finally, the moral foundations of work presented by

Kochan and Shulman (2007), efficiency, dignity, and

social solidarity, align closely with the economic

equity, workplace democracy, and social justice

objectives, respectively.

The efforts to improve the financial standing of

workers can be effective because of collective

activities such as negotiations, work actions, strikes,

and corporate campaigns. Workplace democracy is

achieved by continually negotiating the collective

bargaining agreement through the grievance and

arbitration procedures. Unions contend that corpo-

rate legal rights have been extended through the

International Financial Institutions (e.g., WTO,

International Monetary Fund, World Bank) and

trade agreements, but worker representation has not

kept pace. Obviously labor unions must deliver

financial benefits to their members to remain viable

but, because the social and political aspirations of

their stakeholders are so closely linked to their

financial well-being, unions are called upon to

address those aspirations as well. Social justice occurs

through political means such as corporate campaigns

and other activities that raise awareness, but also by

bargaining on behalf of stakeholders. For example,

some global union federations have reached Inter-

national Framework Agreements with particular

global corporations that secure workers’ rights to

freedom of association and collective bargaining, and

prohibit forced labor, child labor, and workplace

132 Cedric Dawkins

T A

B L E

I

O b je

c ti v e s

o f

la b o r

u n io

n so

c ia

l re

sp o n si b il it y

F re

e m

an an

d M

e d o ff

(1 9 8 4 )

– tw

o fa

c e s

o f

u n io

n is m

H y m

an (1

9 9 6 )

–

U n io

n id

e n ti ti e s

G o d ar

d (1

9 9 7 )

–

so c ie

ta l

e x p e c ta

ti o n s

o f

u n io

n s

B u d d

(2 0 0 6 )

–

o b je

c ti v e s

o f

th e

e m

p lo

y m

e n t

re la

-

ti o n sh

ip

K o c h an

an d

S h u l-

m an

(2 0 0 7 )

– m

o ra

l

fo u n d at

io n s

o f

w o rk

E c o n o m

ic

ad v o c ac

y

M o n o p o ly

fa c e

u se

s

c o ll e c ti v e

b ar

g ai

n -

in g

to p ro

v id

e

w ag

e an

d b e n e fi t

p re

m iu

m s

fo r

u n -

io n

m e m

b e rs

R e p re

se n ti n g

w o rk

-

e rs

in e c o n o m

ic

m ar

k e t

fu n c ti o n s

E c o n o m

ic m

ax im

iz -

in g

o f

w ag

e s

an d

b e n e fi ts

E ffi

c ie

n t

u n io

n

c o n tr

ac ts

an d

ac ti v it ie

s th

at e n -

ab le

fi n an

c ia

ll y

c o m

p e ti ti v e

e m

p lo

y e rs

E ffi

c ie

n c y

A li v in

g w

ag e

W o rk

p la

c e

d e m

o c ra

c y

C o ll e c ti v e

v o ic

e fa

c e

ad v o c at

e s

fo r

fa ir

tr e at

m e n t

an d

c o m

p e n sa

te s

fo r

m ar

k e t

im p e rf

e c -

ti o n s

an d

e x te

rn al

i-

ti e s

R ai

si n g

w o rk

e r

st at

u s

W o rk

p la

c e

d e m

o c -

ra c y ,

se c u ri

n g

w o rk

e r

v o ic

e ,

ri g h ts

, an

d p ro

te c -

ti o n s

W o rk

p la

c e

in te

g ra

ti o n ,

p ro

-

v id

in g

o rd

e rl

y

c o n fl ic

t re

so lu

ti o n

m e c h an

is m

s

E q u it y

as e v id

e n c e d

b y

m in

im u m

an d

fa ir

st an

d ar

d s

fo r

w ag

e s

an d

b e n e fi ts

an d

ju st

-c au

se d is -

c ip

li n e

an d

d is -

c h ar

g e

V o ic

e to

in c re

as e

in d u st

ri al

d e m

o c -

ra c y ,

e m

p lo

y e e

d e c is io

n m

ak in

g

an d

au to

n o m

y ,

fr e e

sp e e c h ,

an d

p o li ti -

c al

e m

p lo

y e e

ac ti v it y

D ig

n it y

an d

p e rs

o n al

d e v e lo

p m

e n t

D iv

e rs

it y

an d

e q u al

o p p o rt

u n it y

V o ic

e an

d p ar

ti c ip

a-

ti o n

P ro

b le

m so

lv in

g

S o c ia

l ju

st ic

e S c h o o ls

o f w

ar in

th e

c o n fl ic

t b e tw

e e n

la b o r

an d

c ap

it al

A c h ie

v in

g so

c ia

l

ju st

ic e

in e n v ir

o n -

m e n t,

c o n su

m e r

p ro

te c ti o n

an d

c o m

m u n it y

S o c ia

l d e m

o c ra

c y ,

ad d re

ss in

g b ro

ad e r

so c ia

l is su

e s,

su c h

as

h e al

th c ar

e re

fo rm

C o u n te

rv ai

li n g

th e

co rp

or at

e ag

en d a

as a

g e n e ra

l ad

v o c at

e

fo r

w o rk

e rs

S o li d ar

it y / so

c ia

l

c o h e si o n

fo r

th e

c o m

m o n

g o o d

R e v is e d

so c ia

l

c o n tr

ac t

in te

g ra

ti n g

w o rk

, fa

m il y ,

an d

c o m

m u n it y

re sp

o n si b il it ie

s

133A Conceptualization of Labor Union Social Responsibility

discrimination. Each of the objectives of labor union

social responsibility exists simultaneously and any

given labor union activity can embody economic,

workplace, and social motives.

Stakeholders and labor union social

responsibility

In developing a conceptual framework for labor

union social performance, it is necessary not only to

specify the nature (economic, workplace, social) of

those responsibilities but also to identify the stake-

holders toward whom beneficial policies and activ-

ities are directed, and to whom accountability is

due. According to Rest (1986, p. 7) the foundation

of ethical decision making is moral awareness,

‘‘…[having] been able to make some sort of inter- pretation of the particular situation in terms of what

actions were possible, who (including oneself) would

be affected by each course of action, and how the

interested parties would regard such effects on their

welfare.’’ Applying the concept of moral awareness

to labor unions at the organizational level, if labor

unions are able to determine who is affected by their

activities, then they have sound a basis on which to

employ a deontological approach of pursuing pro-

grams that may be unrelated to union members, or a

teleological approach of directing programs toward

areas of mutual benefit for union members and

outside stakeholders.

Figure 1 shows three basic groups of union

stakeholders that align with the three objectives of

social responsibility: the economic community, the

workplace community, and the social community;

Table II provides some ways that labor unions can

respond to their concerns. The economic commu-

nity includes the union locals, businesses, consumers,

and public bystanders who may be affected by the

outcomes of collective bargaining. Labor unions are

business partners that must balance their wage

demands with management concerns about efficiency

and quality. For example, increased quality and

productivity must accompany increased compensa-

tion to maintain current profit margins. Managers,

consumers, and the public require wage demands

that recognize the importance of corporate com-

petitiveness, and responsible strike activity that does

not unduly disrupt essential goods and services.

Lastly, regulatory compliance requires labor unions

to be prudent stewards of their members’ rights and

resources and operate in a way that assures favorable

legal standing.

The workplace community focuses on workplace

democracy and is composed of union workers, their

supervisors, and the management and union hierar-

chies that jointly administer the collective bargaining

agreement. Union members require expeditious

handling of grievances, and constraints on manage-

ment authority, whereas management desires worker

flexibility and problem-solving contributions. Man-

agers generally welcome worker input; it is not

unusual for workers to withhold ideas for fear that

increased efficiencies will lead to reductions in force

(Lawler, 2001). Labor unions interact with man-

agement to ensure that conflicts over work rules and

assignments are resolved constructively and worker

participation can occur without unduly compro-

mising job security. Workplace democracy is joint

administration of the workplace whereby workers

have a vehicle for representation in accordance with

the collective bargaining agreement. The workplace

stakeholders are those that are present a physical

address in the day-to-day issues in the place of

employment such as joint decision making, griev-

ances, and arbitration. Thus, the broad objective of

the workplace stakeholders is effective mechanisms

for conflict resolution in a workplace that is both

humane and efficient.

Just as corporations cannot focus exclusively on

shareholders, labor unions must reconcile the inter-

ests of union members with those of other stake-

holders. Stakeholders in the social community

include NGOs and civic organizations, potential

union members, and the marginalized segments of

society to whom labor unions have traditionally

appealed. Social stakeholders are most focused on

whether unions are addressing ethical obligations

with regard to promoting societal well being and

seeking to affect the pattern of privilege and disad-

vantage in society. Workplace democracy is joint

administration of the workplace whereby workers

have a vehicle for representation in accordance

with the collective bargaining agreement. The

workplace stakeholders are those that present a

physical address in the day-to-day issues in the place

of employment such as joint decision making,

grievances, and arbitration.

134 Cedric Dawkins

There are also issues generated by globalisation

such as offshoring, environmental protection, and

human and worker rights abroad. Activities may be

more typical of social movements and center on

political enfranchisement and mobilizing broad

coalitions on behalf of favorable governmental actors

and policies. As shown in Table III, various stake-

holders will view labor union social responsibility

differently such that it presents threats and oppor-

tunities for labor leaders to consider. Being per-

ceived as socially responsible can improve an

organization’s image (Fombrun et al., 2000) and

increase member commitment (Valentine and

Fleischman, 2008). Some members may, however,

think that it is counter-intuitive for labor unions to

address social responsibility at a time when union

Work Rules

Worker Participation

Workplace Community

Workplace Democracy

Labor Union

Social Justice

Social Community

Workers’ Rights

Political Enfranchisement

Economic Equity

Economic Community

Wages

Strike Activity

Conflict ResolutionEfficiency & Quality

Regulatory Stewardship

= Dimensions of social responsibility ......... = Stakeholders

= Issues

Environment

Human Rights

Figure 1. Labor union stakeholders and issues.

135A Conceptualization of Labor Union Social Responsibility

strength is waning and scarce resources can be em-

ployed elsewhere. Depending on how members

view this paradox, labor union social responsibility

may increase member commitment or result in

withdrawal because members question advocacy

directed toward outside stakeholders and issues.

Consumers tend to patronize organizations whose

values they share (Bhattacharya et al., 1995; Maignan

and Ferrell, 2001), and social responsibility may lead

to increased support for labor unions. On the con-

trary, social responsibility involves risk because social

issues may involve aligning with politically unpop-

ular groups that alienate other stakeholders. Busi-

nesses are voluntarily engaging CSR and may simply

add socially responsible initiatives to the list of joint

labor-management programs. Some managers may,

however, view labor union social involvement as an

attempt to corrode management influence. To the

TABLE II

Union responses to stakeholder issues

Economic community Workplace community Social community

Attempt to negotiate Interna-

tional Framework Agree-

ments with business firms

that support workers’ rights

to organize – throughout

corporate GSNs

Advocate the right to collec-

tively bargain for all workers

Use union pension funds

(particularly where trade

unionists are represented on

fund boards), to reward

responsible businesses

Support workers’ attempts for

decent wage and fair work-

ing conditions domestically

and internationally

Promote workplaces that are

safe, secure, healthy and free

of harassment, intimidation,

violence and discrimination

Local plants of a global

corporation, take active part

in building a global union

network for its workers

Campaign/negotiate for work

uniforms, equipment, and

supplies that are ethically

sourced

Ensure that workers’ rights to

freedom of association and

collective bargaining are

more than a charitable con-

cern, but center-stage for

CSR

Promote the integration of

public enforcement bodies

such as labor/health and

safety inspectorates into

CSR initiatives

Pursue stronger domestic and international

legislation to ensure that business firms meet

their social and environmental responsibili-

ties

Advocate for inclusion of workers’ rights,

into the international financial and trade

institutions (WTO, IMF, and World Bank)

regulatory regimes

Encourage businesses to build CSR require-

ments into their public–private partnerships,

supply contracts, and aid programs

Build joint campaigns with NGOs and con-

sumers to legal and ethical conduct and

environmentally sustainable practices with

workers, stakeholders and the community

Voice opposition to discrimination in all

forms including that based on race, religion,

ethnicity, gender, disability, sexual prefer-

ence and political beliefs

TABLE III

Labor union social responsibility – threats and opportunities

Stakeholder Opportunities to pursue Threats to avoid

Union members Increased commitment Withdrawal

Consumers Support Indifference/antipathy

Management Accord Increased hostility

Regulators Favorable regulation Unfavorable regulation

Social community Collaboration Opposition

136 Cedric Dawkins

extent that there is management intransigence or

antipathy, the ability for labor unions to embrace

workplace democracy initiatives may be limited

(e.g., participation in workplace innovation).

Since regulation tends to result from excesses,

labor union attentiveness to regulations makes more

oversight less likely. This factor is particularly rele-

vant given the recent abuses in businesses (US

mortgage crises) and NGOs (e.g., United Way).

Lastly, the level of agreement and cooperation

between labor unions and their partner organizations

is likely to vary significantly. For example, the

Industrial Wood and Allied Workers of Canada

aligned with timber corporations against environ-

mentalists in a dispute over logging in British

Columbia, while the Pulp, Paper and Woodworkers

of Canada has maintained a cooperative relationship

with environmental organizations (Simon, 2003).

Thus, labor union social responsibility occurs to

the extent that labor unions employ voice to

enhance the standing of their stakeholders in areas of

economic equity and efficiency, workplace rights

and protections, and social justice, and reconciles the

interests of their stakeholders in a manner that is

consistent with ethical principles and the social

contract.

Social responsibility and labor union strategy

The strategic ramifications of labor union social

responsibility include not only how unions should

respond to social pressures, but also the character of

their long-term role in society. Labor unions may

chose to anticipate the changes that stem from their

activities, or they may become involved due to the

emergence of social problems wherein they have a

stake or can play an important role. Social respon-

sibility is a reflection of organizational values

(Waldman et al., 2006) and takes shape through an

organization’s strategy. Snape and Redman (2004)

identify three union strategies that they term the

service, organizing, and covenantal models, respec-

tively. As shown in Table IV, these strategies differ

with respect to their ethical foundations and how

they address the objectives, stakeholders, and issues

of social responsibility. Finally, the differences are

clearly reflected in the union mission statements.

The service strategy characterizes union operations

in terms of economic exchange and membership is

based more on instrumental outcomes than ideolog-

ical similarity (Bamberger et al., 1999; Gordon et al.,

1995). Thus, the service strategy is weighted toward

the economic equity objective of social responsibility

and bread and butter unionism focused narrowly on

promoting and securing the interests of union mem-

bers. The primary ethic is utilitarian in that unions

garner support based on exchange – the expected

value to their members and society offsets the unde-

sirable aspects of monopoly labor power. Labor un-

ions that focus on the economic equity aspect of social

responsibility are less likely to afford voice to the

concerns of outside stakeholders. These characteristics

make it more likely that unions employing the service

strategy will react to social issues rather than initiating

action or shaping developing issues. The mission

statement of the Air Line Pilots Association typifies

the service strategy.

The organizing strategy (Grabelsky and Hurd,

1994) emphasizes socialization of members to active

involvement, and the union as a self-reliant occu-

pational community. The primary ethic is justice in

that it focuses on empowering union members to

influence important outcomes with respect to

workplace democracy and economic equity. Orga-

nizing strategy proponents believe that building a

larger labor movement is the way to increase its

strength and this viewpoint leads to a broader

stakeholder focus (Bacharach et al., 2001; Frege and

Kelly, 2004). Labor unions that adopt the organiz-

ing strategy will take stands on social issues that

impact their interests or the interests of prospective

members, particularly those that are the targets of

organizing efforts. For example, union involvement

with home healthcare workers in California, Ore-

gon, and Washington (Schneider, 2005) and with

the Justice for Janitors campaigns (Erickson et al.,

2002) framed economic issues in the social rhetoric

of justice. The mission statement of the Interna-

tional Brotherhood of Electrical Workers presented

in Table II exemplifies social responsibility in the

organizing strategy.

The covenantal strategy is most closely associated

with the social justice objective of labor union social

responsibility. Mutually shared values and accep-

tance of the organization’s mission are critical

because members are not only addressed on the basis

137A Conceptualization of Labor Union Social Responsibility

T A

B L E

IV

S o c ia

l im

p li c at

io n s

o f

la b o r

u n io

n st

ra te

g y

S e rv

ic e

st ra

te g y

O rg

an iz

in g

st ra

te g y

C o v e n an

ta l

st ra

te g y

P ri

m ar

y o b je

c ti v e

E c o n o m

ic e q u it y

W o rk

p la

c e

d e m

o c ra

c y

S o c ia

l ju

st ic

e

P ri

m ar

y e th

ic U

ti li ta

ri an

Ju st

ic e

D u ty

S ta

k e h o ld

e r

fo c u s

N ar

ro w

N ar

ro w

/ b ro

ad B

ro ad

Is su

e ad

v o c ac

y N

ar ro

w / re

ac ti

v e

B ro

ad / p ro

ac ti v e

B ro

ad / p ro

ac ti

v e

T y p ic

al m

is si o n

st at

e m

e n t

T h e

A ir

L in

e P il ot

s A

ss oc

ia ti on

a :

to p ro

m o te

an d

c h am

p io

n al

l

as p e c ts

o f

av ia

ti o n

sa fe

ty

th ro

u g h o u t al

l se

g m

e n ts

o f th

e

av ia

ti o n

c o m

m u n it y ;

to re

p -

re se

n t,

in b o th

sp e c ifi

c an

d

g e n e ra

l re

sp e c ts

, th

e c o ll e c ti v e

in te

re st

s o f

al l

p il o ts

in c o m

-

m e rc

ia l av

ia ti o n ;

… an

d to

b e

th e

u lt im

at e

g u ar

d ia

n an

d

d e fe

n d e r

o f

th e

ri g h ts

an d

p ri

v il e g e s

o f

th e

p ro

fe ss

io n al

p il o ts

w h o

ar e

m e m

b e rs

o f th

e

A ss

o c ia

ti o n

T h e

In te

rn at

io n a l B

ro th

er h oo

d of

E le

ct ri ca

l W

or k er

sb :

to o rg

an iz

e

al l

w o rk

e rs

in th

e e n ti re

e le

c -

tr ic

al in

d u st

ry …

in to

lo c al

u n io

n s;

to c u lt iv

at e

fe e li n g s

o f

fr ie

n d sh

ip am

o n g

th o se

o f o u r

in d u st

ry ; to

as si st

e ac

h o th

e r

in

si c k n e ss

o r

d is tr

e ss

; to

se e k

a

h ig

h e r

an d

h ig

h e r

st an

d ar

d o f

li v in

g ; an

d b y

le g al

an d

p ro

p e r

m e an

s to

e le

v at

e th

e m

o ra

l,

in te

ll e c tu

al an

d so

c ia

l c o n d i-

ti o n s

o f

o u r

m e m

b e rs

, th

e ir

fa m

il ie

s an

d d e p e n d e n ts

, in

th e

in te

re st

o f

a h ig

h e r

st an

-

d ar

d o f

c it iz

e n sh

ip

T h e

A m

er ic an

F ed

er at

io n

of

T ea

ch er

sc :

to im

p ro

v e

th e

li v e s

o f

o u r

m e m

b e rs

an d

th e ir

fa m

il ie

s, to

g iv

e v o ic

e to

th e ir

le g it im

at e

p ro

fe ss

io n al

, e c o -

n o m

ic an

d so

c ia

l as

p ir

at io

n s,

to st

re n g th

e n

th e

in st

it u ti o n s

in w

h ic

h w

e w

o rk

, to

im p ro

v e

th e

q u al

it y

o f

th e

se rv

ic e s

w e

p ro

v id

e ,

to b ri

n g

to g e th

e r

al l

m e m

b e rs

to as

si st

an d

su p p o rt

o n e

an o th

e r

an d

to p ro

m o te

d e m

o c ra

c y ,

h u m

an ri

g h ts

an d

fr e e d o m

in

o u r

u n io

n ,

in o u r

n at

io n

an d

th ro

u g h o u t

th e

w o rl

d

a h tt

p :/

/ w

w w

.a lp

a. o rg

/ D

e fa

u lt .a

sp x ?t

ab id

= 1 8 8 .

b h tt

p :/

/ w

w w

.i b e w

4 3 .o

rg / m

is si o n .h

tm l.

c h tt

p :/

/ w

w w

.a ft .o

rg / ab

o u t/

in d e x .h

tm .

138 Cedric Dawkins

of self-interest, but on their desire to realize orga-

nizational ideals (Van Dyne et al., 1994). Unions that

adopt the covenantal strategy tend toward a duty

ethic in that they are more likely than other unions

to take stands on issues of public concern and may

support causes that are not closely related to union

interests (e.g., the Teamsters & Turtles campaign).

As a consequence, a covenantal approach is typical of

Social Movement Unionism and aligns trade unions

with outside coalitions for social and economic

justice. Through its recognition of duty to outside

stakeholders, social unionism proponents see unions

not only as workplace vehicles for securing eco-

nomic gains, but as participants in the civic and

political life of their respective countries (Turner,

1992). The American Federation of Teachers mis-

sion statement not only embraces the financial and

workplace objectives of the service and organizing

strategies, but extends to advocate for the economic

and social aspirations of those in social communities

as well. The three strategies represent different

emphases and views of the social role of labor unions

in society, but are not mutually exclusive.

Discussion

Extending discussions of CSR and labor relations to

include a conceptualization of labor union social

responsibility adds a valuable and needed perspec-

tive, because of the prevalence of labor unions

around the world. A few clarifications and cautions

are in order. As the corporations upon which labor

unions depend experiment with new approaches to

CSR, labor relations research has not produced a

framework with which to analyze union impact on

social issues. Indeed, one of the foremost challenges

faced by US labor unions is the perception that they

are exceedingly self-interested. In assessing prospects

of labor unions in the new millennium, Hoyt

Wheeler opined ‘‘[t]o the extent that labor is per-

ceived by policy makers and the public as just one

more interest group fighting for its share of the pie to

the detriment of other interest groups, not much

public support is going to be forthcoming’’

(Wheeler, 2002, p. 97). Therefore, it is important for

labor unions to have a place in the public discourse

surrounding social responsibility.

It is important to emphasize that this initial con-

ceptualization of labor union social responsibility is

primarily a descriptive account of what occurs, ra-

ther than a normative call for what should occur.

The descriptive orientation does not, however,

diminish the normative and instrumental implica-

tions. Labor union social responsibility can be

viewed from a normative perspective as a moral

imperative, or from instrumental perspective as

enlightened self-interest. If, for example, labor un-

ions view social responsibility as a moral obligation,

then the depth of commitment and participation are

likely to be greater than if social responsibility is

engaged for purely instrumental reasons. Bronfen-

brenner and Juravich (1997) wed normative and

instrumental considerations by arguing that an

emphasis on general moral principles such as dignity,

justice, and fairness will improve the success rate of

organizing campaigns.

Nevertheless, I do not intend to imply that social

responsibility will improve the plight of labor

unions. Being more attentive to social responsibility

is not likely, by itself, to reverse or even improve the

current condition of the labor movement – and,

insofar as it complicates the mission of labor unions,

may even be counterproductive. The most plausible

view is that social responsibility is one of many

activities that, properly employed, can contribute to

union viability. Finally, labor unions are not

monolithic and are not likely to engage in similar

behaviors or have similar opinions about how to

advance and strengthen unionism. As a consequence,

the interests of some members will conflict with

those of other members and stakeholders, and social

responsibility will require an appropriate means of

reconciling those interests.

Implications for future research

The preceding discussion raises a number of impli-

cations for further research that can be categorized

into three main areas. First, in addition to being a

conceptualization of social responsibility for labor

unions, this article might also be thought of as a

conceptualization of social responsibility based on

labor unions. Since labor unions exhibit character-

istics of corporations and NGOs the labor union

social responsibility framework can contribute to a

139A Conceptualization of Labor Union Social Responsibility

formulation of organizational responsibility and cit-

izenship that addresses all of the key players (multi-

national corporations, NGOs, unions), in a global

marketplace where market and political power are

frequently intertwined. In the global context where

some nation-states do not provide economic equity,

workplace democracy, or social justice, social

responsibility requires that other organizations

advocate on behalf of those prerogatives. The labor

union view of social responsibility aligns with the

corporate citizenship rendering of CSR whereby

organizations assume a role in providing basic rights

that are not provided by nation states. As such, labor

unions have effectively collaborated with NGOs and

governments to promote responsible social (e.g.,

International Labor Organization Declaration on

Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work) and

environmental practices (e.g., UN Global Compact),

and political enfranchisement (e.g., South Africa and

Bolivia). Successful partnerships, such as the tripar-

tite ILO, portend of favorable interactions with

business firms on social responsibility issues as well.

A second area is viewing social responsibility

through the lens of voice. Hirschman (1970) origi-

nally coined the concept of voice as an alternative to

passive acceptance or exit, and although it appears

extensively in the labor relations literature, it need not

be limited to that context. What are the implications

of applying the notion of voice-as-currency to different

types of organizations? The stakeholder model,

though it focuses on corporations, argues that those

who provide capital for an entity derive a unique set of

interests and moral rights and expectations based on

that exchange. In essence, rather than accepting cur-

rent conditions (loyalty) or choosing to do business

elsewhere (exit) the stakeholders and corporations can

exercise voice by negotiating the basic rights of citi-

zenship with governments and other powerful orga-

nizations on behalf of their stakeholders. That logic

also holds for private schools and their benefactors,

charities and their donors, hospitals and their com-

munities, NGOs and philanthropists, and other

organizations that enlist stakeholders to provide cap-

ital. It may well be argued that the social responsibility

of such organizations will depend upon the causes and

objectives to which they lend their credibility.

In conclusion, I have established a broad concep-

tual framework for labor union social responsibility,

but empirical research is required to test the potential

dimensionality of the concept and its potential to

describe the activities of labor unions. A desirable next

step would be to develop a valid measure that can be

used in empirical studies. Researchers might, for

instance, explore in more detail the extent to which

labor unions are active advocates of each of the three

objectives of social responsibility, as well as the ante-

cedents and consequences of labor union social

responsibility. Lastly, there is the possible interplay

between socially responsible labor unions and socially

responsible corporations. A number of business firms

explicitly embrace CSR but there is a dearth of sys-

tematic study about what, if any, impacts this has on

their relationships with organized labor. For example,

would social responsibility dictate that a firm operat-

ing in the USA bargain a contract with a newly cer-

tified labor union rather than closing and relocating

the facility?

Conclusion

I have proposed that labor union social responsibility

is an important concept deserving of further inves-

tigation. The study of labor union social responsi-

bility can potentially provide new avenues of

research and practice in the areas of CSR and labor

relations. Given the amount of discussion about

CSR and the debate about the direction of the labor

movement, I hope that this article stimulates interest

in the nexus of these two areas.

Notes

1 In this article, I will use ‘‘labor union’’ to refer to

unions as organizations, and ‘‘union members’’ to refer

to the people who are represented by labor unions,

who may also be workers/employees. 2

The response categories were not mutually exclusive.

References

Aldrich, H. A.: 1999, Organizations Evolving (Sage,

London).

Aldrich, H. A. and M. C. Fiol: 1994, ‘Fools Rush In? The

Institutional Context of Industry Creation’, Academy of

Management Review 19, 645–670.

140 Cedric Dawkins

Ashforth, B. E. and B. W. Gibbs: 1990, ‘The Double-

Edge of Organizational Legitimation’, Organization

Science 1, 177–194.

Bacharach, S. B., P. A. Bamberger and W. J. Sonnenstuhl:

2001, Mutual Aid and Union Renewal: Cycles of Logics of

Action (Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY).

Bamberger, P. A., A. N. Kluger and R. Suchard: 1999,

‘Research Notes: The Antecedents and Consequences

of Union Commitment: A Meta-Analysis’, Academy of

Management Journal 42, 304–318.

Bennett, M. and B. Kaufman (eds.): 2007, What Do

Unions Do? A Twenty Year Perspective (Transaction,

Edison, NJ).

Bhattacharya, C. B., H. Rao and M. A. Glynn: 1995,

‘Understanding the Bond of Identification: An Inves-

tigation of Its Correlates Among Art Museums’, Journal

of Marketing 59, 46–62.

Blanchflower, D. and Bryson, A.: 2004, ‘The Union Wage

Premium in the US and the UK’, in London School of

Economics (ed.), Center of Economic Performance

Discussion Paper # 612, 2004.

Blau, P. T.: 1964, Exchange and Power in Social Life (John

Wiley and Sons, New York).

Bronfenbrenner, K. and T. Juravich: 1997, ‘It Takes More

Than House Calls: Organizing to Win With a Com-

prehensive Union-Building Strategy’, in K. Bronfen-

breener, S. Friedmin, R. Hurd, R. Oswald and

R. Seeber (eds.), Organizing to Win (ILR Press, Ithaca,

NY), pp. 19–36.

Budd, J. W.: 2006, Labor Relations: Striking a Balance

(McGraw-Hill/Irvin, Boston).

Budd, J. W., R. Gomez and N. Meltz: 2004, ‘Why

Balance is Best: The Pluralist Industrial Relations of

Balancing Competing Interests’, in B. Kaufman (ed.),

Theoretical Perspectives on Work and the Employment

Relationship (Industrial Relaitons Research Association,

Champaign, IL).

Budd, J. W. and J. Scoville: 2005, The Ethics of Human

Resources and Industrial Relations (Cornell University

ILR Press, Ithaca, NY).

Carroll, A. B.: 1991, ‘The Pyramid of Corporate Social

Responsibility: Toward the Moral Management of

Organizational Stakeholders – Balancing Economic,

Legal, and Social Responsibilities’, Business Horizons

34, 39–53.

Donaldson, T. and T. W. Dunfee: 2002, ‘Ties That Bind

in Business Ethics: Social Contracts and Why They

Matter’, Journal of Banking & Finance 26, 1853–1865.

Erickson, C. L., C. L. Fisk, R. Milkman, D. J. B. Mitchell

and K. Wong: 2002, ‘Justice for Janitors in Los Angeles:

Lessons from Three Rounds of Negotiations’, British

Journal of Industrial Relations 40, 543–567.

FNV Mondiaal: 2004, Corporate Social Responsibility in a

Global Perspective (FNV Mondiall, Amsterdam).

Fombrun, C., N. Gardberg and M. L. Barnet: 2000,

‘Opportunity Platforms and Safety Nets: Corporate

Citizenship and Reputational Risk’, Business and Society

Review 105, 85–106.

Freeman, R. B. and J. L. Medoff: 1984, What Do Unions

Do? (Basic Books, New York).

Frege, C. and J. Kelly: 2004, ‘Union Strategies in

Comparative Context’, in C. M. Frege and K. Kelly

(eds.), Varieties of Unionism: Strategies for Union Revi-

talization in a Globalizing Economy (Oxford University

Press, Oxford, UK).

Godard, J.: 1997, ‘Beliefs About Unions and What They

Should Do: A Survey of Employed Canadians’, Journal

of Labor Research 18, 621–639.

Gordon, M. E., J. Barling and L. E. Tetrick: 1995, ‘Some

Remaining Challenges’, in L. E. Tetrick and J. Barling

(eds.), Changing Employment Relations: Behavioral and

Social Perspectives (American Psychological Association,

Washington, DC), pp. 349–366.

Grabelsky, J. and Hurd, R.: 1994, ‘Reinventing an

Organizing Union: Strategies for Change’, Paper

Presented at the 46th Annual Meeting of the Industrial

Relations Research Association.

Gross, J. A.: 2002, ‘Applying Human Rights Standards to

Employment Rights in the USA: The Human Rights

Watch Report 2000’, Industrial Relations Journal 33,

182–196.

Hirsch, B. T. and D. A. Macpherson: 2000, Union

Membership and Earnings Data Book: Compilation from the

Current Population Survey, 2000 Edition (Bureau of

National Affairs, Washington, DC).

Hirschman, A. O.: 1970, Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses

to Decline in Firms, Organizations and States (Harvard

University Press, Cambridge, MA).

Hyman, R.: 1996, ‘Changing Union Identities in Europe’,

in P. Leisink, J. Leemput and J. Roks (eds.), The Chal-

lenges to Trade Unions in Europe: Innovation or Adaptation

(Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK), pp. 53–73.

International Confederation of Free Trade Unions: 2009,

A Trade Union Guide to Globalisation, July 8.

Jamali, D. and T. Keshishian: 2008, ‘Uneasy Alliances:

Lessons Learned from Partnerships Between Business

and NGOs in the Context of CSR’, Journal of Business

Ethics 84, 277–295.

Justice, D.: 2003, ‘Corporate Social Responsibility:

Challenges and Opportunities’, in D. Justice (ed.),

Corporate Social Responsibility: Myth or Reality? (Inter-

national Labour Office, Geneva).

Kochan, T. and B. Shulman: 2007, ‘A New Social Con-

tract: Restoring Dignity and Balance to the Economy’,

141A Conceptualization of Labor Union Social Responsibility

in E. P. Institute (ed.), EPI Briefing Paper (Economic

Policy Institute, Washington, DC), pp. 1–21.

Lawler, E. I.: 2001, Organizing for High Performance:

Employee Involvement, TQM, Re-Engineering, and

Knowledge Management in the Fortune 1000 (Josey-Bass,

New York).

Levy, D. L.: 2008, ‘Political Contestation in Global

Production Networks’, Academy of Management Review

33, 943–963.

Maignan, I. and O. C. Ferrell: 2001, ‘Antecedents and Ben-

efits of Corporate Citizenship: An Investigation of French

Businesses’, Journal of Business Research 51, 37–51.

Mather, C.: 2006, Corporate Social Responsibility: A Guide

for Trade Unionists (Irish Congress of Trade Unions,

Dublin).

Matten, D. and A. Crane: 2005, ‘Corporate Citizenship:

Toward an Extended Theoretical Conceptualization’,

The Academy of Management Review 30, 166–183.

Meyer, W. J. and B. Rowan: 1977, ‘Institutionalized

Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and

Ceremony’, American Journal of Sociology 83, 340–363.

Panagopoulos, C. and P. L. Francia: 2008, ‘The Polls–

Trends’, Public Opinion Quarterly 2008(72), 134–159.

Parker, C.: 1920, The Casual Laborer and Other Essays

(Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., New York).

Paul XXIII, P. J.: 1991, Centesimus Annus, Number 35,

1991.

Preuss, L., A. Haunschild and D. Matten: 2006, ‘Trade

Unions and CSR: A European Research Agenda’,

Journal of Public Affairs 6, 256–268.

Rest, J. R.: 1986, Moral Development: Advances in Research

and Theory (Preeger, New York).

Scherer, A. G. and G. Palazzo: 2007, ‘Toward a Political

Conception of Corporate Responsibility: Business and

Society Seen from a Habermasian Perspective’,

Academy of Management Review 32, 1096–1120.

Schneider, S.: 2005, ‘Victories for Home Health Care

Workers: Home Care Workers Get Organized’, http://

www.directcareclearinghouse.org/download/homehealth

care.pdf, 5 May 2005.

Scott, W. R.: 1995, Institutions and Organizations (Sage,

Thousand Oaks, CA).

Sethi, S. P.: 1975, ‘Dimensions of Corporate Social

Performance: An Analytical Framework’, California

Management Review 17, 59–64.

Simon, A.: 2003, ‘A Comparative Historical Explanation

of the Environmental Policies of Two Woodworkers’

Unions in Canada’, Organization Environment 16,

289–305.

Snape, E. and T. Redman: 2004, ‘Exchange or Cove-

nant? The Nature of the Member–Union Relation-

ship’, Industrial Relations 43, 855–873.

Suchman, M. C.: 1995, ‘Managing Legitimacy: Strategic

and Institutional Approaches’, Academy of Management

Review 20, 571–610.

Tannenbaum, F. A.: 1951, A Philosophy of Labor (Alfred

A. Knopf, New York).

Thomas, K.: 2009, ‘Catholic Bishops and Labor Unions

Announce Agreement on Respecting the Rights of

Healthcare Workers’, Service Employees International

Union.

Turner, L.: 1992, Democracy at Work: World Markets and

the Future of Labor Unions (Cornell University Press,

Ithaca, NY).

United Nations: 2008, ‘The United Nations Global

Compact: The Ten Principles’, http://www.unglobal

compact.org/AbouttheGC/TheTENPrinciples/index.

html, 20 Aug 2008.

United States 57th Congress: 1902, ‘Compilation Doc-

uments Relating Injunctions Conspiracy Cases

Together with Arguments and Decision of the Court

in the of Case Commonwealth v. Hunt 4 Metcalf etc.

1902’, http://books.google.com/books?id=kUbvDM

TxgpwC&dq=A+Compilation+of+Documents+Rel

ating+to+Injunctions+in+Conspiracy+Cases&printsec=

frontcover&source=bl&ots=gAdSBQjnwd&sig=uhu

Wms6pFAshEmnavWREhAn-sYo&hl=en&ei=Fwh

dSpjtKoa2MMTJva4C&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct

=result&resnum=1. Retrieved from the World Wide

Web on 14 July 2009.

Valasquez, M.: 1996, ‘Why Ethics Matters: A Defense of

Ethics in Business Organizations’, Business Ethics

Quarterly 6, 201–222.

Valentine, S. and G. Fleischman: 2008, ‘Ethics Programs,

Perceived Corporate Social Responsibility and Job

Satisfaction’, Journal of Business Ethics 77, 159–172.

Van Dyne, L., J. G. Graham and R. M. Dienesch: 1994,

‘Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Construct

Redefinition, Operationalization and Validation’,

Academy of Management Journal 37, 765–802.

Waddington, J. and C. Whitston: 1997, ‘Why Do People

Join Unions in a Period Of Membership Decline?’,

British Journal of Industrial Relations 35, 515–546.

Waldman, D. A., M. S. De Luque, N. Washburn, R. J.

House, B. Adetoun, A. Barrasa, M. Bobina, M. Bodur,

C. Yi-Jung, S. Debbarma, P. Dorfman, R. R. Dzuvi-

chu, I. Evcimen, F. Pingping, M. Grachev, R. G.

Duarte, V. Gupta, D. N. Den Hartog, A. H. B. De

Hoogh and J. Howell: 2006, ‘Cultural and Leadership

Predictors of Corporate Social Responsibility Values of

Top Management: A GLOBE Study of 15 Countries’,

Journal of International Business Studies 37, 823–837.

Wheeler, H.: 2002, The Future of the American Labor

Movement (Cambridge University Press, New York).

142 Cedric Dawkins

Wood, D. J. and J. M. Logsdon: 2001, ‘Theorizing

Business Citizenship’, in J. Andriof and M. McIntosh

(eds.), Perspectives on Corporate Citizenship (Sheffield,

UK, Greenleaf).

Wunnava, P. V. and N. O. Peled: 1999, ‘Union Wage

Premiums by Gender and Race: Evidence from

PSID 1980–1992’, Journal of Labor Research 20,

415–423.

California State Polytechnic University – Pomona,

Pomona, CA 92768, U.S.A.

E-mail: [email protected]

143A Conceptualization of Labor Union Social Responsibility

Copyright of Journal of Business Ethics is the property of Springer Science & Business Media B.V. and its

content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's

express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.