Macassa G, Tomaselli G. Socially responsible human resources management and stakeholders’ Health Promotion: A conceptual paper (Original research). SEEJPH 2020, posted: 22 December 2020. DOI: 10.4119/seejph-4046 P a g e 1 | 15 ORIGINAL RESEARCH Socially responsible human resources management and stakeholders’ Health Promotion: A conceptual paper Gloria Macassa1,2, Gianpaolo Tomaselli3 1 Department of Public Health and Sports Sciences, University of Gävle, Gävle, Sweden; 2 EPIUnit – Instituto de Saúde Pública, Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal; 3 Department of Health Services Management, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Malta, Malta. Corresponding author: Prof. Gloria Macassa; Address: 801 76 Gävle, Sweden; E-mail: gloria.macassa@hig.se. Macassa G, Tomaselli G. Socially responsible human resources management and stakeholders’ Health Promotion: A conceptual paper (Original research). SEEJPH 2020, posted: 22 December 2020. DOI: 10.4119/seejph-4046 P a g e 2 | 15 Abstract The prime objective of this paper is to propose a new conceptual framework for how integrating corporate social responsibility (CSR) and human resources management (HRM) can impact on stakeholders’ health and wellbeing. The proposed framework argues that integrative socially re- sponsible HRM (SR-HRM) policies coupled with public health literacy and integrative responsible leadership can play a significant role in shaping health behaviour change of internal stakeholders, which in turn can spill over to external stakeholders (family and proximate communities). From a health promotion and population health perspective, we see human resources (HR) as a leading partner in educating employees on the value of CSR and public health literacy pro- grammes, and also as providing action plans on how to strategically and successfully implement these types of programmes. By helping to develop action plans to analyse CRS and public health literacy activities, HR professionals will be promoting both corporate citizenship and health be- haviour change. Both of these are vital for developing a culture of social responsibility (and achiev- ing the triple bottom line (TBL)) and sustainable population health promotion. Henceforth, SR- HRM policies and practices could help business organizations to contribute to the achievement of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and specifically Goals 3 and 8. This novel framework, which is especially pertinent to public health, has not yet been tested empirically. Hence, future studies are warranted to empirically test the theoretical framework using field data collection. Keywords: corporate social responsibility, public health literacy, responsible leadership, socially responsible human resources, stakeholders’ health and wellbeing. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank Dr Jesus Barrena-Martínez for his valuable comments and sug- gestions on the conceptual framework. GM is grateful for the support of the Department of Public Health and Sports Science at the University of Gävle, through the CSR-PhAM Programme and RELeSH project. Conflicts of interest: None declared. Macassa G, Tomaselli G. Socially responsible human resources management and stakeholders’ Health Promotion: A conceptual paper (Original research). SEEJPH 2020, posted: 22 December 2020. DOI: 10.4119/seejph-4046 P a g e 3 | 15 Introduction In recent years, various scholars have argued that there is a need to integrate corporate so- cial responsibility (CSR) and human re- sources management (HRM) across business organizations in order to better advance a sus- tainability agenda and, ultimately, the triple bottom line (TBL) of profit, people, planet – or, differently put, economic, social and en- vironmental sustainability (1,2). Notwith- standing positive findings regarding the im- portance of CSR as a potential strategic part- ner for HRM in management, there still is the need to better understand how this relation- ship can be understood in other disciplines such as public health. In the context of how business organizations can contribute to ad- dress society’s wicked problems, and espe- cially the promotion of stakeholders’ health and wellbeing, it has recently been argued that integrated CSR-HRM can contribute to improving population health through public health literacy (3). Therefore, this paper at- tempts to propose a conceptual framework for how integrated CSR-HRM can potentially affect stakeholders’ health and wellbeing within the context of sustainable develop- ment in terms of the TBL. The paper first dis- cusses concepts regarding the integration of CSR-HRM, then proposes a framework for how the nexus of CSR-HRM can contribute to the promotion of internal and external stakeholders’ health and wellbeing, and fi- nally identifies a future research agenda. The integration of corporate social respon- sibility and human resource management Corporate social responsibility involves inte- grating social, environmental and ethical concerns, as well as respect for human rights and consumer concerns, in a business organ- ization’s business operations and its basic strategy as a means to maximize the creation of value for its owners, stakeholders and so- ciety in the broad sense; and further identify- ing, preventing and mitigating their potential adverse consequences on the environment (4). For the business organization, it means the introduction of socially responsible ele- ments in the daily management of its business that legitimize its activities across the groups with which it interacts (e.g. shareholders, partners, suppliers, customers, public institu- tions, non-governmental organizations, em- ployees and their families, communities, and society in general). On the other hand, HRM is defined as the phi- losophy, policies, procedures and practices related to the management of an organiza- tion’s employees (1). Also, HRM can be seen as a set of organizational and people-oriented functions or activities deliberately designed to influence the effectiveness of employees in the organization (5). It is suggested that HRM should be understood as concerned with all activities that are aimed to contribute to suc- cessfully attracting, developing and main- taining a high-performing workforce needed to achieve success within a business organi- zation (5,6). However, in recent years, the HRM role ap- pears to have transitioned from being an ad- ministrative support service within organiza- tions to providing a strategic HRM, thus shifting focus from a narrow maintenance role to an active one in which HR strategies are employed that integrate overall business strategy, empower employees and help re- structure the organization (1,5). According to some scholars, the CSR-HRM nexus can be understood through a common thread, the stakeholder theory, which helps to explicate the integration of CSR actions in the business organizations’ management (1,2,7). The stakeholder theory focuses on the importance of stakeholders in the course and Macassa G, Tomaselli G. Socially responsible human resources management and stakeholders’ Health Promotion: A conceptual paper (Original research). SEEJPH 2020, posted: 22 December 2020. DOI: 10.4119/seejph-4046 P a g e 4 | 15 success of CSR business activities. Nonethe- less, because business organizations have multiple stakeholders that are involved in their organizational activities, it is important that they differentiate these stakeholders and prioritize them (1). The literature has pro- posed dividing stakeholders into two groups: (i) primary stakeholders, who have a formal contract with the organization and are essen- tial for its proper functioning (owners, share- holders, employees, unions, customers, sup- pliers, etc); and (ii) secondary stakeholders, who, though not directly involved in the eco- nomic activities of a company, can exercise a significant influence on its activities (em- ployees’ families, citizens, competitors, the local community, government, public admin- istration) (1,5,6). In this conceptual paper we consider employees as primary stakeholders, while the supply chain, consumers, local communities and society at large are consid- ered as secondary stakeholders. Corporate social responsibility cuts across different de- partments in any given organization and in- fluences the way the organization conducts its business and relates with its stakeholders, both internally and externally; the HRM ac- tivities affect all units and departments in the organization. Through the stakeholder theory bridge, HRM systems should take increasing responsibility in managing CSR activities. This way CSR would expand the HR agenda and help its ef- fective implementation instead of the current overlap of activities which still takes place in many business organizations (5,7). Further- more, it has been argued that CSR can also expand the role of HRM in supporting work- place practices that contribute to organiza- tional efficiency and effectiveness (e.g. smart working, family-friendly policies, flexible hours) (5) and that a combined CSR-HRM strategy can be the catalyst for the long-term success of business organizations (8,9). Ac- cording to Simmons, HRM needs to be seen both as a component and as a potential facil- itator of CSR (8). Voegtlin and Greenwood propose studying the link between CSR and HRM from three theoretical perspectives: the instrumental, in- tegrative and political perspective (10). The instrumental perspective posits that the in- volvement of workers in CSR is instrumental in achieving greater economic outcomes for the organization. Furthermore, this perspec- tive considers the importance of profit maxi- mization, simply said: how CSR and HRM synergies can improve the business organiza- tion’s financial performance (2,10). In this perspective, CSR is associated with hard HRM (e.g. focusing on the task that needs to be done, cost control, and achieving organi- zational goals). By contrast, the integrative, or social integra- tive, perspective looks at how CSR and HRM can reinforce each other to create social ben- efit for the organization and its stakeholders. This approach bases itself in the relation be- tween CSR and soft HRM to examine how the integration of the social demands of em- ployees can improve their wellbeing and mo- tivation as well as overall stakeholder value (2,10). The integrative approach to CSR- HRM links CSR strategies with soft HRM which views stakeholders (internal and exter- nal) as critical resources that are key to the business organization’s long-term business strategies (2,10). Finally, the political approach to CSR-HRM accommodates the power of corporations in society and the concomitant responsibilities this power implies. This perspective points to the relevance of contextual institutions (local, national and international) in CSR and HRM (2,10). Macassa G, Tomaselli G. Socially responsible human resources management and stakeholders’ Health Promotion: A conceptual paper (Original research). SEEJPH 2020, posted: 22 December 2020. DOI: 10.4119/seejph-4046 P a g e 5 | 15 There have been few studies that have inves- tigated how the integrated CSR and HRM nexus has contributed to stakeholders’ out- comes from a management perspective. For instance, a study by Tekin regarding HRM dimensions in CSR, which was carried out in Turkey, found that CSR led to improvements in recruitment to organizations and that these improvements had an impact on commitment to CSR initiatives, thus making the organiza- tions more attractive to potential employees (11). Furthermore, there was a close relation- ship between CSR and training activities that incorporated workplace policies (11). In an- other study, Celma and colleagues analysed the effectiveness of several HRM practices that were considered socially responsible, ac- cording to internal institutions, in terms of three dimensions of wellbeing: job stress, job satisfaction, and trust in management. Their results showed that higher job quality in- creased employees’ wellbeing at work, but some practices were more effective than oth- ers for each of the wellbeing dimensions (12). Also, Shao et al. found that socially responsi- ble HR policies increased employees’ organ- izational citizenship behaviour while de- creasing their task performance through role- ambiguity mediation (13). In the same study, prosocial motivation served as a significant moderator in strengthening the positive rela- tionship between socially responsible HR practices and organizational citizenship be- haviour as well as the negative association between socially responsible HR practices and task performance (13). From Lithuania, Buciunene and Kazlauskaite report that there is a relationship between HRM, CSR and performance outcomes in an organization. In their study, organizations in which HRM was a function for CSR were found to have better CSR policies (14). Else- where, a study by Abdulmotaleb and Saha that investigated the processes linking so- cially responsible HRM to employee wellbe- ing in Egypt found that positive employee perceptions of organizational morality aris- ing from socially responsible HR policies and practices led to an “enhanced state-based positive affect at work that ultimately in- creased employee vitality” (15). Using insights from social exchange and so- cial identity theories, Newman and co-au- thors investigated the influence of three di- mensions of SR-HRM, namely, legal compli- ance HRM, employee-oriented HRM, and general CSR facilitation, on employees’ or- ganizational citizenship behaviours in Chi- nese organizations (16). Their findings showed that, while organizational identifica- tion fully mediated the relationship between employee-oriented HRM and employees’ cit- izenship organizational behaviours, general CSR facilitation of HRM had a direct effect on employee organizational citizenship be- haviour. In addition, legal compliance HRM did not influence employee organizational citizenship behaviour either directly, or indi- rectly through organizational identification (16). Barrena-Martínez and colleagues suggest that the integrative model of HRM needs to be studied from four complementary man- agement perspectives. The first of these is the universalistic perspective which posits that there is a common and universal successful way in which the management of human cap- ital organizations should be done, independ- ent of country or any other variable (7). How- ever, this view has been criticized for ignor- ing the potential contribution of context as well other variables (e.g. business strategy, technology and investments). The second perspective, the contingency perspective, ar- gues that socially responsible HR policies re- Macassa G, Tomaselli G. Socially responsible human resources management and stakeholders’ Health Promotion: A conceptual paper (Original research). SEEJPH 2020, posted: 22 December 2020. DOI: 10.4119/seejph-4046 P a g e 6 | 15 sult from a combination of contingent inter- nal (e.g. structure, size, technology, business strategy) and external (e.g. organizational en- vironment) variables to achieve a solid, re- sponsible system (7). The third perspective, called the “configurational perspective”, sees socially responsible HR policies through the synergy and interactions of these policies with internal and external variables. This would mean a social orientation that is coher- ent with HR and CSR strategies consistent practices resulting from the proposed poli- cies. In addition, socially integrated HR poli- cies would need to consider the potential role of institutional pressures and stakeholder re- quirements in the context in which the organ- ization operates. To this end, the fourth and last perspective puts emphasis on how the identification of contextual aspects outside the organization (political, socio-economic, environmental, cultural, educational and trade union aspects) as well as inside the or- ganization (company size, technology work- ing environment, innovation, and different stakeholders’ interests) can be of great im- portance in the integration of socially respon- sible human resources management (SR- HRM) policies (7). In this paper we argue that an integrated SR- HRM approach that takes into account the context outside (political, socio-economic, environmental, etc; see above) and inside the organization (company size, technology working environment, innovation, etc) is best positioned to contribute to stakeholders’ health promotion. With this perspective in mind we expect SR-HRM policies within the organization to include public health literacy that might in the long term contribute to im- provements in employees’ (and their fami- lies’) wellbeing. We assume that the HR component of the integration would help the messaging and implementation of initiatives aimed to improve wellbeing based on the TBL. This would occur through training of employees in matters regarding physical ac- tivity literacy, mental health literacy, and overall wellness strategies as well as environ- mental-related risks linked to health out- comes. This way workplaces would develop strategies that would increase health infor- mation and services aimed at employees as well as their families. According to Freedman and colleagues, pub- lic health literacy is the degree to which indi- viduals and groups can obtain, process, un- derstand, evaluate, and act upon information needed to make public health decisions that benefit the community and all its stakehold- ers (17). Public health literacy is seen as a challenge for public health and health promo- tion as it represents a new, higher level of health literacy, through which the population as a whole (and within different arenas) can better understand health information related not only to the individual, but also to the com- munity (18). Moreover, it is posited that, compared with individual health literacy, public health literacy includes a myriad of factors such as poverty, globalization and cli- mate change that have an influence on public health. Thus, public health literacy “takes into account the complex social, economic, environmental and systemic forces that affect health and wellbeing” (17). Hence, public health literacy is the best synergetic partner for business organizations in their pursuit of implementing SR-HRM policies and prac- tices for the TBL, as well as for the achieve- ment of the United Nations’ (UN) Sustaina- ble Development Goal 3 (healthy lives and wellbeing for all at all ages) and Goal 8 (de- cent work and economic growth). Individual health literacy is considered to be a stronger predictor of individual and popula- Macassa G, Tomaselli G. Socially responsible human resources management and stakeholders’ Health Promotion: A conceptual paper (Original research). SEEJPH 2020, posted: 22 December 2020. DOI: 10.4119/seejph-4046 P a g e 7 | 15 tion health outcomes, even more than are in- come, ethnicity, education, employment sta- tus and age (19,20). Low health literacy has been associated with less use of preventive health services; reduced ability to manage chronic conditions (e.g. diabetes, asthma, high blood pressure); and lower likelihood to follow provider orders, such as proper use of medication; as well as feelings of shame at having low skill levels, and reduced capacity to act upon health alerts. Furthermore, low health literacy has been linked to poor self- reported health, and workplace injuries (19- 21). Conceptual framework socially responsi- ble human resources management and stakeholders’ health promotion In this paper, we posit that a socially inte- grated CSR-HRM approach oriented through a contextual approach to management (taking into account the social, environmental, polit- ical and cultural aspects of the context in which business organizations operate) (7) will, through public health literacy at the workplace, educate employees on health and wellness. Further, the employees will in turn disseminate health and wellbeing knowledge to other stakeholders (e.g. families and com- munities at large). The establishment of edu- cational training with emphasis on physical activity, wellness and mental health literacy will contribute to the reduction of health care costs due to preventable diseases (including chronic disease), as well as to decreased lev- els of absenteeism and presenteeism (22). Box 1 of the framework (Figure 1) depicts the integration of the CSR strategies with those from HRM within the context in which the organization operates (i.e. the local, national and/or international context). This way, as described above, HRM will become a func- tion of CSR and will help deliver public health literacy (including individual literacy) to primary stakeholders (the employees). Box 2 (Figure 1) of the framework displays potential intermediary variables in the busi- ness organization which can facilitate (or hin- der) the implementation of an integrated CSR-HRM. We suggest two potential mech- anisms through which an integrated CSR- HRM can influence internal and external stakeholders’ health and wellbeing (physical and psychological health outcomes). Figure 1. Conceptual framework socially responsible human resource management and stakeholder’s health promotion (authors’ own adaptation of Barrena-Martinez et al. 2018 framework) Macassa G, Tomaselli G. Socially responsible human resources management and stakeholders’ Health Promotion: A conceptual paper (Original research). SEEJPH 2020, posted: 22 December 2020. DOI: 10.4119/seejph-4046 P a g e 8 | 15 The first mechanism includes “socially re- sponsible HRM policies” that impact em- ployee and organizational wellbeing as well as organizational performance. Barrena-Mar- tínez and colleagues identified eight SR- HRM policies: attraction and retention of em- ployees; training and continuous develop- ment; management of employment relations; communication, transparency and social dia- logue; diversity and equal opportunity; fair remuneration and social benefits; prevention, health, and safety at work; and work–family balance (1). Empirical evidence has shown that socially responsible companies (compa- nies that care about the TBL and sustainabil- ity in general) are likely to attract new work- ers (23). Employees’ training and continuous development is an important part of social re- sponsibility, and it ensures that the employ- ees feel empowered and become motivated to change. Employees are important assets and, hence, investment should be made in their training and development. It is argued that HR is the best change management partner for educating and empowering the entire workforce for change with regard to social re- sponsibility, sustainability and the TBL. Oth- ers go even further to suggest that HR has the responsibility to be proactive, thus leading the way in the establishment of a business or- ganization-wide, CSR-enabled culture (24). It is within this training and development of socially responsibility practices that we see the importance of public health literacy in contributing to the promotion of health and wellbeing. In such a context, employees will be educated about the importance of achieve- ment of economic profit in tandem with envi- ronmental quality and social equity (25), and will also learn about how these contribute to the health and wellbeing of all stakeholders. Human resource professionals are well posi- tioned to help with the formulation, execution and monitoring of such training. Strandberg argues that HR managers have not only the tools but also the opportunities to leverage commitment to, and engagement in, the busi- ness organization CSR strategy (26). Engage- ment in such strategy can enable employees to achieve physical activity, wellness and mental health literacy, which are important predictors for the achievement of positive health outcomes. The public health literacy training would include physical activity, mental health literacy and overall notions of wellness. Here, “physical activity literacy” is defined as having the motivation, confidence, physical competence, knowledge and under- standing to value and take responsibility for engagement in physical activities (27,28). On the other hand, “mental health literacy” goes beyond simple awareness of one’s mental health, to a place of greater understanding and skill development related to maintaining mental health and effectively coping with challenges. Thus, mental health literacy be- comes a fundamental element of mental health promotion, and prevention, early iden- tification, and treatment of mental health dis- orders (29-31). To exemplify how an integrated CSR-HRM strategy could potentially contribute to pro- mote stakeholders’ health we can consider a “workplace wellness program”. Such a pro- gram would aim to target modifiable risk fac- tors of disease such as physical activity, nu- trition, smoking cessation as well as mental and environmental literacy for employees and their families (3, 22). Furthermore, these activities can extend to supply chain collabo- rators, thus covering both internal stakehold- ers (employees) and external stakeholders (family members and actors in the supply chain). However, carrying out wellness pro- grams might pose challenges to employers and employees alike. For instance, business Macassa G, Tomaselli G. Socially responsible human resources management and stakeholders’ Health Promotion: A conceptual paper (Original research). SEEJPH 2020, posted: 22 December 2020. DOI: 10.4119/seejph-4046 P a g e 9 | 15 organizations might be conflicted from the need to make profits as well as to motivate their employees for sustainable and healthy changes, especially in the short term. In addi- tion, organizations might lack financial and leadership-related resources (32). McCoy and colleagues reported that regardless of company size, potential barriers to workplace wellness included cost, time, expertise and legal concerns (32). Moreover, employees can be reticent to participate. For instance, a US study found that the most common barri- ers to employees’ participation were insuffi- cient incentives, inconvenient locations, time limitations, lack of interest in topics pre- sented, schedule, marketing and health be- liefs (33). However, we see workplace well- ness and public health literacy within it as a unique opportunity to promote health and wellbeing for all stakeholders but specifically for employees (primary stakeholders) and their families. A recent randomized clinical trial that studied the effect of a workplace wellness program on employees’ health in US found that em- ployees exposed to the program reported sig- nificantly higher rates of some positive health behaviours (e.g. weight management and reg- ular exercise) compared with those who were not exposed. Nevertheless, the same study found no significant effects on clinical measures of health, health care spending and utilization, or employment outcomes after 18 months (34). Commenting their findings, the authors argued that it was possible that be- havioural change may precede improvements in other outcomes suggesting future improve- ments in health or reductions in health-care spending (34). This is in line with our sug- gested framework where we expect public health literacy policies to contribute to be- havioural change in domains of healthy life style, mental health and environmental un- derstanding conductive to improved health and wellbeing both in the workplace and so- ciety. According to Mujtaba et al., a com- pany’s investments in its employees’ health and wellness will “pay off” for the company in the long-run and will provide benefits for employees, their co-workers, families, com- munities, and society as a whole (35). Regarding the socially responsible policy of management of employment relationship, this centres on decent work, respect for hu- man rights, ethics, social responsibility and the labour rights of the workers. Moreover, the policy encompasses employer–employee communication regarding potential changes in the organization that might alter the con- tractual employer–employee relationship and can contribute to employees being able to plan their careers (1). The SR-HRM policy relates to communication, and transparency in communication that promotes employee participation in the organization’s decision- making. It is suggested that employees feel empowered if they perceive that they can contribute with their opinions, ideas and pro- posals, and activities within the organization. Of great importance here is the communica- tion to employees, not only about the organi- zation’s economic results, but also those re- lated to its environmental and social perfor- mance (1,36). The diversity and equal opportunity policy is of importance in terms of employee motiva- tion, creativity and commitment (37). It is a policy that argues for the promotion of equal opportunity and diversity at the workplace, in other words, a policy that ensures non-dis- crimination (e.g. based on age, ethnic back- ground, disability) and fair policies in man- agement practices. According to Lee et al, if employees are aware of the social value of these practices within the organization, they Macassa G, Tomaselli G. Socially responsible human resources management and stakeholders’ Health Promotion: A conceptual paper (Original research). SEEJPH 2020, posted: 22 December 2020. DOI: 10.4119/seejph-4046 P a g e 10 | 15 will be involved with and committed to the organization in the long term because of its system of work able to produce benefits from widespread cultures and different values (38). Furthermore, the policy of “fair remu- neration and social benefits” centres on the need to ensure pay equity and add value in social coverage or benefits offered to em- ployees (1). The available evidence states that wage disparities can contribute to social conflicts between employees (39). Prevention, health and safety at work is an SR-HRM policy that has an impact on inter- nal and external stakeholders’ wellbeing. Or- ganizational health (including occupational health and wellness) is a growing concern for HRM today. Workers who perform their tasks under safe physical and psychosocial working conditions contribute to long-term achievement of organizational goals (40,41). We argue that within this policy, a socially integrated CSR-HRM approach will contrib- ute to prevention because occupational health and safety, physical activity and mental health literacy will take a central stage. In- creased prevention knowledge will benefit not only individual employees, but also the organization and the employees’ families (which can spill over to the communities in which these employees live). Improved pub- lic health literacy (including individual health literacy) is likely to contribute to a reduction in sickness absence and presenteeism, physi- cal inactivity, obesity, diabetes type II, cardi- ovascular disease, and distress which might cause depression among employees and their respective families (42-45). The work-life balance policy aims to provide conditions that have a positive impact on stakeholders’ wellbeing. Employees need to have a balance between the time allocated for work and other aspects of life (e.g. family, so- cial and leisure activities) (46). It is argued that organizations need to have in place mechanisms to facilitate changes in working hours to accommodate family needs, to pro- vide time for parenthood for both men and women and, where possible, to grant trans- fers of employees who are geographically separated from their family. Evidence has shown that employees who experience a greater work–life balance are likely to expe- rience better mental outcomes (47). We argue that the policies outlined above can serve as a vehicle to deliver TBL concepts for a sus- tainable organization in which employees will acquire knowledge of wellness promo- tion (physical activity and mental health lit- eracy), which is critical to improving health and wellbeing in and outside the walls of the organization. Hence, the role of HR manag- ers will be crucial to ensure employees’ adop- tion of both socially responsible and healthy behaviours. The second mechanism (see Box 2 of the framework [Figure 1]) is “integrative respon- sible leadership”, an important factor that can influence both the formulation of SR-HRM policies and the implementation of public health literacy within the organizations. Ac- cording to Macassa, integrative responsible leaders are well-positioned to be agents of change for the TBL, but also to take on the important role that business organizations are likely to play for all stakeholders beyond the workplace (48). According to Maak and col- leagues (49), integrative leaders exhibit be- haviours that: (i) mobilize stakeholders; (ii) promote a high degree of stakeholder interac- tion (including the integration of legitimate but powerless constituencies) and inclusive decision making; (iii) consider strategic choices beyond the business case rationale; and (iv) show a proactive approach towards CSR (49). We expect integrative business ex- ecutives to be proactive in working with both Macassa G, Tomaselli G. Socially responsible human resources management and stakeholders’ Health Promotion: A conceptual paper (Original research). SEEJPH 2020, posted: 22 December 2020. DOI: 10.4119/seejph-4046 P a g e 11 | 15 CSR and HR managers in their organizations to provide knowledge on both sustainability and health promotion. The integrative re- sponsibility towards all stakeholders is also expected from both CSR and HR managers. Integrative responsible leaders (CEO’s) will be more prone to support their CSR and HR managers during the implementation of pub- lic health literacy and workplace wellness ac- tivities (made as part of their strategic CSR within the organization). As pointed out, re- sponsible leaders are more inclined to do “good” and avoid “harm” to all stakeholders especially in the contexts where their busi- ness operate (3,48,49). Furthermore, as al- ready stated these CEO’s will better under- stand the need to promote health and well-be- ing beyond their workplaces. Box 3 in the framework (Figure 1) alludes to stakeholders’ health and wellbeing in the form of positive health behaviour changes for employees (internal stakeholders), but also for families and the communities where em- ployees live (external stakeholders). These outcomes can range from healthy behaviour change (e.g. increased physical activity and improved mental) or improved and hedonic wellbeing, which is linked to employee hap- piness, satisfaction and pain avoidance, to eu- daimonic wellbeing, which relates to the em- ployee’s sense of meaning and self-realiza- tion (50). Overall, the framework in this paper proposes two hypotheses which might be relevant in the relationship between SR-HRM and stake- holders’ health and wellbeing: (i) SR-HRM policies implemented within the organization that include public health literacy will be as- sociated with behaviour change towards en- vironmental and social aspects linked to sus- tainable development as well as improvement of health outcomes. Public health literacy training (embedded within SR-HRM poli- cies) will contribute to changes in health be- haviour among employees (and their fami- lies), which might spill over to the communi- ties in which they reside; and (ii) integrative responsible leadership (at the top level of the company) will positively impact the planning and implementation of SR-HRM policies, thus contributing to stakeholders’ health pro- motion. From a health promotion, and population health, perspective, embedding public health literacy in the strategic CSR-HRM policies will not necessarily result in extra-costs for the organization; on the contrary, it might contribute to long-term profits (3). Moreover, it will boost employees’ knowledge and mo- tivate them to take decisions of importance to their health, the working environment, and the health and wellbeing of others, including the natural environment (3). However, as mentioned above, we expect that companies will adhere in different ways to an integrated CSR-HRM policy and practice, depending on the (political and cultural) context in which they operate and/or on the company size, rev- enue and an array of other situational factors. Conclusion and future research agenda This conceptual paper attempts to offer a the- oretical framework for how socially respon- sible human resource management can help improve stakeholders’ health and wellbeing within the context of a business case for pop- ulation health (and achievement of the TBL). The framework proposes two potential mech- anisms: (i) socially responsible HR policies that include public health literacy (physical activity and mental health literacy); and (ii) integrative responsible leadership. Although HRM has been linked to employee outcomes (e.g. job satisfaction), to our knowledge this is the first time that it has been proposed to Macassa G, Tomaselli G. Socially responsible human resources management and stakeholders’ Health Promotion: A conceptual paper (Original research). SEEJPH 2020, posted: 22 December 2020. DOI: 10.4119/seejph-4046 P a g e 12 | 15 link integrated CSR-HRM to population health outcomes in the context of sustainable development. However, the conceptual framework proposed here has not been tested empirically anywhere, let alone within the discipline of public health to which the au- thors pertain. This suggests the need for fu- ture studies to test the framework empirically through field data collection. An important argument as to why it is im- portant to make a business case for popula- tion health is that for so long business organ- izations have distanced themselves from the health of those outside their organizations. But, there is now agreement that UN Agenda 2030 will not be achieved through govern- mental efforts alone, giving traction to the idea that business organizations (small, me- dium and large) will need to be a prominent partner. From the environmental and social equity perspectives as well as the health pro- motion context, business will need to lead by example and contribute to improve the lives of people in the contexts in which they oper- ate, which will in the long-term contribute to financial prosperity as well as sustainable and healthy societies. References 1. Barrena-Martínez J, López-Fernán- dez M, Romero-Fernández PM. To- wards a configuration of socially re- sponsible human resource manage- ment policies and practices: findings from an academic consensus. Int J Hum Resour Man 2019;30:2544-80. DOI: 10.1080/09585192.2017.1332669. 2. Barrena-Martinez J, Lopez-Fernan- dez M, Romero-Fernandez P. Driv- ers and barriers in socially responsi- ble human resource management. Sustainability 2018;10:1532. DOI: 10.3390/su10051532. 3. Macassa G. Integrated corporate so- cial responsibility and human re- sources management for stakehold- ers health promotion (Short report). SEEJPH 2019;XII. DOI: 10.4119/seejph-2373. 4. European Commission. Renewed EU Strategy 2011–2014 for Corporate Social Responsibility. Brussels; 2011. Available from: https://eur- lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriS- erv.do?uri=COM:2011:0681:FIN:EN :PDF (accessed : October 27, 2020). 5. Inyang BJ, Awa HO, Enuoh R. CSR- HRM nexus: Defining the role en- gagement of the human resource pro- fessionals. IJBSS 2011;2:118-26. 6. Jamali DR, Dirani AM, Harwood IA. Exploring human resource manage- ment roles in corporate social re- sponsibility: the CSR-HRM co-crea- tion model. Bus Ethics: Eur Rev 2014;24:125-43. 7. Barrena-Martínez J, López-Fernán- dez M, Romero-Fernández PM. Cor- porate social responsibility: Evolu- tion through institutional and stake- holder perspectives. Eur J Manag Bus Econ 2016;25:8-14. 8. Simmons J. Employee significance within stakeholder –accountable per- formance management systems. TQM J 2008;20:463-75. 9. Sharma S, Sharma J, Devi A. Corpo- rate social responsibility: The key role of human resource management. Bus Intell J 2009;2:205-13. Macassa G, Tomaselli G. Socially responsible human resources management and stakeholders’ Health Promotion: A conceptual paper (Original research). SEEJPH 2020, posted: 22 December 2020. DOI: 10.4119/seejph-4046 P a g e 13 | 15 10. Voegtlin C, Greenwood M. Corpo- rate social responsibility and human resource management: a systematic review and conceptual analysis. Hum Resour Manag Rev 2016;26:181-97. 11. Akgeyik T. The human resource management dimensions of corpo- rate social responsibility in Turkey: A Survey. J Acad Bus Econ 2005;5:25-32. 12. Celma D, Martinez-Garcia E, Raya JM. Socially responsible HR prac- tices and their effects on employee wellbeing: empirical evidence from Catalonia, Spain. Eur Res Manag Bus Econ 2018;24:82-9. 13. Shao D, Zhou E, Gao P, Long L, Xiong J. Double –edged effects of socially responsible human resource management on employee task per- formance and organizational citizen- ship behaviour: mediating the role ambiguity and moderating by proso- cial motivation. Sustainability 2019;11:2271. DOI:10.3390/su11082271. 14. Buciunene I, Kazlauskaite R. The linkage between HRM, CSR and per- formance outcome. Balt J Manag 2012;7:5-24. 15. Abdulmotaleb M, Saha SK. Socially responsible human resources man- agement, perceived organizational morality and employee wellbeing. Public Organ Rev 2019:1-15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-019- 00447-3. 16. Newman A, Miao Q, Hofman PS, Zhu CJ. The impact of socially re- sponsible human resource manage- ment on employees' organizational citizenship behaviour: the mediating role of organizational identification. Int J Hum Resour Man 2016;27:440- 55. DOI: 10.1080/09585192.2015.1042895. 17. Freedman D, Bess KD, Tucker HA, Boyd DL, Tuchman AM, Wallston KA. Public Health Literacy Defined. Am J Prev Med 2009;36:446-51. DOI:10.1016/j.amepre.2009.02.001. 18. Gazmararian JA, Curran JW, Parker RM, Bernhardt JM, DeBuono BA. Public health literacy in America. Am J Prev Med 2005;28:317-22. 19. Sorensen K, Broucke SV, Fullam J, Doyle G, Pelikan J, Slonska Z, et al. Health literacy and public health: a systematic review and integration of definitions and models. BMC Public Health 2012;12:80. 20. Karl JI, McDaniel JC. Health literacy deficits found among educated, in- sured university employees. Work- place Health Saf 2018;66:419-27. 21. Mårtensson L, Hensing G. Health lit- eracy – a heterogeneous phenome- non: a literature review. Scand J Car- ing Sci 2012;26;151-60. 22. Wong BK. Building a health literate workplace. Workplace Health Saf 2012;60:363-9. 23. Klimkiewicz K, Oltra V. Does CSR Enhance Employer Attractiveness? The Role of Millennial Job Seekers' Attitudes. Corp Soc Responsib Envi- ron Manag 2017;24:449-63. DOI: 10.1002/csr.1419. 24. Cohen E. CSR for HR. A necessary partnership for advancing responsi- ble business practices. UK: Grenleaf Publishing; 2010:1-320. 25. Fenwick T, Bierma L. Corporate so- cial responsibility: issues for human resource development professionals. Int J Train Dev 2008;12:24-35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-019-00447-3 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-019-00447-3 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2004.11.004 Macassa G, Tomaselli G. Socially responsible human resources management and stakeholders’ Health Promotion: A conceptual paper (Original research). SEEJPH 2020, posted: 22 December 2020. DOI: 10.4119/seejph-4046 P a g e 14 | 15 26. Strandberg C. The role of human re- source management in corporate so- cial responsibility issue brief and roadmap. Report for Industry Can- ada. Burnaby, B.C: Strandberg Con- sulting; 2009. 27. Whitehead M. The history and devel- opment of physical literacy. ICSSPE 2013:65. 28. Edwards LC, Bryant AS, Keegan RJ, Morgan K, Jones AM. Definitions and associations of physical literacy: A systematic review. Med Sports 2017;47:113-26. 29. Kutcher S, Wei Y, Coniglo C. Men- tal health literacy: Past, present and future. Can J Psychiatry 2016;61:154-8. 30. La Montagne AD, Martin A, Page KM, Reavley NJ, Noblet A, Milner AJ, et al. Workplace mental health: developing an intervention approach. BMC Psychiatry 2014;14:1-11. 31. Moll S, Zanhour M, Patten SB, Stu- art H, McDermid J. Evaluating men- tal health literacy in the workplace: development and psychometric prop- erties of a vignette-based tool. J Oc- cup Rehabil 2017;27:601-11. 32. McCoy K, Stinson K, Scott K, Ten- ney L, Newman L. Health promotion in small business: A systematic re- view of factors influencing adoption and effectiveness of worksite well- ness programs. J Occup Envi- ron Med 2014;56:579-87. 33. Person AL, Colby SE, Bulova JA, Eubanks JW. Nutrition Research and Practice 2010;4:149-54. DOI: 10.4162/nrp.2010.4.2.149. 34. Song Z, Baicker K. Effect of a work- place wellness program on employee health and economic outcomes. JAMA 2019;321:1491-501. 35. Mujtaba BG, Cavico FJ. Corporate wellness programs implementation challenges in the modern American workplace. Int J Health Policy Manag 2013;1:193-9. 36. Ziek P. Making sense of CSR com- munication. Corp Soc Responsib En- viron Manag 2009;16:137-45. 37. Shen J, Chanda A, D'netto B, Monga M. Managing diversity through hu- man resource management: an inter- national perspective and conceptual framework. Int J Human Resour Manag 2009;2:235-51. DOI: 10.1080/09585190802670516. 38. Lee YK, Lee KH, Li DX. The impact of CSR on relationship quality and relationship outcomes: A perspective of service employees. Int J Hosp Manag 2012;31:745-56. 39. Farndale E, Sanders K. Conceptual- izing HRM system strength through a cross-cultural lens. Int J Human Resour Manag 2017;28:132-48. DOI: 10.1080/09585192.2016.1239124. 40. Vermeeren B, Steijn B, Tummers L, Lankhaar M, Poerstamper RJ, Van Beek S. HRM and its effects on em- ployee, organizational and financial outcomes in health care organiza- tions. Human Resources for Health 2014;12:35. 41. Krainz KD. Enhancing well-being of employee’s through corporate social responsibility context. Megatrend Rev 2015;12:137-54. 42. Fu PL, Bradley KL, Viswanathan S, Chan JM, Stampfer M. Trends in bi- ometric health indices within an em- ployer-sponsored wellness program Macassa G, Tomaselli G. Socially responsible human resources management and stakeholders’ Health Promotion: A conceptual paper (Original research). SEEJPH 2020, posted: 22 December 2020. DOI: 10.4119/seejph-4046 P a g e 15 | 15 with outcome-based incentives. Am J Health Promot 2016;30:453-7. 43. Smith-McLallen A, Heller D, Vernisi K, Gulick D, Cruz S, Snyder RL. Comparative effectiveness of two walking interventions on participa- tion, step counts, and health. Am J Health Promot 2017;31:119-27. 44. Lowensteyn I, Berberian V, Berger C, Da Costa, Joseph L, Grover SA. The Sustainability of a Workplace Wellness Program That Incorporates Gamification Principles: Participant Engagement and Health Benefits Af- ter 2 Years. Am J Health Promot 2019;33:850-8. 45. Singh SK, Pradan RK, Panigrahy NP, Jena LK. Self-efficacy and workplace well-being: moderating role of sustainability practices. Benchmark Int J 2019;26:1692-708. 46. Rao RK, Sharma U. Issues in Work Life Balance and Its Impact on Em- ployees: A Literature Review. IRJMST 2018;9. 47. Yang JW, Suh C, Lee CK, Sun BC. The work-life balance and psychoso- cial well-being in South Korean Workers. Ann Occup Environ Med 2018;30:38. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40557-018- 0250-z. 48. Macassa G. Responsible leadership styles and promotion of stakehold- ers’ health (Short report). SEEJPH 2019;XI. DOI: 10.4119/UNIBI/SEE- JPH-2019-207. 49. Maak T, Pless NM, Voegtlin C. Business statesman or shareholder advocate? CEO responsible leader- ship styles and the micro-foundations of political CSR. J Manag Stud 2016;53:463-93. 50. Bartels AL, Peterson SJ, Reina CS. Understanding well-being at work: Development and validation of the eudaimonic workplace wellbeing scale. PLoS ONE 2019;14: e0215957. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/jour- nal.pone.0215957. ________________________________________________________________________________________ ©2020 Macassa et al; This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribu- tion License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and repro- duction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.