Next Article in Journal
Effect of Proactive Interaction on Trust in Autonomous Vehicles
Next Article in Special Issue
Exploring the Role of Education and Professional Development in Implementing Corporate Social Responsibility Policies in the Banking Sector
Previous Article in Journal
Nonlinear Impact of Corporate Financialization on Sustainable Development Ability: Evidence from Listed Companies in China
Previous Article in Special Issue
Analysis of the Motivation behind Corporate Social Responsibility Based on the csQCA Approach
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 16
Issue 8
10.3390/su16083403
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Exploring the Nexus of Perceived Organizational CSR Engagement, Job Satisfaction, Organizational Pride, and Involvement in CSR Activities: Evidence from an Emerging Economy

by
Milica Slijepčević
1,2,
Nevenka Popović Šević
3,
Jelena Krstić
4,*,
Tamara Rajić
4 and
Milan Ranković
2
1
Faculty of Digital Arts, Metropolitan University, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia
2
Faculty of Management, Metropolitan University, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia
3
Information Technology School ITS-Belgrade, LINK Group Belgrade, Faculty of Contemporary Arts, University Business Academy in Novi Sad, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia
4
Economics Institute a.d. Belgrade, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(8), 3403; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16083403
Submission received: 23 January 2024 / Revised: 30 March 2024 / Accepted: 15 April 2024 / Published: 18 April 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Employees, Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainability)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is becoming omnipresent in contemporary business environments given the growing awareness of the social role of business entities and their contribution to sustainable development. The research was conducted in order to explore the relationships between the perceived organizational engagement in CSR, job satisfaction due to CSR, organizational pride, and employees’ involvement in the company’s CSR activities. The research was conducted on a sample of employees in the life insurance department of a leading insurance company in Serbia, using a structured web questionnaire. Data analysis was performed on a sample of 138 respondents. Data were processed using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), given the relatively small size of the sample, asymmetric data distribution, and the complexity of the relations. The study results point to a more influential role of CSR engagement in fostering organizational pride, compared to job satisfaction, with the latter as the most influential determinant of organizational involvement.

1. Introduction

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has become a ubiquitous topic in the modern business environment, given the growing awareness of the social function of organizations and their contribution to sustainable development. CSR marks a significant evolutionary advancement in management theory and practice, shifting away from a sole emphasis on making the maximum financial returns for shareholders to embracing a stakeholder-centric approach, which implies an accompanying responsibility to various stakeholders [1]. It is, basically, an optional initiative that surpasses conventional adherence to legal requirements [2]. Despite its voluntary nature, in contemporary business conditions, companies are increasingly under pressure to adopt comprehensive CSR initiatives to tackle societal and/or environmental challenges [3]. Through engagement in CSR initiatives, companies can not only cultivate positive attitudes and encourage supportive behaviors among stakeholders, but also, in the long term, develop a positive corporate image, reinforce relationships with stakeholders, and boost advocacy behaviors among them [4]. The company’s socially responsible activities can be focused on four basic areas: customers, employees, the environment, and philanthropy [5]. While this topic has garnered growing attention in the management literature and practice over the last three decades, most research in this area focuses on the impact that a company’s engagement in CSR has on the external public, external stakeholders, and consumers. It is only recently that a micro-CSR perspective has emerged, which aims to elucidate how employees react to CSR activities pointed at both themselves and other stakeholders [6]. In recent times, the research examining employees’ reactions to CSR has gained momentum, finding its way into prominent academic journals of high repute [6]. However, the effect of CSR on the stakeholder group of employees is still deemed understudied in the literature [7,8,9,10,11,12]. Evidence from emerging economies is particularly scarce, especially in the context of the insurance sector.
While Serbia’s normative framework for a socially responsible business does not lag significantly behind modern regulatory trends, there is a growing acknowledgment that companies in Serbia need to prioritize understanding the societal impact of their operations. In the Serbian insurance sector, CSR often manifests primarily through different forms of financial support, such as giving sponsorships to cultural, sports, and other non-profit events, as well as providing monetary and non-monetary donations to hospitals and humanitarian organizations. However, socially responsible business practices remain insufficiently integrated into the corporate strategies. Furthermore, the insurance sector inherently embodies themes of social responsibility, such as risk management and providing protection against unforeseen events, thus making it an apt context for examining perceptions of CSR. Given the industry’s focus on long-term sustainability and ethical considerations, it offers a distinct perspective for investigating the impact of CSR practices on various stakeholders, including the employees.
Steadfast dedication to CSR by a company can positively affect employees, enhancing the probability that they will engage in reciprocal relations with their employer [6]. Companies that actively engage in CSR initiatives and prioritize the interests of all stakeholders stand to garner confidence and support, particularly from employees, as primary stakeholders [13]. CSR establishes core values that positively affect both the employees and the social environment in which businesses operate [14]. When a company is active in the field of socially beneficial activities, it most directly sends signals to its employees to work in an organization with a higher purpose of existence [15]. Given that employees are crucial stakeholders directly contributing to a company’s success, comprehending their reactions to corporate social responsibility becomes crucial [7]. In accordance with that, scholars have lately focused their attention on the relation between employees’ perceptions of CSR and job satisfaction or engagement [16], as well as on feelings of organizational pride [17] and a sense of identity within an organization. Even though the influence of CSR on employee outcomes is gaining recognition within academic and organizational circles, and there is a growing acknowledgment of its significance, it remains an area that requires further exploration and research. Few studies have established the possibility of the effect of the CSR initiatives on different aspects of employee outcomes and behavior. Organizational pride has so far remained a largely unexplored concept in research in service industries as well as in developing countries. Additionally, the available CSR literature lacks topics concerning the impact of organizational CSR engagement on employees’ willingness to support the CSR activities. According to the aforementioned, the subject of the presented research is the impact of the perception of organizational engagement in CSR on the employees’ job satisfaction, the sense of organizational pride, and personal involvement in the company’s CSR activities in the context of the emerging European economy. The research makes its contribution to the under-researched area of the impact the CSR has on employees, a crucial internal group of stakeholders that serve as a starting point for gaining competitive advantage and organizational differentiation. Moreover, it adds to a better insight into the impact of CSR on employees’ sense of satisfaction and pride due to their affiliation with the organization, as well as their willingness to engage in those initiatives owing to the organization’s CSR initiatives.
This paper comprises six sections. Following the introductory section, there is the section dedicated to the literature review, which serves as a theoretical basis for the empirical research. The methodology of the research is presented in Section 3, which is followed by the presentation of the findings in Section 4 and a discussion in Section 5. Section 6 then provides the concluding remarks and recommendations.

2. Review of Literature and Formulation of Hypothesis

2.1. Employees’ Evaluation of Perceived Organizational CSR Engagement

There is a growing body of the literature on the correlation between employees’ views on a company’s CSR engagement and diverse outcomes related to employees [5,18,19]. The way employees perceive an organization’s commitment to CSR has been recognized as greatly affecting their attitudes and behavior. This, in turn, spurs their support for the organization in attaining both its business and social objectives [6,20,21,22,23,24].
Lee, Park, and Lee [9] conceptualized the employees’ perception of CSR activities as “the degree to which employees perceive a company that supports the activities related to a social cause”. Murshed et al. [25] defined employees’ perceptions of CSR as “the degree to which employees perceive that the company’s discretionary policies and practices are fulfilling organizational obligations to various stakeholders and serving the common social good”. Panagopoulos, Rapp, and Vlachos [26] explain employees’ CSR perceptions as employees’ comprehensive assessments of the firm’s overall social performance. It encompasses employees’ understanding of the companies’ responsibilities toward employees, consumers, the government, the general public, and the environment [27]. Perceived CSR encompasses all the knowledge and experiences of employees concerning the responsible actions made by a company, which extend beyond the well-being of employees to include consumers, the government, public opinion, and environmental protection [26].
It is expected that individuals will likely respond favorably to the perception of their employer’s socially responsible engagement and, conversely, respond unfavorably to a company the behaviors of which are seen as irresponsible to society or the environment [28]. Staff employed within an organization that has embraced its CSR are likely to get the impression that they are part of an organization that prioritizes the well-being of others [20]. In this way, the employee uses the so-called visible (obvious) signals of the company’s actions, which subsequently shape its evaluation in terms of the company, but also form attitudes and behaviors on the occasion mentioned [29]. The perceptions of the employees with regard to the company’s socially responsible initiatives can be viewed in two ways: firstly, from the aspect of the employees’ perception of CSR, which has the immediate goal of benefiting employees (the so-called internal perception), and secondly, from the employees’ perceptions of CSR, which views employees through the prism of customers, outside the system of organizations (the so-called external perception). This assumes a comprehensive examination of the many impacts that CSR often has on employees [6].

2.2. Job Satisfaction Due to CSR

Job satisfaction stands as one of the most extensively discussed and pivotal concepts in the literature on organizational behavior, given that satisfied workers play a crucial role in helping companies achieve their desired goals and objectives [30]. Job satisfaction involves the attitudes that employees hold regarding various aspects of work, and it may range from positive to negative, contingent upon the degree to which the requirements of employees are met [25]. It is considered to be in direct relation to employees’ productivity and work performance, thus influencing the overall business effectiveness and efficiency [31]. In a broad sense, it is observed as the degree to which persons are content or discontent with their job [32]. Job satisfaction is commonly understood to stem from an employee’s favorable mindset, which is most evident in consistent work attendance and diligent effort, both of which are demonstrated through the delivery of an optimal work performance [10]. Employee satisfaction is shaped by factors such as their capability to fulfill job tasks, the quality of communication, and the treatment they receive from superiors [33]. On the other hand, job satisfaction may also be affected by certain elements not immediately linked to their duties, such as the perception of the company’s various actions, including those related to CSR [7,34]. It operates on the assumption that the more favorable the perception of social responsibility within a company among employees, the more likely the employees are to experience job satisfaction in their workplace [17].
The published studies have investigated the relation between perceived CSR and job satisfaction (e.g., [17,23,35,36,37,38,39,40]). The majority of the research (e.g., [1,2,9,15,35,41]) found out that perceived CSR is directly associated with employees’ job satisfaction. The findings indicate a notable beneficial effect of CSR on workers’ satisfaction, underscoring the significance of socially responsible and ethical operating practices in elevating employee satisfaction [42]. The socially responsible and ethical activities undertaken by a company can influence the extent to which employees experience job satisfaction [10,38,43]. The connection between CSR and employee satisfaction is often attributed to the ability of CSR to diminish the gap between the current benefits from their work and the requirements or aspirations they aim to fulfil. [7,18]. CSR can contribute positively to job satisfaction by attending to a person’s requirements for a purposeful life and offering a sense of being part of a larger social entity characterized by a positive identity, according to Bauman and Skitka [7]. Rosengren and Bondesson [44] highlighted in their study that when employees perceive their organization as practicing social responsibility, they have a tendency to achieve better work outcomes and experience higher job satisfaction. As a result, this creates a strong motivation for employees to exert their utmost effort during the job process [45]. It can be anticipated that the engagement of an organization in CSR represents a reflection of the preferred ethical norms and operating practices. Consequently, this encourages the employees to experience a feeling of contentment and pride in being part of the company. [17]. Since positive consequences related to job satisfaction deriving from the engagement of the company in CSR can be expected, the following is hypothesized:
H1. 
CSR engagement positively influences job satisfaction due to CSR.

2.3. Organizational Pride

Organizational pride is defined as the degree to which employees feel pleasure and self-esteem stemming from their affiliation with an organization [46]. Pride primarily represents an emotion related to a person’s performance, usually connected with success or attainment [47,48]. Pride is recognized as a highly significant emotion that plays a crucial role in motivating social behavior [49]. Organizational pride emerges as a valuable psychological construct that individuals should cultivate, which serves as an intrinsic motivator for employees [50]. It is connected with a productive and motivating workplace atmosphere, along with a robust sense of social belongingness towards the employer [51]. Masterson et al. [52] and Pikl [32] emphasized that organizational pride was a distinct feeling that employees get when perceiving that their company creates value, exceeds expectations or social standards, and makes a positive impact. It has multiple positive effects in companies, such as resistance to stress [51], decreasing turnover intentions [51,53], job satisfaction [47,53], enhancing commitment, and improving performance [54,55,56]. Organizational pride is influenced by various factors, categorized into two main groups: individual or employee-related factors and organizational factors, which include subcategories such as the organization’s successful background, positive image, and the significance of its output [57].
CSR activities enhance awareness among employees within the company, resulting in multiple benefits for the company itself. By engaging in positive activities, CSR not only impacts the external audience, but also nurtures a strong sense of mutual exchange and trust amongst the workers, leading to a deep sense of pride and belonging [17]. The company’s commitment to social responsibility generates a favorable perception, fostering a feeling of belonging and pride among employees [11]. This further creates a special value in the employer–employee relationship in terms of not only the improvement of the organizational entity, but also the feelings of self-esteem, happiness, and pride among employees as they become integral members of the business entity [58]. Onkila [59] noted that companies that implement corporate social responsibility initiatives are more prone to stimulate feelings of positivity among their employees, comprising the feelings of pride, a stronger affiliation with a company, and the acceptance of the core principles of the company. In their study, Yilmaz, Ali, and Flouris [1] determined that a favorable interpretation of organizations’ corporate social responsibility activities and participation results in a higher level of pride in the organizational membership. Schaefer, Ralf, and Diehl [17] found out that a more positive assessment of employees’ perceptions of CSR involvement correlates with elevated degrees of organizational pride. Consequently, the greater the perception among employees that their company acts in a socially responsible manner, the more likely the employees are to feel proud for being a part of the organization. Sturm, Jolly, and Williams [56] demonstrated that the degree of pride employees feel toward their organization is impacted by their perceptions of the organization’s virtuousness. Collier and Esteban [60] and Jones [46] found a direct correlation with positive effects related to organizational pride among employees whose business units engaged in socially responsible activities. Employees can identify with some positive examples of the activities carried out by their company, as they understand that it corresponds to the reputation and image that is subsequently spread. The company’s reputation, stemming from its commitment to social responsibility, also impacts employees, instilling a sense of satisfaction and pride in being associated with a reputable company and being a part of a recognized organizational unit [23]. Employee’s perceptions of the CSR impact their degree of affiliation with the company they are employed by, thus shaping their attitudes and sense of pride in being part of a reputable company [12]. Therefore, the employees are expected to be more prone to feel pride in belonging to an organizational unit of this kind, since they perceive their company as socially responsible and, therefore, reputable in the environment in which it operates. In line with the abovementioned viewpoint, the authors put forward the proposal described below:
H2. 
CSR engagement positively influences organizational pride.
The existing literature establishes a connection between job satisfaction and organizational pride. The employed, having a robust sense of pride in their organization, are prone to experience higher job satisfaction. This correlation stems from the fact that organizational pride has the potential to enhance an individual’s feeling of significance and direction in their job [32]. Research findings confirmed a positive relation between organizational pride and job satisfaction [49,50,61,62,63]. Arnett et al. [47] found out that job satisfaction positively influences organizational pride. Yilmaz, Ali, and Flouris [1] found a positive correlation between a heightened sense of pride in organizational membership and increased job satisfaction and engagement behavior among employees. On the basis of the earlier statements, one could contend that job satisfaction associated with a positive view of a company’s engagement in CSR activities would lead to an increased feeling of pride in employees. Therefore, we suggest the below hypothesis:
H3. 
Job satisfaction due to CSR positively influences organizational pride.
In addition to investigating direct relationships, job satisfaction is also considered to be a mediator in the context of CSR research (e.g., [8,30,35]). Zhu et al. [35] found out that employees’ satisfaction was acting as a mediator in the relationship between employees’ perception of organizational CSR efforts and their loyalty to companies. Similarly, in this study, job satisfaction due to CSR can be observed as a mediator between how the employees perceive a company’s CSR engagement and pride. Thus, hereinafter, we present another hypothesis:
H4. 
Job satisfaction arising from CSR mediates the relationship between CSR engagement and organizational pride.

2.4. Employees’ Involvement with CSR Activities

While CSR has shown positive relations with various employee outcomes, its influence on employee involvement with CSR activities has been understudied. It is believed that employees exhibit three distinct sorts of behavior concerning their work assignments and positions during business activities [64]: (a) focus on business activities; (b) professional achievements, which are measured by one’s position, income, and personal reputation; and (c) business orientation that results in a form of socially responsible engagement. It is this last determinant that strongly indicates the significance regarding the CSR initiatives of the company in fostering the increased engagement of workers in socially responsible endeavors. Their perception of the beneficial impact of organizational performance in community service leads to increased work engagement and performance in the immediate workplace. The employees’ involvement and commitment in the workplace assume a feeling of organizational affiliation and esteem, as well as a favorable reaction to the company’s efforts towards others, not just towards its employees. Believing that the company contributes to the collective welfare, employees experience a heightened sense of belonging in such an advantageous setting, which leads to increased engagement in work activities [15]. Effectiveness in participation in CSR activities is likely to be observed primarily in employees whose values and vision closely align with those of the organization [60].
Employees’ involvement is closely related to the concepts of employees’ engagement and commitment. Abraham [65] defines employees’ engagement as the degree in which the employees perceive they are emotionally connected to the success of the company, resulting in enhanced productivity. Employees’ involvement could be broadly construed as a person’s investment of cognitive, affective, and physical resources toward organizational outcomes [66]. Engaged employees exhibit dedication toward their work, which is marked by a deep involvement in tasks and a sense of significance, often influenced by specific CSR initiatives and programs [19]. Employee dedication to CSR is a nuanced and intricate occurrence, shaped by corporate contextual elements as well as employee perspectives. Increased job satisfaction can result in heightened employee commitment to organizational goals and values [35]. Identification with CSR initiatives tends to stimulate job satisfaction among employees, which in turn contributes to an improved overall employee performance [65]. The research findings indicate that satisfied employees are more committed to the companies they are employed at [67,68]. Accordingly, one can reasonably infer that people feeling satisfied with their jobs due to alignment with corporate CSR initiatives would be more inclined to get involved in such activities and initiatives. Thus, the below hypothesis could be derived:
H5. 
Job satisfaction due to CSR positively influences involvement with the company’s CSR activities.
The continuous and well-placed CSR initiatives of the organization unambiguously send messages to employees that the company aims to be a much more responsible subject on the market, apart from the primary business process. It is precisely a sense of fresh value, fostered by a company’s CSR, that will improve the involvement of employees in the work procedures [69]. There is a positive association between the evaluation of corporate social responsibility and employees’ engagement, identified in the literature (e.g., [1,12,70,71,72,73]), as well as between the perception of CSR and employees’ commitment (e.g., [2,74,75,76]). Bhattacharya et al. [13] elaborate that an employer’s commitment to social responsibility serves as a source of inspiration for employees, motivating them to apply greater effort, enhance productivity, and prioritize the quality of their work. A company’s engagement in CSR stimulates employees to identify with it, driven by its image, and consequently fosters employees’ commitment [74,75]. CSR activities and ethical practices constitute an environment for employees that encourages them to more frequently express their values, thereby increasing their engagement [77]. The perception of CSR aligns closely with employees’ standards and expectations regarding the socio-environmental responsibilities of their company. This alignment forms an emotional bond between employees and the company, which positively influences their affective organizational commitment [78]. Research conducted by Glavas [70] showed that the more CSR enables employees to be authentic, i.e., to “express their true selves at work”, the more engaged they are in their work. The correlation between the employees’ view of their company’s CSR and their performance is most apparent where we have a high degree of confidence in the organization they work for and a strong sense of identification with the organizational entity. It is considered that a strong correlation between employees and the results of the company’s CSR engagement is closely related to delving more deeply into the significance of business activities and, thus, increased work engagement [79]. Vlachos et al. [80] demonstrated that employees’ judgments on CSR activate their commitment in extra-role CSR-specific behaviors. In their study, Raza et al. [81] found out that the way the employees perceive the CSR initiatives directly influenced the voluntary pro-environmental behavior of these employees. However, Hahn et al. [3] pointed out that involving a greater number of employees in CSR is likely to give rise to tensions termed employee–CSR tensions. These tensions refer to conflicts between employees’ personal CSR-related preferences and their views on the actual CSR activities undertaken by the company. On the basis of the aforementioned findings, one could logically imply that employees would be more involved with CSR activities if their evaluation of the company’s engagement was favorable. Thus, the following can be proposed:
H6. 
CSR engagement positively influences involvement with the company’s CSR initiatives.
Story and Castanheira [34] investigated the association between the observed outer and in-house CSR practices and the effectiveness of employees and explored whether this relationship was mediated by how much the employees were satisfied by their job. The results indicate a clear link between how one perceives the external corporate social responsibility (CSR) and their performance, whereas job satisfaction was found to mediate this relationship to some extent. Additionally, internal perceptions of CSR were associated with superior results through job satisfaction, indicating complete mediation in this case. The study by Chatzopoulou, Manolopoulos, and Agapitou [82] showed that job satisfaction is fully mediated with the impact of external corporate social responsibility on employees’ behavioral dedication. Job satisfaction is proposed to act as a mediator in the relationship between employees’ responses to corporate CSR initiatives and organizational commitment by Vlachos et al. [68]. Chatzopoulou, Manolopoulos, and Agapitou [82] also acknowledged that job satisfaction plays a role in influencing how both external and internal CSR initiatives contribute to enhancing employee dedication to an organization. Moreover, Kim et al. [83] and Carmeli et al. [84] confirmed the mediating function of job satisfaction. In agreement with the previous conclusions, the authors propose as follows:
H7. 
Job satisfaction due to CSR mediates the relationship between CSR engagement and involvement with the CSR activities of an organization.
The literature has identified a beneficial correlation between organizational pride and employees’ commitment [61,85]. Employee identification with CSR tends to stimulate pride, ultimately resulting in an improved employee performance [65]. Bouckaert [86] noted that the form of pride developed through association with a reputable employer exhibits a stronger relation with high levels of employee performance. The findings of Yilmaz, Ali, and Flouris [1] indicated that an enhanced level of employees’ pride in their organizational membership could be cultivated through their involvement with employee CSR associations and participation. Based on the aforementioned findings, it would be reasonable to expect that the employees who experience a sense of pride in their company for its CSR engagement are also more likely to get involved with those activities. Thus, it can be assumed that:
H8. 
Organizational pride positively influences involvement with the corporate social activities (CSR) of an organization.
In the context of CSR, in research focused on employees, some authors (e.g., [50,58]) observed organizational pride as a mediating mechanism. By taking Social Identity Theory as one of two underlying theoretical concepts for their research, Raza et al. [81] confirmed the mediating function of organizational pride in the relation between CSR and the voluntary environmentally friendly behavior of employees. Also, by basing their research on Social Identity Theory, Fatima et al. [87] tested the effects of the CSR initiatives on employees’ environmentally friendly behavior, taking organizational pride as the mediating variable. Although there is a lack of research exploring this connection, it is logical to presume that, besides the direct impact of pride on employees’ involvement, organizational pride can be observed as a mediator between how the employees react to the CSR initiatives of their companies and their involvement with such activities. As a result, the authors hypothesize the following:
H9. 
Organizational pride mediates the relationship between CSR engagement and involvement with the CSR activities of an organization.
Figure 1 below depicts the theoretical framework that integrates hypothesized relationships.

3. Methods

The study was conducted using a convenience sample of employees in the life insurance department of a leading insurance company operating in Serbia. Data were gathered through a systematic web-based questionnaire. To minimize social desirability bias, data collection was performed anonymously. Upon the exclusion of incomplete survey forms, the sample comprised 138 responses, representing 73% of the entire workforce within the life insurance department.
Measurement items were proposed in accordance with previously validated indicators of the elements applied within the present research. Responses were recorded on a 5-point Likert-scale format, where 1 denotes strong disagreement and 5 denotes strong agreement. Authors assessed the CSR engagement using five items, which were derived from earlier research [4,9,43,88,89]. Five items taken from previous research [9,10,15,23,43,79,90] were used to measure job satisfaction due to CSR. To measure organizational pride, five items were borrowed from the work of [23,46,91]. Involvement with the company’s CSR activities was addressed with five items taken from previous research [28,92,93,94]. Questionnsire items are displayed in Table A1 in the Appendix A. To further enhance the clarity and readability of the questionnaire, it underwent a pilot test on a small group of the company’s employees prior to quantitative data collection.
Authors applied partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) using SmartPLS v.4 [95] to examine hypothesized relationships. The choice of PLS-SEM over covariance-based SEM was based on complex relationships, a relatively small sample size, and an asymmetric distribution of data [96]. First, we conducted the measurement analysis to examine the reliability and validity of the constructs, which, upon supporting the aforementioned criteria, was followed by the structural model analysis. All constructs included in the research were specified reflectively.

4. Results

4.1. Measurement Model Analysis

Construct validity is a key requirement for reflective measurement models, and it includes reliability, convergent and discriminant validity. Internal consistency reliability was assessed first, based on Cronbach’s alpha as a more conservative approach and composite reliability (CR) as a more liberal one [97]. As both measures were above the lower threshold of 0.70 for each construct, as displayed in Table 1, internal consistency reliability was deemed satisfactory. Statistically significant outer loadings, higher than 0.708, supported indicator reliability, as displayed in Table 1. Average variances extracted (AVEs) of latent constructs, as shown in Table 1, being above the threshold of 0.50 [98], indicated convergent validity.
Discriminant validity was assessed from the perspective of cross-loadings, the Fornell–Larcker criterion [98], and the heterotrait–monotrait (HTMT) ratio of correlations [99]. Several items loading highly (>0.70) on more than one construct were excluded from further analyses. According to the Fornell-Larcker criterion, which compares and evaluates the square root of AVEs with correlations between a latent variable and every other latent construct in the model, discriminant validity was established, as displayed in Table 2. The HTMT matrix, shown above the diagonal in Table 2, offered additional support to discriminant validity by indicating what true correlations between any two constructs would have been if they had been perfectly measured [100]. As the highest HTMT value in the matrix was 0.900, the discriminant validity was supported.

4.2. Structural Model Assessment

When evaluating the proposed relationships, the collinearity of an inner model was tested first. Variance inflation factor values (VIF) lower than five [97] for all sets of endogenous and exogenous constructs, as presented in Table 3, indicated that excessive collinearity among the constructs was not an issue of the study. A bootstrapping procedure with a 95% bias-corrected and accelerated (BCa) bootstrap, drawing 5000 subsamples from the original data, has been applied to estimate the hypothesized relationships. Corresponding findings have been displayed in Table 3 and Figure 2. The study results show that CSR engagement positively influences job satisfaction due to CSR (γ = 0.708, p ˂ 0.01, t = 10.166), supporting H1. The results also point to a significant influence of CSR engagement on organizational pride (γ = 0.465, p ˂ 0.01, t = 5.677). Hence, support has been provided to H2. Based on the results of the study, organizational pride was also significantly influenced by job satisfaction due to CSR (β = 0.385, p ˂ 0.01, t = 4.2), supporting H3. According to the mediation test, job satisfaction due to CSR also emerged as a mediator in the relationship between CSR engagement and organizational pride (β = 0.272, p ˂ 0.01, t = 3.904). This finding supports H4. Job satisfaction contributes to the involvement with the corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities of an organization (β = 0.400, p ˂ 0.01, t = 2.768), herewith supporting H5. According to this study’s findings, it is not possible to directly enhance the involvement with the CSR activities of an organization by a positive evaluation of CSR engagement (γ = 0.202, p > 0.10, t = 1.333). Therefore, support has not been provided to H6. However, job satisfaction due to CSR emerged as a mediator in the relationship between CSR engagement and involvement with organizational CSR activities (β = 0.283, p ˂ 0.01, t = 2.835), supporting H7. Contrary to what has been expected, organizational pride does not contribute directly to the involvement with the company’s CSR activities (β = 0.172, p > 0.10, t = 1.146). Therefore, support has not been provided to H8. In addition, the findings of the research indicate that the link between CSR engagement and involvement with the company’s CSR activities is not mediated via organizational pride (β = 0.08, p > 0.10, t = 1.075). Hence, support has not been provided to H9.
The satisfactory explanatory power of the model was indicated by coefficients of determination (R2), which represent the amount of variance explained in endogenous constructs by exogenous constructs related to them. Figure 2 displays R2 values. According to a rule of thumb, values of 0.25, 0.50, and 0.75 indicate weak, moderate, and substantial levels of the predictive accuracy of a model [97]. In addition to structural paths, the relevance of exogenous constructs in explaining endogenous constructs was assessed based on their effect size (f2), which represents the change in the explained variance of an endogenous construct when we exclude its determinant, i.e., the exogenous construct, from the model. According to the general guideline, f2 values above 0.02, 0.15, and 0.35 indicate small, medium, and large effects [100]. Taking into account f2, this study’s findings indicate a moderate contribution of job satisfaction to involvement with the company’s CSR activities, whereas other determinants exert a rather weak impact on involvement. The authors applied the blindfolding procedure to examine the model’s predictive relevance (Q2), i.e., the path model’s ability to predict data not used in the model’s estimation [96]. Q2 values of reflective endogenous variables that are above zero, as displayed in Table 3, indicate the predictive accuracy of the path model.
Figure 2 presents a research model with the results of hypothesis testing, whereas the explained variance of endogenous constructs is shown within the circles.
Based on the results of this investigation, both positive CSR engagement and job satisfaction due to CSR positively affect employees’ organizational pride, whereas the former exerts a stronger influence on organizational pride, even more so taking into account the total contribution of CSR engagement to organizational pride. Subsequently, the authors examined the total effects of independent constructs on involvement with the company’s CSR activities. These findings provide relevant information for practitioners interested in enhancing employees’ involvement with CSR activities. According to the results, job satisfaction due to CSR directly affects involvement with the company’s CSR activities, and satisfaction emerged as a more influential determinant of involvement in comparison with CSR engagement. The latter does not contribute directly to involvement with the company’s CSR activities; however, the impact of CSR engagement on involvement is mediated via satisfaction. According to the results of this research, practitioners interested in enhancing employees’ involvement with the company’s CSR activities should prioritize employees’ job satisfaction due to CSR activities.

5. Discussion

This study hereof aimed to develop and empirically investigate a model of the influence of employees’ evaluation of organizational CSR activities upon their attitudes and intended behavior, such as organizational pride and employees’ involvement with the CSR activities of an organization in a, thus far, scarcely examined environment of a developing economy, where CSR is recognized as a rising phenomenon [1,101].
The study’s findings reveal a significant impact of CSR engagement on organizational pride and job satisfaction. These findings corroborate the conclusions of Schaefer et al. [17] and conform to Raza et al.’s [81] claim that socially responsible companies are rewarded with employees who are proud of and content with their affiliation with an organization and actively strive to synchronize their own values with those endorsed by the organization. In a similar vein, a recent study has indicated the high impact of a favorable CSR perception on employee–company identification, which is further reflected in employee commitment and sales performance [101]. The significant contribution of CSR engagement to organizational pride also aligns with the research of Turker [74] on a sample of Turkish business professionals, suggesting the relevance of corporate behavior, which goes beyond its economic interests and legal obligations, for enhancing employees’ organizational commitment and self-esteem. Our findings relative to the significant impact of CSR engagement on organizational pride are in compliance with Social Identity Theory. The recent studies conducted in service businesses, such as passenger transportation business in Spain [42], grocery retailing business in Italy [102], and hospitality business in Pakistan [103], have also supported the beneficial effect of employees’ evaluation of a company’s CSR activities on job satisfaction. According to this study’s findings, a higher level of organizational pride can be developed through an increase in job satisfaction due to CSR, which is in accordance with recent research [1,50,62,63]. However, the present study indicates a more influential impact of CSR engagement on organizational pride in comparison with job satisfaction, taking into account the proposed and supported mediating role of job satisfaction in the relationship between CSR engagement and organizational pride.
Although a favorable evaluation of CSR engagement does not directly add to organizational involvement, according to this study’s findings, the former enhances job satisfaction due to CSR activities, which further reflects itself in an enhancement of employees’ willingness to support CSR engagement. The mediated impact of job satisfaction in a relationship between CSR engagement and the willingness of employees to be engaged in the corporate social responsibility initiatives of the company was also supported by previous research [1]. Based on the results of this study, job satisfaction appeared as a more impactful determinant of employees’ involvement with the corporate social initiatives of an organization in comparison with CSR engagement. The findings of the present study within the framework of insurance business indicate that organizational pride does not contribute directly to employees’ willingness to be involved with CSR activities. Contrary to this finding, a recent study in the banking sector in an emerging economy indicated a significant impact of organizational pride on employees’ willingness to undertake pro-environmental behaviors [87]. A possible explanation of an insignificant direct impact of organizational pride on employees’ willingness to be involved in CSR activities may be found, according to the present study, in a neglected moderating role of an organization’s internal CSR communication, which in Fatima et al.’s [87] study enhanced the impact of CSR on positive results, for instance, the employees’ willingness to undertake pro-environmental behaviors, mediated via organizational pride.
Furthermore, the findings of this study have relevant repercussions on corporate management. Positive perceptions of organizational CSR activities contribute to employees’ job satisfaction, and both satisfaction and CSR engagement contribute to employees’ pride in being associated with an organization. Moreover, employees’ perception of the company’s CSR activities indirectly enhances their willingness to be involved with organizational CSR activities, which points to the relevance of taking employees’ opinions and suggestions into account in the process of planning a CSR agenda as well as communicating CSR activities to employees. Although being proud of a membership in the company does not contribute to employees’ intention to be involved in future CSR activities, it would be worthwhile to examine the indirect contribution of organizational pride to involvement in future studies. A study conducted recently has revealed a positive association between organizational pride and organizational commitment [55]. Subsequent studies should reflect upon whether the impact of organizational pride on involvement with the company’s CSR activities is fully mediated via commitment. A possible explanation for the insignificant direct link between organizational pride and employees’ willingness to be involved in future CSR activities may lie in the non-specific scope of CSR activities in the present study, contrary to some recent research which has indicated a significant influence of organizational pride on employees’ voluntary pro-environmental behaviors [81,87]. The present study’s findings merit further investigation.

6. Conclusions

Studies performed in developed countries have significantly contributed to our comprehension of the outcomes of organizational CSR engagement. However, this subject has been underexplored in research attention in emerging economies, especially in the context of employee-related outcomes. The present study addresses this limitation and sheds further light on our knowledge of the effects of CSR engagement on employees’ attitudes and behavior. Furthermore, the study contributes to the body of literature on organizational behavior by revealing the key influence of job satisfaction on employees’ willingness to be involved in an organization’s socially responsible initiatives. This study also bears managerial relevance, indicating that insurance company managers should actively participate in shaping and improving employees’ perspectives of the company’s socially responsible activities. It is important to take into account the opinions of the workforce in formulating a CSR agenda and provide adequate feedback to employees regarding the realization of CSR activities through company magazines, newsletters, or social media.
The management of insurance companies in developing countries should increase their focus on CSR activities in their business strategies. Since the findings indicate that the impact of CSR engagement on organizational pride is significant, a focus on CSR activities in business strategies can improve a company’s positive reputation among its employed. Through policies and practices that integrate CSR activities, managers can further influence employees’ job satisfaction, leading to the stronger involvement of employees in CSR activities. Informing employees about CSR activities and achievements through corporate, traditional, and social media, as well as establishing a dialogue between management and employees, can improve employees’ perceptions and increase their involvement in CSR activities. Understanding that CSR engagement can have different impacts on organizational pride and employee satisfaction allows managers to adjust their strategies to account for these diverse effects. It is possible to identify areas that require additional attention to achieve an optimal impact. The fact that there are limitations of the study signals the need to support further research in this direction to gain new valuable insights, primarily relevant to insurance companies in developing countries. These implications guide insurance company managers on how to adapt their practices and strategies to achieve the beneficial impacts of CSR engagement on employee satisfaction, organizational pride, and involvement in CSR activities in developing countries.
Despite its contribution, we should mention a few constraints of this study. The conclusions of the present study have been drawn taking into account the perceptions of a leading insurance company’s employees in Serbia. The generalizability of the findings is thus restricted and prospective studies would benefit from a more representative sample of the insurance industry’s employees. Given that the study was conducted solely within the insurance industry, the generalizability of the results for emerging economies and other industries remains to be established. Due to the cross-sectional design of the present study, causal connections among constructs should also be regarded with caution. For this reason, we advise that future studies employ a longitudinal research strategy. Due to a limited research focus thus far on the effects of CSR activities in emerging economies, future research would benefit from examining the consequences of CSR engagement on employees’ intentions and behavior across industries in an emerging economy setting. Perspectives of other, external, stakeholder groups in an emerging economy context would also be worthy of future examinations. A longitudinal examination of the effects of exposing a company’s CSR activities and reporting via online digital platforms on external stakeholders’ perceptions of the company’s reputation and willingness to engage with it, and consequently, the company’s financial performance, would provide a meaningful direction for future investigation. Another benefit of the subsequent studies could be derived from a more specific definition of CSR engagement, i.e., an examination of the impact of different types of CSR initiatives on outcomes related to employees. Moreover, future research should delve into identifying industry-specific variables that may affect the employees’ view of CSR and their effect on CSR outcomes across various sectors.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.S. and N.P.Š.; methodology, M.S. and N.P.Š.; formal analysis, T.R.; data curation, M.R.; writing—original draft preparation, J.K., T.R., N.P.Š. and M.R.; writing—review and editing, J.K., T.R. and N.P.Š.; supervision, M.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all the participants.

Data Availability Statement

The data related to this research are accessible and can be acquired by reaching out to the corresponding author upon a reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1. Constructs and items.
Table A1. Constructs and items.
CSR Engagement
EVAL1I like corporate advertisements that promote social responsibility activities.
EVAL2 *I recognize the company’s social responsibility engagement that is presented in the media.
EVAL3I am informed about the company’s social responsibility activities and hold them in high regard.
EVAL4Social responsibility initiatives fully comply with the company’s overarching operations and actions in the market.
EVAL5I endorse my company’s exposure in the media on its corporate social responsibility initiatives.
Job satisfaction due to CSR
SAT1 *I am satisfied with working for a company that is engaged in corporate social responsibility practices.
SAT2 *I enjoy being a part of a company that creates a respectable image by engaging in corporate social responsibility activities.
SAT3I enjoy working for a company that consistently carries out its activities through corporate social responsibility engagement.
SAT4I hold a favorable view of the corporate social responsibility initiatives undertaken by my company, and I am delighted to be a part of them.
SAT5 *It makes me happy to be a part of a team that applies the highest ethical standards and best business practice through corporate social responsibility engagement.
Organizational pride
ORGPR1 *I am proud to be a part of a company that carries out social responsibility activities.
ORGPR2I frequently express my utmost praise for the company’s social responsibility engagement.
ORGPR3 *There is an intense sense of connection with the company’s social responsibility activities.
ORGPR4I am devoted to the company that consistently carries out activities through corporate social responsibility engagement.
ORGPR5It gives me great pride and satisfaction to belong to a socially responsible company.
Involvement with the company’s CSR activities
INV1I would be happy to take part in one of the social responsibility activities regularly carried out by the company.
INV2 *The company’s social responsibility activities have a direct influence on my personal beliefs and attitudes.
INV3 I am willing to provide my advice and share my experience to help the company expand its social responsibility initiatives.
INV4I am ready to invest an additional effort to engage in the company’s social responsibility initiatives.
INV5I am willing to devote a portion of my time to contributing to some of the company’s social responsibility activities.
* Items that were excluded from further analyses due to high cross-loadings and failure of some items to load on their respective constructs.

References

  1. Yilmaz, A.K.; Ali, I.; Flouris, T. The effect of Corporate Social Responsibility on pride in membership, job satisfaction and employee engagement. Br. J. Econ. Manag. Trade 2015, 9, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Asrar-ul-Haq, M.; Kuchinke, K.P.; Iqbal, A. The relationship between corporate social responsibility, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment: Case of Pakistani higher education. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 142, 2352–2363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Hahn, T.; Sharma, G.; Glavas, A. Employee-CSR tensions: Drivers of employee (dis)engagement with contested CSR initiatives. J. Manag. Stud. 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Du, S.; Bhattacharya, C.B.; Sen, S. Maximizing business returns to corporate social responsibility (CSR): The role of CSR communication. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2010, 12, 8–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Farooq, O.; Payaud, M.; Merunka, D.; Valette-Florence, P. The impact of corporate social responsibility on organizational commitment: Exploring multiple mediation mechanisms. J. Bus. Ethics 2014, 125, 563–5801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. De Roeck, K.; Maon, F. Building the theoretical puzzle of employees’ reactions to corporate social responsibility: An integrative conceptual framework and research agenda. J. Bus. Ethics 2018, 149, 609–625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Bauman, C.W.; Skitka, L. Corporate social responsibility as a source of employee satisfaction. Res. Organ. Behav. 2012, 32, 63–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Vlachos, P.A.; Panagopoulos, N.G.; Rapp, A.A. Feeling good by doing good: Employee CSR-induced attribution, job satisfaction, and charismatic leadership. J. Bus. Ethics 2013, 118, 577–588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Lee, E.M.; Park, S.Y.; Lee, H.J. Employee perception of CSR activities: Its antecedents and consequences. J. Bus. Res. 2013, 66, 1716–1724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. De Roeck, K.; Marique, G.; Stinglhamber, F.; Swaen, V. Understanding employees’ responses to CSR: Mediating roles of overall justice and organizational identification. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2014, 25, 91–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Glavas, A. Corporate social responsibility, and organizational psychology: An integrative review. Front. Psychol. 2016, 7, 144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Opoku-Dakwa, A.; Chen, C.C.; Rupp, D.E. CSR initiative characteristics and employee engagement: An impact-based perspective. J. Organ. Behav. 2018, 39, 580–593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Bhattacharya, C.B.; Korschun, D.; Sen, S. Strengthening stakeholder–company relationships through mutually beneficial corporate social responsibility initiatives. J. Bus. Ethics 2009, 85, 257–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Khuong, M.N.; Truong An, N.K.; Hang, T.T.T. Stakeholders and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) programme as key sustainable development strategies to promote corporate reputation—Evidence from Vietnam. Cogent Bus. Manag. 2021, 8, 1917333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Du, S.; Bhattacharya, C.B.; Sen, S. CSR, multi-faceted job-products, and employee outcomes. J. Bus. Ethics 2015, 131, 319–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Kunz, J. Corporate social responsibility and employees motivation—Broadening the perspective. Schmalenbach Bus. Rev. 2020, 72, 159–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Schaefer, S.D.; Terlutter, R.; Diehl, S. Talking about CSR matters: Employees’ perception of and reaction to their company’s CSR communication in four different CSR domains. Int. J. Advert. 2020, 39, 191–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Rupp, D.E.; Ganapathi, J.; Aguilera, R.V.; Williams, C.A. Employee reactions to corporate social responsibility: An organizational justice framework. J. Organ. Behav. 2006, 27, 537–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Paruzel, A.; Klug, H.J.P.; Maier, G.W. The relationship between perceived corporate social responsibility and employee-related outcomes: A meta-analysis. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 607108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Glavas, A.; Kelley, K. The effects of perceived corporate social responsibility on employee attitudes. Bus. Ethics Q. 2014, 24, 165–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Mueller, K.; Hattrup, K.; Spiess, S.-O.; Lin-Hi, N. The effects of corporate social responsibility on employees’ affective commitment: A cross cultural investigation. J. Appl. Psychol. 2012, 97, 1186–1200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. El Akremi, A.; Gond, J.P.; Swaen, V.; De Roeck, K.; Igalens, J. How do employees perceive corporate responsibility? Development and validation of a multidimensional corporate stakeholder responsibility scale. J. Manag. 2018, 44, 619–657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Suh, Y.J. The role of relational social capital and communication in the relationship between CSR and employee attitudes: A multilevel analysis. J. Leadersh. Organ. Stud. 2016, 23, 410–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Wang, W.; Fu, Y.; Qiu, H.; Moore, J.H.; Wang, Z. Corporate social responsibility and employee outcomes: A moderated mediation model of organizational identification and moral identity. Front. Psychol. 2017, 8, 1906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Murshed, F.; Sen, S.; Savitskie, K.; Xu, H. CSR and job satisfaction: Role of CSR importance to employee and procedural justice. J. Mark. Theory Pract. 2021, 29, 518–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Panagopoulos, N.G.; Rapp, A.A.; Vlachos, P.A. I think they think we are good citizens: Meta-perceptions as antecedents of employees’ reactions to CSR. J. Bus. Res. 2016, 69, 2781–2790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Turker, D. Measuring CSR: A scale development study. J. Bus. Ethics 2009, 85, 411–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Rupp, D.E.; Shao, R.; Thornton, M.A.; Skarlicki, D.P. Applicants’ and employees’ reactions to corporate social responsibility: The moderating effects of first-party justice perceptions and moral identity. Pers. Psychol. 2013, 66, 895–933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. McNamara, T.K.; Carapinha, R.; Pitt-Catsouphes, M.; Valcour, M.; Lobel, S. Corporate social responsibility and employee outcomes: The role of country context. Bus. Ethics A Eur. Rev. 2017, 26, 413–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Memon, K.R.; Zada, M.; Ghani, B.; Ullah, R.; Azim, M.T.; Mubarik, M.S.; Vega-Muñoz, A.; Castillo, D. Linking corporate social responsibility to workplace deviant behaviors: Mediating role of job satisfaction. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 803481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Dziuba, S.T.; Ingaldi, M.; Zhuravskaya, M. Employees’ job satisfaction and their work performance as elements influencing work safety. Syst. Saf. Hum. Tech. Facil. Environ. 2020, 2, 18–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Pikl, L. The relationship between organizational pride, job characteristics and job satisfaction: A literature review. In Proceedings of the 7th FEB International Scientific Conference: Strengthening Resilience by Sustainable Economy and Business—Towards the SDGs, Maribor, Slovenia, 16 May 2023; Nedelko, Z., Korez Vide, R., Eds.; University Publishing House of the University of Maribor: Maribor, Slovenia, 2023; pp. 329–336. [Google Scholar]
  33. Curado, C.; Henriques, P.L.; Jerónimo, H.M.; Azevedo, J. The contribution of communication to employee satisfaction in service firms: A causal configurational analysis. Vision J. Bus. Perspect. 2022, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Story, J.S.P.; Castanheira, F. Corporate social responsibility and employee performance: Mediation role of job satisfaction and affective commitment. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2019, 26, 1361–1370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Zhu, Q.; Yin, H.; Liu, J.; Lai, K.H. How is employee perception of organizational efforts in corporate social responsibility related to their satisfaction and loyalty towards developing harmonious society in Chinese enterprises? Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2014, 21, 28–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Korschun, D.; Bhattacharya, C.B.; Swain, S.D. Corporate social responsibility, customer orientation, and the job performance of frontline employees. J. Mark. 2014, 78, 20–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Wisse, B.; van Eijbergen, R.; Rietzschel, E.F.; Scheibe, S. Catering to the needs of an aging workforce: The role of employee age in the relationship between CSR and employee satisfaction. J. Bus. Ethics 2018, 147, 875–888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Zhou, Z.; Luo, B.N.; Tang, T.L. Corporate social responsibility excites “exponential” positive engagement: The Matthew effect in CSR and sustainability policy. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2017, 25, 339–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Miethlich, B.; Beliakova, M.; Voropaeva, L.; Ustyuzhina, O.; Yurieva, T. Internal corporate policy: CSR and employee satisfaction. Empl. Responsib. Rights J. 2023, 35, 127–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Cheah, J.S.S.; Lim, K.-H. Effects of internal and external corporate social responsibility on employee job satisfaction during a pandemic: A medical device industry perspective. Eur. Manag. J. 2023, in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Barakat, S.R.; Isabella, G.; Boaventura, J.M.G.; Mazzon, J.A. The influence of corporate social responsibility on employee satisfaction. Manag. Decis. 2016, 54, 2325–2339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. González-Morales, O.; Galván-Sánchez, I.; Román-Cervantes, C. Social responsibility as a source of satisfaction for worker-members in a social economy transport company. Res. Transp. Bus. Manag. 2023, 51, 101070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Valentine, S.; Fleischman, G. Ethics programs, perceived corporate social responsibility and job satisfaction. J. Bus. Ethics 2008, 77, 159–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Rosengren, S.; Bondesson, N. Consumer advertising as a signal of employer attractiveness. Int. J. Advert. 2014, 33, 253–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Popović Šević, N.; Slijepčević, M.; Ilić, M. The effects of company CSR on Generation Z—Example of an insurance company. In Sustainable Economic Development and Advancing Education Excellence in the Era of Global Pandemic, Proceedings of the 36th Ibima Conference, Granada, Spain, 4–5 November 2020; International Business Information Management Association (IBIMA): Madrid, Spain, 2020; pp. 10502–10514. [Google Scholar]
  46. Jones, D.A. Does serving the community also serve the company? J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 2010, 83, 857–878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Arnett, D.B.; Laverie, D.A.; McLane, C. Using job satisfaction and pride as internal-marketing tools. Cornell Hotel. Restaur. Adm. Q. 2002, 43, 87–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Doh, J.P.; Smith, R.R.; Stumpf, S.A.; Tymon, W.G. Pride and professionals: Retaining talent in emerging economies. J. Bus. Strategy 2011, 32, 35–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Tracy, J.L.; Robins, R.V. The psychological structure of pride: A tale of two facets. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2007, 92, 506–525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Mas-Machuca, M.; Berbegal-Mirabent, J.; Alegre, I. Work-life balance and its relationship with organizational pride and job satisfaction. J. Manag. Psychol. 2016, 31, 586–602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Kraemer, T.; Gouthier, M.H.J. How organizational pride and emotional exhaustion explain turnover intention in call centers. J. Serv. Manag. 2014, 25, 125–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Masterson, C.; Liden, R.C.; Kluemper, D. Peeling back the layers: A multi-method investigation of organizational pride. In Proceedings of the 77th Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management—AOM, Atlanta, GA, USA, 4–8 August 2017. [Google Scholar]
  53. Nilawati, F.; Umar, N.; Kusdi, R.; Zainul, A. The influence of work life balance and organizational pride on job satisfaction and its impact on organizational citizenship behavior in five- and four-star hotels employee. Russ. J. Agric. Soc. Econ. Sci. 2019, 7, 191–196. [Google Scholar]
  54. Butler, T.D.; Armstrong, C.; Ellinger, A.; Franke, G. Employer trustworthiness, worker pride, and camaraderie as a source of competitive advantage: Evidence from great places to work. J. Strategy Manag. 2016, 9, 322–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Pereira, L.; Patrício, V.; Sempiterno, M.; Lopes da Costa, R.; Dias, A.; Antonio, N. How to Build Pride in the Workplace? Soc. Sci. 2021, 10, 104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Sturm, R.; Jolly, P.; Williams, S. It’s a matter of organizational pride: How perceptions of organizational virtuousness and competence affect employee behaviors. J. Bus. Psychol. 2022, 37, 1079–1097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Seyedpour, S.M.; Safari, A.; Isfahani, A.N. Formulating an organizational pride model for the National Iranian Oil Company. Cogent. Bus. Manag. 2020, 7, 1794679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Jones, D.A.; Willness, C.R.; Madey, S. Why are job seekers attracted by corporate social performance? Experimental and field tests of three signal-based mechanisms. Acad. Manag. J. 2014, 57, 383–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Onkila, T. Pride or embarrassment? Employees’ emotions and corporate social responsibility. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2015, 22, 222–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Collier, J.; Estebann, R. Corporate social responsibility and employee commitment. Bus. Ethics A Eur. Rev. 2007, 16, 19–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Ellemers, N.; Kingma, L.; van de Burgt, J.; Barreto, M. Corporate social responsibility as a source of employee morality, employee commitment and satisfaction. J. Organ. Moral Psychol. 2011, 1, 97–124. [Google Scholar]
  62. Widyanti, R.; Irhamni, G.; Silvia Ratna, B. Organizational justice and organizational pride to achieve job satisfaction and job performance. J. Southwest Jiaotong Univ. 2020, 55, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Anh, N.T.H.; Tri, C.M.; Tu, L.T.N. The impact of work-life balance on JS, OP and commitment: A study in the service industry. HCMCOUJS-Econ. Bus. Adm. 2022, 12, 139–152. [Google Scholar]
  64. Wrzesniewski, A. Finding positive meaning in work. In Positive Organizational Scholarship: Foundations of a New Discipline; Carmeron, K.S., Dutton, J.E., Quinn, R.E., Eds.; Berrett-Koehler: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  65. Abraham, S. Job satisfaction as an antecedent to employee engagement. SIES J. Manag. 2012, 8, 27–36. [Google Scholar]
  66. Christian, M.S.; Garza, A.S.; Slaughter, J.E. Work engagement: A quantitative review and test of its relations with task and contextual performance. Pers. Psychol. 2011, 64, 89–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Kirkman, B.L.; Shapiro, D.L. The impact of cultural values on job satisfaction and organizational commitment in self-managing work teams: The mediating role of employee resistance. Acad. Manag. J. 2001, 44, 557–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Vlachos, P.A.; Epitropaki, O.; Panagopoulos, N.G.; Rapp, A.A. Causal attributions and employee reactions to corporate social responsibility. Ind. Organ. Psychol. 2013, 6, 334–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Rupp, D.E.; Mallory, D.B. Corporate social responsibility: Psychological, person-centric, and progressing. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2015, 2, 211–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Glavas, A. Corporate social responsibility and employee engagement: Enabling employees to employ more of their whole selves at work. Front. Psychol. 2016, 7, 796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Gupta, M. Corporate social responsibility, employee–company identification, and organizational commitment. Mediation by employee engagement. Curr. Psychol. 2017, 36, 101–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Gao, Y.; Zhang, D.; Huo, Y. Corporate social responsibility and work engagement: Testing a moderated mediation model. J. Bus. Psychol. 2018, 33, 661–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Rupp, D.E.; Shao, R.; Skarlicki, D.P.; Paddock, E.L.; Kim, T.; Nadisic, T. Corporate social responsibility and employee engagement: The moderating role of CSR-specific relative autonomy and individualism. J. Organ. Behav. 2018, 39, 559–579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Turker, D. How corporate social responsibility influences organizational commitment. J. Bus. Ethics 2009, 89, 189–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Stites, J.P.; Michael, J.H. Organizational commitment in manufacturing employees: Relationships with corporate social performance. Bus. Soc. 2011, 50, 50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Shaikh, E.; Brahmi, M.; Thang, P.C.; Watto, W.A.; Trang, T.T.N.; Loan, N.T. Should I stay or should I go? Explaining the turnover intentions with corporate social responsibility (CSR), organizational identification and organizational commitment. Sustainability 2022, 14, 6030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Wang, Y.; Xu, S.; Wang, Y. The consequences of employees’ perceived corporate social responsibility: A meta-analysis. Bus. Ethics A Eur. Rev. 2020, 29, 471–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Rodrigo, P.; Aqueveque, C.; Duran, I.J. Do employees value strategic CSR? A tale of affective organizational commitment and its underlying mechanisms. Bus. Ethics A Eur. Rev. 2019, 28, 459–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Aguinis, H.; Glavas, A. On corporate social responsibility, sensemaking, and the search for meaningfulness through work. J. Manag. 2019, 45, 1057–1086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Vlachos, P.A.; Panagopoulos, N.G.; Rapp, A. Employee judgments of and behaviors towards corporate social responsibility: A multi-study investigation of direct, cascading, and moderating effects. J. Organ. Behav. 2014, 35, 990–1017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Raza, A.; Farrukh, M.; Iqbal, M.K.; Farhan, M.; Wu, Y. Corporate social responsibility and employees’ voluntary pro-environmental behavior: The role of organizational pride and employee engagement. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2021, 28, 1104–1116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Chatzopoulou, E.-C.; Manolopoulos, D.; Agapitou, V. Corporate social responsibility and employee outcomes: Interrelations of external and internal orientations with job satisfaction and organizational commitment. J. Bus. Ethics 2022, 179, 795–817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Kim, H.R.; Lee, M.; Lee, H.T.; Kim, N.M. Corporate social responsibility and employee-company identification. J. Bus. Ethics 2010, 95, 557–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Carmeli, A.; Gilat, G.; Waldman, D.A. The role of perceived organizational performance in organizational identification, adjustment and job performance. J. Manag. Stud. 2007, 44, 972–992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Gouthier, M.; Rhein, M. Organizational pride and its positive effects on employee behavior. J. Serv. Manag. 2011, 22, 633–649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Bouckaert, G. Pride and performance in public service: Some patterns of analysis. Int. Rev. Adm. Sci. 2001, 67, 15–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Fatima, T.; Badar, K.; Waqas, M.; Ayub, A.; Haris, M. CSR Communication matters! An examination of CSR, organisational pride, and task-related pro-environmental behaviour nexus. Sustainability 2023, 15, 9665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Pérez, A.; Del Bosque, I.R. The formation of customer CSR perceptions in the banking sector. Int. J. Bus. Soc. 2015, 16, 75–94. [Google Scholar]
  89. Kim, K.; Cheong, Y.; Lim, J.S. Choosing the right message for the right cause in social cause advertising. Int. J. Advert. 2015, 34, 473–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Dhanesh, G.S. CSR as organization-employee relationship management strategy: A case study of socially responsible information technology companies in India. Manag. Commun. Q. 2014, 28, 130–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Zafar, J.; Ali, I. The influence of corporate social responsibility on employee commitment: The mediating role of employee company identification. Asian Soc. Sci. 2016, 12, 262–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. van Knippenberg, D.; van Schie, E.C.M. Foci and correlates of organizational identification. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 2000, 73, 137–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. May, D.R.; Gilson, R.L.; Harter, L.M. The psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 2004, 77, 11–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Edwards, J.R.; Cable, D.M. The value of value congruence. J. Appl. Psychol. 2009, 94, 654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Ringle, C.M.; Wende, S.; Becker, J.-M. SmartPLS 4. Oststeinbek: SmartPLS. 2022. Available online: https://www.smartpls.com (accessed on 22 November 2023).
  96. Hair, J.F.; Risher, J.J.; Sarstedt, M.; Ringle, C.M. When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. Eur. Bus. Rev. 2019, 31, 2–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Zeng, N.; Liu, Y.; Gong, P.; Hertogh, M.; Konig, M. Do right PLS and do PLS right: A critical review of the application of PLS-SEM in construction management research. Front. Eng. Manag. 2021, 8, 356–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Henseler, J.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2015, 43, 115–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Hair, J.; Hult, G.; Ringle, C.; Sarstedt, M. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), 2nd ed.; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2017; pp. 128–156. [Google Scholar]
  101. Jha, A.; Dash, S.B. Does doing good help employees perform well? Understanding the consequences of CSR on industrial sales employees. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 383, 135337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Castaldo, S.; Ciacci, A.; Penco, L. Perceived corporate social responsibility and job satisfaction in grocery retail: A comparison between low- and high-productivity stores. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2023, 74, 103444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Hayat, A.; Afshari, L. CSR and employee well-being in hospitality industry: A mediation model of job satisfaction and affective commitment. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2022, 51, 387–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 16 03403 g001
Figure 1. Conceptual framework of the study.
Figure 1. Conceptual framework of the study.
Sustainability 16 03403 g001
Sustainability 16 03403 g002
Figure 2. Research model.
Figure 2. Research model.
Sustainability 16 03403 g002
Table 1. Reliability and convergent validity assessment.
Table 1. Reliability and convergent validity assessment.
ConstructsItems 1Indicator Loadingst-ValuesCronbach’s AlphaCRAVE
CSR engagementEVAL10.74710.8180.8150.8790.645
EVAL30.86535.492
EVAL40.82224.748
EVAL50.77315.027
Job satisfaction due to CSRSAT30.90931.3790.8000.9090.833
SAT40.91756.467
Organizational prideORGPR20.85520.3420.8120.8880.726
ORGPR40.81210.593
ORGPR50.88934.180
Involvement with the company’s CSR activitiesINV10.89439.5660.9070.9350.783
INV30.85725.119
INV40.86530.263
INV50.92357.622
1 Several items were excluded from further analyses due to high cross-loadings and failure of some items to load on their respective constructs.
Table 2. Discriminant validity—Fornell–Larcker criterion and HTMT ratio 1.
Table 2. Discriminant validity—Fornell–Larcker criterion and HTMT ratio 1.
CSR EngagementJob SatisfactionOrganizational PrideInvolvement with CSR
CSR engagement 0.8030.8720.9000.707
Job Satisfaction0.7080.9130.7780.867
Organizational Pride0.7330.7130.8520.695
Involvement with CSR0.6120.6660.6060.885
1 Values on the diagonal represent the square root of AVEs, values located beneath the diagonal represent correlations between the constructs, and values above the diagonal refer to the HTMT matrix.
Table 3. Structural model assessment using bootstrapping and blindfolding procedures.
Table 3. Structural model assessment using bootstrapping and blindfolding procedures.
Hypotheses and RelationshipsPath Coefficientt-StatisticsLBCIUBCIHypothesis Testing Resultsf2VIFQ2
(2.50%)(97.50%) *
H1:CSR engagement → job satisfaction0.70810.1660.5420.820supported0.8671.0000.463
H2:CSR engagement → organizational pride0.4655.6770.3090.635supported0.2812.0040.528
H3:job satisfaction → organizational pride0.3854.2000.1740.537supported0.1922.004
H4:CSR engagement → job satisfaction → organizational pride0.2723.9040.1300.405supported
H5:job satisfaction → involvement0.4002.7680.0960.657supported0.1332.389
H6:CSR engagement → involvement0.2021.333−0.1230.476not supported0.0312.567
H7:CSR engagement → job satisfaction → involvement0.2832.8350.0790.473supported
H8:organizational pride → involvement0.1721.146−0.1550.441not supported0.0232.6080.340
H9:CSR engagement → organizational pride → involvement0.0801.075−0.0550.246not supported
* Note: LBCI, UBCI—lower and upper bound of a confidence interval.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Slijepčević, M.; Popović Šević, N.; Krstić, J.; Rajić, T.; Ranković, M. Exploring the Nexus of Perceived Organizational CSR Engagement, Job Satisfaction, Organizational Pride, and Involvement in CSR Activities: Evidence from an Emerging Economy. Sustainability 2024, 16, 3403. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16083403

AMA Style

Slijepčević M, Popović Šević N, Krstić J, Rajić T, Ranković M. Exploring the Nexus of Perceived Organizational CSR Engagement, Job Satisfaction, Organizational Pride, and Involvement in CSR Activities: Evidence from an Emerging Economy. Sustainability. 2024; 16(8):3403. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16083403

Chicago/Turabian Style

Slijepčević, Milica, Nevenka Popović Šević, Jelena Krstić, Tamara Rajić, and Milan Ranković. 2024. "Exploring the Nexus of Perceived Organizational CSR Engagement, Job Satisfaction, Organizational Pride, and Involvement in CSR Activities: Evidence from an Emerging Economy" Sustainability 16, no. 8: 3403. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16083403

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop