An Examination of Corporate Social Responsibility and Employee Behavior: The Case of Pakistan
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Review
The paper has promise in that it has some good ideas and arguments. In addition to some English problems (it will need an edit for English language) the paper has some fundamental issues that could be addressed. Before turning to those, however, there are some real strengths. The social exchange and social identity theories are an excellent approach to the problem. I would like to see the theories explained further and themed throughout the paper. They authors have correctly identified their usefulness: now they need to use them. Where does the paper validate or challenge the theories? How do the theories expose or illuminate their findings? (Ultimately, that is what a good theory should do,)
The conceptual foundation of the paper is somewhat muddled. Straightening it out will help focus the motivation for the paper. I address the issue in two parts:
1) The conceptual foundation is currently distributed among Carroll’s 4 descriptors, economic, legal, ethical and discretionary; however, Carroll is trying to describe rather than define and it creates a problem that lacks a solid philosophical foundation. The definitional issue and that has been most successfully addressed by Sheehy who defines it has ‘international private business law’ and then identifies the obligations that the author wants to address. Using this description ‘law’ allows researchers to look for both moral and legal obligations and so strengthens their work.
So, applying Sheehy’s work, the authors could sharpen their focus in the first few paragraphs re-writing it as follows: “Increasingly the stakeholders inside and outside the organisations are raising concerns about corporate issues such as workforce diversity, employee treatment, and environmental protection. These issues are correctly identified as an aspect of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). Properly understood, CSR requires businesses to make an effort to create a non-discriminatory, safe and fair working environment for employees where diversity is addressed, develop environment-friendly policies, and socially, attending to fair distribution of profits and ethical business practices. Sheehy, B. 2014 “Defining CSR: Problems and Solutions.” J Bus Ethics.
2) The concept of ‘internal CSR’ implies that there is CSR that can ignore issues that are finternal to the organisation. No organisation can claim to be responsible if it ignores its staff. How could it even make the claim? Again, see Sheehy, 2014 on this issue. Rather, the authors would be advised to refer to discuss the internal application and/or elements of CSR. That categorisation would strengthen their argument and connect it more effectively to the broader literature.
3) The cultural aspect of the article is weak, but important. Would this be better taken out and developed as a separate piece? As it stands, it hints at the issue rather than making it a main topic. Even the title does not reflect it. It is too important a topic to be a sideline. In one sense the authors know this: the Conclusion begins: “The results of the study highlighted that in the collectivist society if the organization will have internal CSR policies.” If the authors keep it in the piece, it needs to be driven through it carefully and balanced.
4) A better explanation of why Pakistan has been chosen or why it is important would be helpful. Further some more discussion of Pakistani culture would enlighten the reader. Simply identifying it as ‘collectivist’ is not especially helpful.
I would very much like to see this paper published subject to the proposed revisions and would strongly encourage the authors to take on board the recommendations.
Author Response
We are very thankful to the reviewer for his critical comments and thoughtful suggestions. Based on these comments and suggestions, we have made careful modifications to the original manuscript. We have revised the manuscript in accordance with the reviewer’s comments. We have revised the Title, Introduction, Theoretical background, Data and methodologies, Results and Discussion, and Conclusions, rewritten many parts and provided additional information on An Examination of the Internal Corporate Social Responsibility and Employee Behavior: Case of Pakistan
Overall, we have made a revision to this manuscript. First, the references have been updated and expanded. We carefully selected additional cc. 4 papers, which are considered as important or innovative studies, or comprehensive reviews offering. Second, the structure and sections have been revised and new paragraphs have been inserted. This version now includes a revised Introduction, Theoretical background, Data and methodologies, Results and discussion, and Conclusions sections. Revised sections have been carefully reorganized and new paragraphs added to each section. Finally, language and grammar have been edited under the guidance of a professional native speaker.
Comments to the Author
The paper has promise in that it has some good ideas and arguments. In addition to some English problems (it will need an edit for English language) the paper has some fundamental issues that could be addressed. Before turning to those, however, there are some real strengths. The social exchange and social identity theories are an excellent approach to the problem. I would like to see the theories explained further and themed throughout the paper. They authors have correctly identified their usefulness: now they need to use them. Where does the paper validate or challenge the theories? How do the theories expose or illuminate their findings? (Ultimately, that is what a good theory should do,)
The conceptual foundation of the paper is somewhat muddled. Straightening it out will help focus the motivation for the paper. I address the issue in two parts:
1) The conceptual foundation is currently distributed among Carroll’s 4 descriptors, economic, legal, ethical and discretionary; however, Carroll is trying to describe rather than define and it creates a problem that lacks a solid philosophical foundation. The definitional issue and that has been most successfully addressed by Sheehy who defines it has ‘international private business law’ and then identifies the obligations that the author wants to address. Using this description ‘law’ allows researchers to look for both moral and legal obligations and so strengthens their work.
So, applying Sheehy’s work, the authors could sharpen their focus in the first few paragraphs re-writing it as follows: “Increasingly the stakeholders inside and outside the organisations are raising concerns about corporate issues such as workforce diversity, employee treatment, and environmental protection. These issues are correctly identified as an aspect of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). Properly understood, CSR requires businesses to make an effort to create a non-discriminatory, safe and fair working environment for employees where diversity is addressed, develop environment-friendly policies, and socially, attending to fair distribution of profits and ethical business practices. Sheehy, B. 2014 “Defining CSR: Problems and Solutions.” J Bus Ethics.
Response: Yes, we agree that comments and special thanks to the offered literature. Properly understood, CSR requires businesses to make an effort to create a non-discretionary, safe and fair working environment for employees which addresses diversity, develops environmentally friendly policies, promotes a fair distribution of profits in society and encourages ethical business practices.
2) The concept of ‘internal CSR’ implies that there is CSR that can ignore issues that are internal to the organisation. No organisation can claim to be responsible if it ignores its staff. How could it even make the claim? Again, see Sheehy, 2014 on this issue. Rather, the authors would be advised to refer to discuss the internal application and/or elements of CSR. That categorisation would strengthen their argument and connect it more effectively to the broader literature.
Response: Yes, we agree that comments. Sheehy (2014) defined CSR as “international private business self-regulation”. From the normative perspective, all regulations are set to serve some specific purpose. So if the organization claims to have a CSR policy then it must include of all its aspects, i.e. environmental sustainability, human rights, employment conditions, business practices in dealings with partners, suppliers and consumers, and social impacts starting with basic conformity with the established legal framework and then gradually moving towards the consideration of stakeholder concerns.
Various models of social exchange have been applied to various aspects of work, such as turnover intentions, organizational citizenship behavior, trust in management, and the psychological contract. SET is an influential motivational framework for explaining the specific engagement of employees in discretionary behaviors, since these behaviors are neither obligatory nor recognized by any organizational formal reward systems. For such behaviors, social exchange is analogous and can refer to the common interactions that are continuously evolving with no time limit, and are based on social benefits.
3) The cultural aspect of the article is weak, but important. Would this be better taken out and developed as a separate piece? As it stands, it hints at the issue rather than making it a main topic. Even the title does not reflect it. It is too important a topic to be a sideline. In one sense the authors know this: the Conclusion begins: “The results of the study highlighted that in the collectivist society if the organization will have internal CSR policies.” If the authors keep it in the piece, it needs to be driven through it carefully and balanced.
Response: Yes, we agree that comments.
The study was conducted on a sample from a collectivist society and the findings of our study show that for people belonging to the collectivist cultures of Asian countries such as Pakistan conformity to social relationships are of high value, and it is almost impossible to separate the social context of one’s self. In a collectivist culture, when an organization engages in internal CSR it leads to a strengthening of the emotional bond between the employees and the organization. When the organization engages in initiatives that are related to enhancing the well-being of employees it leads to the satisfaction of their intrinsic and extrinsic needs; as a result, they tend to identify more with the organization.
The results emphasize that CSR initiatives directed towards employees are one of the forms of corporate investments that eventually result in strengthening positive work-related behaviors, i.e. work engagement and organizational identification. Internal CSR is an important indicator of management’s concern about the well-being of employees and is an important proxy in understanding that internal CSR in a collectivist culture leads to a strong organizational identification. Employees feel pride in their organizational membership when they strongly identify with it, as they perceive that they are part of a group that is valuable to them [59]. Consequently, the stronger organizational identification increases the engagement of the employees in positive work behaviors, such as work engagement, because they will be more motivated to benefit the group (organization) they belong to.
The findings of this study offer empirical evidence for the popularly held assumption that corporate social responsibility and its implications vary across specific dimensions of national culture. Thus the socially responsible behavior of organizations can be optimized by initiatives that are tailored according to the cultural beliefs and values of the specific country. For collectivist countries like Pakistan, employees are more concerned about ICSR policies and this is manifested in their behaviors. Individuals with a collectivist orientation are more inclined to search for common values and goals and emphasize group goals over individual goals and desires. So, in a collectivist society when an organization introduces internal CSR policies, the employees will be more likely to identify with the organization due to the fact they have already given more importance to the organization as a group they belong to. Hence, unity and selflessness are considered as valuable traits for them. So policymakers and practitioners should rethink their CSR strategies in collectivist countries like Pakistan, which are still very philanthropic. Employees should be given due importance as significant stakeholders and in order to protect their rights and interests, internal CSR initiatives should be introduced.
4) A better explanation of why Pakistan has been chosen or why it is important would be helpful. Further some more discussion of Pakistani culture would enlighten the reader. Simply identifying it as ‘collectivist’ is not especially helpful.
Response: Yes, certainly. The study was intended to provide empirical evidence from a collectivist culture on the relationship between internal CSR and employee behavior. For this purpose, the data was collected from employees working in the top five banks of Pakistan featured in the Top 1000 World Banks by their (2016) capital [53]. This sample suited the objectives of our study as Pakistan scored 14 on the individualism/collectivism dimension and is therefore considered a collectivist society [55]. This implies that in Pakistani society, people have close and long-term commitments to the group they belong to (family or organization etc.). Loyalty is of supreme importance over other social norms and values. Strong relationships are fostered in society and people take responsibility for fellow group members. The employer-employee relationship is treated in moral terms and mostly perceived as a family link.
I would very much like to see this paper published subject to the proposed revisions and would strongly encourage the authors to take on board the recommendations.
Response: We are very thankful to the reviewer for the critical comments and thoughtful suggestions.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Author Response
We are very thankful to the reviewer for his critical comments and thoughtful suggestions. Based on these comments and suggestions, we have made careful modifications to the original manuscript. We have revised the manuscript in accordance with the reviewer’s comments. We have revised the Title, Introduction, Theoretical background, Data and methodologies, Results and Discussion, and Conclusions, rewritten many parts and provided additional information on An Examination of the Internal Corporate Social Responsibility and Employee Behavior: Case of Pakistan
Overall, we have made a revision to this manuscript. First, the references have been updated and expanded. We carefully selected additional cc. 4 papers, which are considered as important or innovative studies, or comprehensive reviews offering. Second, the structure and sections have been revised and new paragraphs have been inserted. This version now includes a revised Introduction, Theoretical background, Data and methodologies, Results and discussion, and Conclusions sections. Revised sections have been carefully reorganized and new paragraphs added to each section. Finally, language and grammar have been edited under the guidance of a professional native speaker.
Comments to the Author: None
Response: We are very thankful to the reviewer for the support.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper needs to improve the discussion of methodology and results. Think critically about your own results and give a better discussion of the theoretical implications of your study.
Author Response
We are very thankful to the reviewer for his critical comments and thoughtful suggestions. Based on these comments and suggestions, we have made careful modifications to the original manuscript. We have revised the manuscript in accordance with the reviewer’s comments. We have revised the Title, Introduction, Theoretical background, Data and methodologies, Results and Discussion, and Conclusions, rewritten many parts and provided additional information on An Examination of the Internal Corporate Social Responsibility and Employee Behavior: Case of Pakistan
Overall, we have made a revision to this manuscript. First, the references have been updated and expanded. We carefully selected additional cc. 4 papers, which are considered as important or innovative studies, or comprehensive reviews offering. Second, the structure and sections have been revised and new paragraphs have been inserted. This version now includes a revised Introduction, Theoretical background, Data and methodologies, Results and discussion, and Conclusions sections. Revised sections have been carefully reorganized and new paragraphs added to each section. Finally, language and grammar have been edited under the guidance of a professional native speaker.
Comments to the Author
The paper needs to improve the discussion of methodology and results. Think critically about your own results and give a better discussion of the theoretical implications of your study.
Response: Yes, we agree that comments and special thanks to the suggestions. Properly understood, CSR requires businesses to make an effort to create a non-discretionary, safe and fair working environment for employees which addresses diversity, develops environmentally friendly policies, promotes a fair distribution of profits in society and encourages ethical business practices.
Various models of social exchange have been applied to various aspects of work, such as turnover intentions, organizational citizenship behavior, trust in management, and the psychological contract. SET is an influential motivational framework for explaining the specific engagement of employees in discretionary behaviors, since these behaviors are neither obligatory nor recognized by any organizational formal reward systems. For such behaviors, social exchange is analogous and can refer to the common interactions that are continuously evolving with no time limit, and are based on social benefits.
The study was intended to provide empirical evidence from a collectivist culture on the relationship between internal CSR and employee behavior. For this purpose, the data was collected from employees working in the top five banks of Pakistan featured in the Top 1000 World Banks by their (2016) capital [53]. This sample suited the objectives of our study as Pakistan scored 14 on the individualism/collectivism dimension and is therefore considered a collectivist society [55]. This implies that in Pakistani society, people have close and long-term commitments to the group they belong to (family or organization etc.).
This study is based on the argument that an organization's socially responsible policies towards employees can have a great influence on their behavior. Further, this study followed the stream of research that debates the variability of the CSR concept across cultural contexts [57]. The results confirm both the arguments, as all the hypotheses of the study were confirmed. These results are consistent with the findings of previous researchers, who suggest that CSR is an important tool for retaining the greatest talent that a company possesses. Through ICSR policies organizations can retain the best talent which will improve their goodwill and consequently improve corporate performance [28].
The study contributes to the existing literature by highlighting social identity theory and social exchange theory as the powerful mechanisms explaining the linkage between internal CSR and employee behavior. In this study social exchange theory and social identity theory are used to create the link between internal CSR and employee behavior. Further, SIT is related to the group behavior that is congruent with the Hofstede national cultural dimension of collectivism, therefore the SIT model provides an examination of the role of collectivism as a moderator in the relationship between internal CSR and organizational identification.
The results of the study also highlight that when the employees perceive that their employer is socially responsible for them, they tend to find the organization a more attractive one to identify with. Previous literature also confirms this finding, suggesting that CSR leads to strengthening organizational identification (SIT) [15], [32]. Tajfel (1978) differentiated SIT between in-group and out-group behavior. The study supplements this discussion by explaining that internal CSR can help develop positive differentiation between the in-group and the out-group. Members of the in-group differentiate themselves from the out-group and in this process of differentiation they try to attribute negative traits to the out-group so as to improve their in-group status. The results of our study imply that CSR is socially desirable and employees use CSR as a parameter to positively differentiate their employer from others in order to improve their perception of social identity, and this group distinctiveness eventually results in a strengthening of their self-esteem. The positive image of the organization increases the willingness of the individual to identify with the organization [49].
Our proposed model and findings provide insights into the significance of internal CSR policies that can create awareness among researchers and practitioners as to how internal CSR can be a leading indicator of positive employee behavior. The study provided sufficient support for the relevance of social exchange theory as a theoretical paradigm in understanding the possible mechanism between internal CSR and employee behavior. Particularly, our findings highlight that CSR investments influence different stakeholders (shareholders, executive management, government, employees, clients, suppliers) and positively affect their attitudes and more specifically their commitment to their employees; for this reason organizations must include CSR values in their business strategies [38] and give due importance to employees in designing CSR policies.
The study was conducted on a sample from a collectivist society and the findings of our study show that for people belonging to the collectivist cultures of Asian countries such as Pakistan conformity to social relationships are of high value, and it is almost impossible to separate the social context of one’s self. In a collectivist culture, when an organization engages in internal CSR it leads to a strengthening of the emotional bond between the employees and the organization. When the organization engages in initiatives that are related to enhancing the well-being of employees it leads to the satisfaction of their intrinsic and extrinsic needs; as a result, they tend to identify more with the organization.
The results emphasize that CSR initiatives directed towards employees are one of the forms of corporate investments that eventually result in strengthening positive work-related behaviors, i.e. work engagement and organizational identification. Internal CSR is an important indicator of management’s concern about the well-being of employees and is an important proxy in understanding that internal CSR in a collectivist culture leads to a strong organizational identification. Employees feel pride in their organizational membership when they strongly identify with it, as they perceive that they are part of a group that is valuable to them [59]. Consequently, the stronger organizational identification increases the engagement of the employees in positive work behaviors, such as work engagement, because they will be more motivated to benefit the group (organization) they belong to.
We are very thankful to the reviewer for the critical comments and thoughtful suggestions.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Manuscript: sustainability-512838
Thank you for this much improved version. While the work to date has lifted the quality significantly, there are still a few areas needing attention.
The authors have not re-written the claim that employee focused CSR is of ‘utmost importance’. “Of all the features of CSR mentioned above - i.e. philanthropy, the environment, and community development - the fair and responsible treatment of employees is of the utmost importance.” It is fair to say that it is of utmost importance just like the other elements of CSR. It would be much more accurate to say, “employee focused CSR is of great importance.” Using ‘utmost’ implies that the other areas of CSR are less so—a matter of significant controversy. It is unnecessary to make the claim.
The authors still use the term ICSR although it has been fixed in some places. This usage, as noted in the previous referee’s report is a source of confusion and needlessly adding unhelpful acronyms. The internal dimension is not something different from CSR and so does not require another name and acronym. Rather, it is simply a focus on one aspect of CSR. The authors would be well advised to refer to ‘the internal dimension of CSR’ and use it consistently throughout the paper. For example, “2.1. Internal Corporate Social Responsibility and Work Engagement,” the ‘Internal’ adds nothing. The authors could write “2.1. Corporate Social Responsibility and Work Engagement” and it means exactly the same thing. It is still in the results and analysis, e.g. line 310. Using language consistently will add clarity. The statement introducing ICSR also includes problematic English. “The term Internal Corporate Social Responsibility (ICSR) refers to this kind of socially responsible behavior on the part of the organization towards its employees.”
The authors also claim, incorrectly, “CSR research has mainly been conducted at the macro-institutional level.” A very significant portion of the research has been focused on individual organisational issues, from leadership and ethics, to policy development and implementation. Indeed, CSR has traditionally characterised as an organisational policy.
The authors also claim: “Recently, researchers have started to point out the gap that past studies on CSR have often overlooked, and this is a micro-level analysis of employee-related outcomes of CSR [15]. Further, 65there is a lack of sufficient empirical evidence on the underlying mechanism through which internal 66 CSR is linked with employee outcomes..” I don’t think these claims are correct. (The authors recognised this: “Recent studies indicate that CSR activities humanize the company in a way that other job 94 components cannot and is a source of competitive advantage [21]. “) I understand that the authors are trying to justify their claim to a contribution, but I don’t think it needs to be done this way. I don’t see a ‘gap’ that needs addressing. Rather, I see an opportunity to create a useful a theoretical framework suing their “three 76 constructs: Organizational Identification (OI), Work Engagement (WE) and the cultural dimension of 77 collectivism” and depth and nuance that needs to be added to existing research in the area—a contribution which these authors provide nicely. I would suggest this theoretical contribution be explicitly identified as such and discussed in that way.
There are still some minor editorial issues that require cleaning up. For example, line 410 “internal corporate social responsibility (ICSR).” In this example, the authors are introducing ICSR, which should have been done in the Introduction where acronyms are introduced, in the Conclusion, and further, they are supposed to have replaced ICSR with the internal dimension or something similar.
Finally, I think the authors can take their conclusions a touch further, while still keeping the limitations as they are correctly stated. The authors write: “it offers insights into the internal CSR of banks in the 439 eastern collectivist society of Pakistan; thus it expands the literature which is mainly dominated by 440 studies conducted in western individualistic societies.” This statement is correct but imbalanced. If it offers insights contrasting to the broad general category ‘western individualistic societies’, certainly, it is not just applicable to ‘eastern collectivist society of Pakistan.’ These are not equivalent contrasting categories. Further, if the contrast and generalisation can be made at a global cultural level, certainly, banks are no more special and unamenable to generalisation. Accordingly, it would be appropriate to suggest a potential generalisation to for profit organisations across South Asia at least if not eastern collectivist societies generally.
The paper would be improved with one careful editor going through it top to bottom.
Author Response
We are very grateful to the reviewer for the critical comments and thoughtful suggestions. Based on these comments and suggestions, we have made careful modifications to the original manuscript. We have revised the manuscript in accordance with the reviewer’s comments. We have revised the Title, Introduction, Theoretical background, Data and methodologies, Results and Discussion, and Conclusions, rewritten many parts and provided additional information on An Examination of Corporate Social Responsibility and Employee Behavior: the Case of Pakistan
Comments to the Author
Thank you for this much improved version. While the work to date has lifted the quality significantly, there are still a few areas needing attention.
Author’s Response: we are very grateful to the reviewer for the kind consideration of the changes that we made in the previous version of the paper. Special thanks to the reviewer for the detailed suggestions. We have corrected each of them as was possible.
The authors have not re-written the claim that employee focused CSR is of ‘utmost importance’. “Of all the features of CSR mentioned above - i.e. philanthropy, the environment, and community development - the fair and responsible treatment of employees is of the utmost importance.” It is fair to say that it is of utmost importance just like the other elements of CSR. It would be much more accurate to say, “employee focused CSR is of great importance.” Using ‘utmost’ implies that the other areas of CSR are less so—a matter of significant controversy. It is unnecessary to make the claim.
Author’s Response: We are grateful to the reviewer for highlighting this issue. We certainly agree with the reviewer and we have re-addressed the issue by incorporating the suggested change that “Of all the features of CSR mentioned above - i.e. the environment, philanthropy, and community development – employee focused CSR which leads to the fair and responsible treatment of employees is of particular importance.”
The authors still use the term ICSR although it has been fixed in some places. This usage, as noted in the previous referee’s report is a source of confusion and needlessly adding unhelpful acronyms. The internal dimension is not something different from CSR and so does not require another name and acronym. Rather, it is simply a focus on one aspect of CSR. The authors would be well advised to refer to ‘the internal dimension of CSR’ and use it consistently throughout the paper. For example, “2.1. Internal Corporate Social Responsibility and Work Engagement,” the ‘Internal’ adds nothing. The authors could write “2.1. Corporate Social Responsibility and Work Engagement” and it means exactly the same thing. It is still in the results and analysis, e.g. line 310. Using language consistently will add clarity. The statement introducing ICSR also includes problematic English. “The term Internal Corporate Social Responsibility (ICSR) refers to this kind of socially responsible behavior on the part of the organization towards its employees.”
Author’s Response: The authors very much appreciate the reviewer’s valuable comments, which we agree with. We are grateful for the valuable suggestion of the reviewer in this regard and therefore we have replaced the term internal CSR with the internal dimension of CSR throughout the paper. The internal dimension of corporate social responsibility is introduced as the CSR dimension which is specifically related to employees and is referred to as the organization’s socially responsible behavior towards its employees. We agree with the suggestion of the reviewer regarding the literature review headings and we have revised the literature review headings by replacing internal CSR with CSR e.g. Corporate Social Responsibility and Work Engagement
The authors also claim, incorrectly, “CSR research has mainly been conducted at the macro-institutional level.” A very significant portion of the research has been focused on individual organizational issues, from leadership and ethics, to policy development and implementation. Indeed, CSR has traditionally characterized as an organizational policy.
The authors also claim: “Recently, researchers have started to point out the gap that past studies on CSR have often overlooked, and this is a micro-level analysis of employee-related outcomes of CSR [15]. Further, 65there is a lack of sufficient empirical evidence on the underlying mechanism through which internal 66 CSR is linked with employee outcomes..” I don’t think these claims are correct. (The authors recognised this: “Recent studies indicate that CSR activities humanize the company in a way that other job 94 components cannot and is a source of competitive advantage [21]. “) I understand that the authors are trying to justify their claim to a contribution, but I don’t think it needs to be done this way. I don’t see a ‘gap’ that needs addressing. Rather, I see an opportunity to create a useful a theoretical framework suing their “three 76 constructs: Organizational Identification (OI), Work Engagement (WE) and the cultural dimension of 77 collectivism” and depth and nuance that needs to be added to existing research in the area—a contribution which these authors provide nicely. I would suggest this theoretical contribution be explicitly identified as such and discussed in that way.
Author’s Response: we certainly agree with the reviewer that the significance of the study is based on the theoretical contribution rather than the gap analysis. The study is based on employees, who are the key stakeholders of the organization, and they are involved with, contribute and respond to the organization’s CSR policies, especially those that are directly linked to them [15]. Their evaluations of those CSR initiatives are subsequently connected with the fulfillment of their psychological needs, which in return influence their work attitudes and behaviors. But here it is worth noting that employees’ cultural perspectives affect the way they perceive, interpret and relate to CSR initiatives. The cultural variability of the CSR concept and its implementation is an established fact in previous research [16]. There are specific cultural characteristics, such as collectivism, which have a high probability of affecting CSR and its implications, and which can be a direct product of traditional cultural predispositions [17]. Therefore inclusion of the cultural context in CSR studies can enhance the understanding of the determinants and consequences of CSR.
In the light of the aforementioned discussion this study is intended to move forward the academic debate on CSR research by focusing especially on providing an improved understanding of employee focused CSR. It is imperative to develop and empirically test the theoretical models which can explain the underlying mechanisms that address questions such as how and when the internal dimension of CSR is linked with employee outcomes in the specific cultural context.
Therefore, the current study aims to theoretically contribute to the literature by proposing and analyzing the underlying mechanism that can explain how and when the internal dimension of CSR affects employee behavior by employing three constructs: Organizational Identification (OI), Work Engagement (WE) and the cultural dimension of collectivism. The paper is organized in the following sections: the literature review is presented in Section 2, and Section 3 highlights the data and methodology used to examine the relationship between the internal dimension of CSR, work engagement, organizational identification and collectivism. Section 4 discusses the main findings of the paper. Finally, Section 5 discusses the results, and Section 6 summarizes the conclusions of the study.
There are still some minor editorial issues that require cleaning up. For example, line 410 “internal corporate social responsibility (ICSR).” In this example, the authors are introducing ICSR, which should have been done in the Introduction where acronyms are introduced, in the Conclusion, and further, they are supposed to have replaced ICSR with the internal dimension or something similar.
Author’s Response: we agree with the reviewer’s comments. Therefore we have addressed the issues and the ICSR is replaced by the internal dimension of CSR in the conclusion and throughout the paper.
Finally, I think the authors can take their conclusions a touch further, while still keeping the limitations as they are correctly stated. The authors write: “it offers insights into the internal CSR of banks in the 439 eastern collectivist society of Pakistan; thus it expands the literature which is mainly dominated by 440 studies conducted in western individualistic societies.” This statement is correct but imbalanced. If it offers insights contrasting to the broad general category ‘western individualistic societies’, certainly, it is not just applicable to ‘eastern collectivist society of Pakistan.’ These are not equivalent contrasting categories. Further, if the contrast and generalization can be made at a global cultural level, certainly, banks are no more special and unamenable to generalization. Accordingly, it would be appropriate to suggest a potential generalization to for profit organizations across South Asia at least if not eastern collectivist societies generally.
Author’s Response: we agree and very much appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. We have further concluded that this research used social identity theory and social exchange theory together as a mechanism to create a link between internal CSR and employee-related outcomes. This study addresses the direct interaction of the employee with the organization. The finding of this research shows that if organizations take care of their most important stakeholder - their employees - this is an investment, and an organization can get a return in the form of the increased engagement of employees in positive behaviors.
In connection with the findings concluded above, this study has various implications for the CSR and organizational behavior literature. First, it offers insights into the internal dimension of CSR in the context of profit-making organizations in the Pakistan; thus it expands the literature in the cultural context of South Asian countries.
The paper would be improved with one careful editor going through it top to bottom.
Author’s Response: Thus, language check and style improvement by our native reviewer and a proof editing (Grammarly) system was implemented on the paper.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
