The Role of Corporate Environmental Responsibility in Driving Sustainability-Oriented Employee Engagement: A Moderated Mediation Model
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Literature Review and Hypothesis Development
2.1. Corporate Environmental Responsibility (CER)
2.2. Employee Engagement (EE)
2.3. Perceived CER and EE
2.4. Perceived CER and Organizational Pride
2.5. Organizational Pride and EE
2.6. Mediating Role of Organizational Pride
2.7. The Moderating Role of Online Media Coverage
2.8. Moderated Mediation
3. Methods
3.1. Questionnaire Design and Measures
3.2. Sample and Data Collection
4. Results
4.1. Common Method Bias
4.2. Reliability and Validity
4.3. Hypothesis Testing
5. Discussion
5.1. Theoretical Implications
5.2. Managerial Implications
5.3. Limitations and Future Research Directions
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- 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]
- Haleem, F.; Farooq, S.; Cheng, Y.; Waehrens, B.V. Sustainable management practices and stakeholder pressure: A systematic literature review. Sustainability 2022, 14, 1967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, L.; Li, W.; Qi, L. Stakeholder pressures and corporate environmental strategies: A meta-analysis. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ibrahim, Y.; Ahmed, M.M.; Nayel, M.T. The impact of corporate social responsibility practices on employees’ engagement: The mediating role of organizational identification. Glob. Bus. Organ. Excell. 2024, 43, 43–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wei, Y.; Lin, C.Y. The effects of perceived corporate social responsibility and Confucian ethics on psychological meaningfulness and employee engagement: A moderated-mediation study. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2025, 32, 806–819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Keskin, H.; Tatoglu, E.; Akgün, A.E.; Esen, E.; Salt, E. Employee Green Values and Perceived Greenwashing: The Mediating Role of Person-Organization Fit in CSR-Oriented Companies. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2025, 32, 4861–4879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- Rahman, N.; Post, C. Measurement issues in environmental corporate social responsibility (ECSR): Toward a transparent, reliable, and construct valid instrument. J. Bus. Ethics 2012, 105, 307–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- John, A.; Qadeer, F.; Shahzadi, G.; Jia, F. Corporate social responsibility and employee’s desire: A social influence perspective. Serv. Ind. J. 2017, 37, 819–832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- 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. In Leveraged Marketing Communications; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2021; pp. 186–207. [Google Scholar]
- Gouthier, M.H.J.; Rhein, M. Organizational pride and its positive effects on employee behavior. J. Serv. Manag. 2011, 22, 633–649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, J.; Zhang, L.; Zhang, M. Media pressure, internal control, and corporate environmental information disclosure. Finance Res. Lett. 2024, 63, 105369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, M.; Sun, Y.; Zhang, J.Z.; Fu, J.; Yang, B. Effects of enterprise social media use on employee improvisation ability through psychological conditions: The moderating role of enterprise social media policy. Decis. Support Syst. 2024, 181, 114212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- DesJardins, J. Corporate environmental responsibility. J. Bus. Ethics 1998, 17, 825–838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ndasauka, Y. The Blindspot of Environmental Issues in Corporate Social Responsibility in Africa. In Sustainable Development Corporate Social Responsibility—A Global Perspective; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2024; p. 187. [Google Scholar]
- Li, P.; Lin, Z.; Du, H.; Feng, T.; Zuo, J. Do environmental taxes reduce air pollution? Evidence from fossil-fuel power plants in China. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 295, 113112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hussain, T.; Wang, D.; Benqian, L. Examining the role of responsible management, CSR, and TQM in enhancing renewable energy projects: An empirical analysis. Ecol. Front. 2024, 44, 478–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hayat, S.; Safi, A.; Wahab, S.; Shahzad, K.; Chen, Y. Renewable energy R&D and natural resources: A success story of environmentally friendly financing in OECD economies. Resour. Policy 2023, 83, 103655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Farrukh, M.; Ansari, N.; Raza, A.; Wu, Y.; Wang, H. Fostering employee’s pro-environmental behavior through green transformational leadership, green human resource management and environmental knowledge. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2022, 179, 121643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sabokro, M.; Masud, M.M.; Kayedian, A. The effect of green human resources management on corporate social responsibility, green psychological climate and employees’ green behavior. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 313, 127963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al Amri, F.H.; Das, A.; Ben-Ayed, O. The impact of perceived corporate social responsibility on employee engagement: The case of Qatar. Bus. Strategy Dev. 2019, 2, 180–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ho, V.T.; Astakhova, M.N. Disentangling passion and engagement: An examination of how and when passionate employees become engaged ones. Hum. Relat. 2018, 71, 973–1000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahmeti, F. Leveraging employee engagement for competitive advantage: Satisfaction and work motivation management. J. Lib. Int. Aff. 2023, 9, 178–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wood, J.; Oh, J.; Park, J.; Kim, W. The relationship between work engagement and work–life balance in organizations: A review of the empirical research. Hum. Resour. Dev. Rev. 2020, 19, 240–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alam, S.M.S.; Islam, K.M.Z. Examining the role of environmental corporate social responsibility in building green corporate image and green competitive advantage. Int. J. Corp. Soc. Responsib. 2021, 6, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Muralidhar, L.B.; Shilpa, R.; Rahul, V.; Sathyanarayana, N.; Fathima, Y. Sustainable Organisational Cultures Basing Green Management Innovation and Leadership Transformation. In Green Management Approaches to Organizational Behavior; IGI Global Scientific Publishing: Hershey, PA, USA, 2025; pp. 1–26. [Google Scholar]
- Matten, D. Why do companies engage in corporate social responsibility? Background, reasons and basic concepts. In The ICCA Handbook on Corporate Social Responsibility; John Wiley & Sons Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2012; pp. 1–46. [Google Scholar]
- 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]
- Khaskheli, A.; Jiang, Y.; Raza, S.A.; Qureshi, M.A.; Khan, K.A.; Salam, J. Do CSR activities increase organizational citizenship behavior among employees? Mediating role of affective commitment and job satisfaction. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2020, 27, 2941–2955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- Yoganandham, G. Unraveling the Tension: Corporate Greenwashing and its Impact on Environmental, Social, and Economic Development–An Assessment. Int. J. Early Child. Educ. 2024, 16, 179–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blau, P. Exchange and Power in Social Life; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Zhao, L.; Detlor, B. Towards a contingency model of knowledge sharing: Interaction between social capital and social exchange theories. Knowl. Manag. Res. Pract. 2023, 21, 197–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Durrah, O.; Allil, K.; Gharib, M.; Hannawi, S. Organizational pride as an antecedent of employee creativity in the petrochemical industry. Eur. J. Innov. Manag. 2021, 24, 572–588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schilpzand, P.; Hamrick, A.B.; Gooty, J.; Huang, L. Pride in the workplace: An integrative review, synthesis, and future research agenda. J. Organ. Behav. 2025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jones, D.A. Does serving the community also serve the company? Using organizational identification and social exchange theories to understand employee responses to a volunteerism programme. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 2010, 83, 857–878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guan, M.; So, J. Social identity theory. In The International Encyclopedia of Health Communication; John Wiley & Sons Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2022; pp. 1–5. [Google Scholar]
- Srivastava, S.; Saxena, A.; Sarkar, A. Eco-green mirage: Investigating turnover intention as organizational turbulence through perceived greenwashing, cynicism and alienation. Soc. Responsib. J. 2024, 20, 1535–1557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dunning, D. Motivated cognition in self and social thought. In APA Handbook of Personality and Social Psychology; APA: Washington, DC, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Dai, G.; Harvey, V.S.; De Meuse, K.P.; Ruyle, K.E. Impact of Employees’ Perceptions and Reactions to Change on Their Performance: Results of Two Field Studies. Organ. Dev. Rev. 2025, 57, 47. [Google Scholar]
- Gulati, R. Deep Purpose: The Heart and Soul of High-Performance Companies; Penguin: London, UK, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- Choudhury, M.M. Signaling Theory: An Approach to Organizational Behavior Research. J. Account. Bus. Manag. 2024, 31, 89–120. [Google Scholar]
- Bloomgarden, K. Trust: The Secret Weapon of Effective Business Leaders; St. Martin’s Press: New York, NY, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Yue, C.A.; Men, L.R.; Ferguson, M.A. Examining the effects of internal communication and emotional culture on employees’ organizational identification. Int. J. Bus. Commun. 2021, 58, 169–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giacomini, D.; Zola, P.; Paredi, D.; Mazzoleni, M. Environmental disclosure and stakeholder engagement via social media: State of the art and potential in public utilities. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2020, 27, 1552–1564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Briñol, P.; Petty, R.E. Elaboration and validation processes: Implications for media attitude change. Media Psychol. 2015, 18, 267–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rodrigo, P.; Aqueveque, C.; Duran, I.J. Do employees value strategic CSR? A tale of affective organizational commitment and its underlying mechanisms. Bus. Ethics Eur. Rev. 2019, 28, 459–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harkness, J.; Pennell, B.E.; Schoua-Glusberg, A. Survey questionnaire translation and assessment. In Methods for Testing and Evaluating Survey Questionnaires; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2004; pp. 453–473. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, D.; Wang, L.; Sun, C.; Wu, D.; Mao, W.; Hu, Y. The relationship between perceived corporate environmental responsibility and employees’ pro-environmental behavior: A moderated serial mediation model. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2023, 30, 2606–2622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dong, W.; Zhong, L. Responsible leadership fuels innovative behavior: The mediating roles of socially responsible human resource management and organizational pride. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 787833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schaufeli, W.B.; Bakker, A.B.; Salanova, M. The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 2006, 66, 701–716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cai, D.; Cai, Y.; Sun, Y.; Ma, J. Linking empowering leadership and employee work engagement: The effects of person-job fit, person-group fit, and proactive personality. Front. Psychol. 2018, 9, 1304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, J.; Liu, J.; Zheng, D.; Han, Y.; Wu, Y. How Does Media Coverage of Entrepreneurship Affect Entrepreneurial Decision-Making of Returning Migrant Workers in China? A Moderated Mediation Model. Math. Probl. Eng. 2022, 2022, 9140280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reissová, A.; Šimsová, J.; Hášová, K. Gender differences in employee engagement. Littera Scr. 2017, 10, 84–94. [Google Scholar]
- Douglas, S.; Roberts, R. Employee age and the impact on work engagement. Strateg. HR Rev. 2020, 19, 209–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Patel, A.S.; Moake, T.R.; Oh, N. Employee engagement for an increasingly educated workforce. J. Pers. Psychol. 2017, 16, 186–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wen, D.; Yan, D.; Sun, X. Employee satisfaction, employee engagement and turnover intention: The moderating role of position level. Hum. Syst. Manag. 2022, 41, 407–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peng, L.M. The divergent influence of social responsibility on employee engagement through the lens of marital status: Evidence from higher education institutions. Rev. Bras. Gest. Neg. 2020, 22, 205–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dhir, V.L.; Das, S.; Chatterjee, D. Impact of Firm Ownership Type on Organizational Commitment and Citizenship Behaviour. Manag. Labour Stud. 2024, 49, 389–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Danese, P.; Lion, A.; Vinelli, A. Drivers and enablers of supplier sustainability practices: A survey-based analysis. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2019, 57, 2034–2056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, G.; Lim, M.K.; Wang, Z. Stakeholders, green manufacturing, and practice performance: Empirical evidence from Chinese fashion businesses. Ann. Oper. Res. 2020, 290, 961–982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Podsakoff, N.P. Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2012, 63, 539–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hayes, A.F. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach; Guilford Publications: New York, NY, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Bauer, D.J.; Preacher, K.J.; Gil, K.M. Conceptualizing and testing random indirect effects and moderated mediation in multilevel models: New procedures and recommendations. Psychol. Methods 2006, 11, 142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tofighi, D.; MacKinnon, D.P. Monte Carlo confidence intervals for complex functions of indirect effects. Struct. Equ. Model. Multidiscip. J. 2016, 23, 194–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ali, F.; Nawaz, Z.; Kumar, N. Internal corporate social responsibility as a strategic tool for employee engagement in public organizations: Role of empathy and organizational pride. Hum. Syst. Manag. 2024, 43, 391–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, H.; Scott, C. Change communication and the use of anonymous social media at work: Implications for employee engagement. Corp. Commun. Int. J. 2019, 24, 410–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alam, J.; Mendelson, M.; Ibn Boamah, M.; Gauthier, M. Exploring the antecedents of employee engagement. Int. J. Organ. Anal. 2023, 31, 2017–2030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Young, S.L.; Ang, M.; Campbell, K. Creating a culture of care: What leaders can do to enhance employee engagement and employee advocacy. Commun. Q. 2025, 73, 176–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Demographic Characteristics | Classes | Number | Percent |
---|---|---|---|
Gender | Male | 263 | 62.92% |
Female | 155 | 37.08% | |
Age | Younger than 30 years | 65 | 15.55% |
Aged 31 to 35 years | 84 | 20.10% | |
Aged 36 to 40 years | 87 | 20.81% | |
Aged 41 to 45 years | 44 | 10.53% | |
Aged 46 to 50 years | 66 | 15.79% | |
Above 50 years | 72 | 17.22% | |
Education | Junior college and below | 129 | 30.86% |
Undergraduate | 187 | 44.74% | |
Master’s and above | 102 | 24.40% | |
Job level | Employee | 281 | 67.22% |
Management | 137 | 32.78% | |
Marriage | Married | 307 | 73.44% |
Unmarried | 111 | 26.56% | |
Ownership | State-owned and collective enterprises | 116 | 27.75% |
Privately held enterprises | 193 | 46.17% | |
Foreign-invested enterprises | 109 | 25.08% | |
Firm size | Fewer than 100 employees | 152 | 36.36% |
Between 100 and 1000 employees | 130 | 31.10% | |
Between 1000 and 10,000 employees | 102 | 24.40% | |
Over 10,000 employees | 34 | 8.13% |
Variables | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Model-1: The hypothesized four-factor model (i.e., PCER, organizational pride, online media coverage, and EE were combined). | 284.76 | 224 | 1.27 | 0.99 | 0.98 | 0.03 |
Model-2: The alternative three-factor model (i.e., EE and organizational pride were combined). | 648.52 | 227 | 2.86 | 0.93 | 0.93 | 0.07 |
Model-3: The alternative two-factor model (organizational pride, online media coverage, and EE were combined). | 1142.38 | 229 | 4.99 | 0.86 | 0.84 | 0.10 |
Model-4: The alternative single-factor model (with all items loading onto one factor). | 2509.78 | 230 | 10.91 | 0.64 | 0.60 | 0.15 |
Dimension | Item | Standardized Factor Loading | Squared Multiple Correlation | CR | AVE |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Perceived Corporate Environmental Responsibility Cronbach’s alpha () = 0.920 | PCER1 | 0.837 | 0.701 | 0.921 | 0.626 |
PCER2 | 0.812 | 0.659 | |||
PCER3 | 0.702 | 0.492 | |||
PCER4 | 0.785 | 0.617 | |||
PCER5 | 0.839 | 0.704 | |||
PCER6 | 0.684 | 0.467 | |||
PCER7 | 0.862 | 0.743 | |||
Organizational Pride Cronbach’s alpha () = 0.851 | OP1 | 0.800 | 0.639 | 0.851 | 0.657 |
OP2 | 0.851 | 0.724 | |||
OP3 | 0.778 | 0.605 | |||
Employee Engagement Cronbach’s alpha () = 0.941 | EE1 | 0.799 | 0.638 | 0.941 | 0.640 |
EE2 | 0.824 | 0.678 | |||
EE3 | 0.809 | 0.655 | |||
EE4 | 0.817 | 0.668 | |||
EE5 | 0.811 | 0.658 | |||
EE6 | 0.803 | 0.646 | |||
EE7 | 0.789 | 0.622 | |||
EE8 | 0.789 | 0.623 | |||
EE9 | 0.757 | 0.573 | |||
Online Media Coverage Cronbach’s alpha () = 0.869 | OMC1 | 0.773 | 0.597 | 0.870 | 0.627 |
OMC2 | 0.798 | 0.636 | |||
OMC3 | 0.758 | 0.575 | |||
OMC4 | 0.836 | 0.699 |
M | SD | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. PCER-T1 | 3.704 | 0.958 | 0.791 | |||
2. OP-T2 | 3.409 | 0.902 | 0.393 ** | 0.811 | ||
3. EE-T1 | 3.422 | 0.863 | 0.488 ** | 0.590 ** | 0.800 | |
4. OMC-T3 | 3.402 | 0.873 | 0.400 ** | 0.485 ** | 0.592 ** | 0.792 |
Antecedents | Organizational Pride (OP) | Employee Engagement (EE) | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Coeff | SE | t | LLCI | ULCI | Coeff | SE | t | LLCI | ULCI | |
Constant | 2.85 | 0.27 | 10.70 | 2.33 | 3.38 | 2.09 | 0.26 | 7.95 | 1.57 | 2.60 |
Gender | −0.03 | 0.08 | −0.39 | −0.19 | 0.12 | −0.10 | 0.07 | −1.44 | −0.24 | 0.04 |
Age | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.48 | −0.03 | 0.05 | −0.03 | 0.02 | −1.35 | −0.07 | 0.01 |
Education | 0.02 | 0.05 | 0.29 | −0.09 | 0.12 | 0.02 | 0.05 | 0.45 | −0.07 | 0.11 |
Job level | −0.04 | 0.08 | −0.47 | −0.20 | 0.12 | 0.06 | 0.07 | 0.79 | −0.08 | 0.20 |
Marriage | 0.11 | 0.09 | 1.27 | −0.06 | 0.28 | −0.11 | 0.08 | −1.41 | −0.26 | 0.04 |
Ownership | 0.14 | 0.05 | 2.61 | 0.03 | 0.24 | 0.10 | 0.05 | 2.04 | 0.01 | 0.19 |
Firm size | 0.05 | 0.04 | 1.16 | −0.03 | 0.12 | 0.05 | 0.04 | 1.36 | −0.02 | 0.12 |
PCER | 0.25 | 0.04 | 5.83 | 0.17 | 0.34 | 0.27 | 0.04 | 7.25 | 0.20 | 0.35 |
OMC | 0.33 | 0.05 | 6.95 | 0.24 | 0.42 | - | - | - | - | - |
PCER × OMC | 0.26 | 0.05 | 5.65 | 0.17 | 0.35 | - | - | - | - | - |
OP | - | - | - | - | - | 0.38 | 0.04 | 9.31 | 0.30 | 0.46 |
Mediation results | Indirect effect | SE | LLCI | ULCI | ||||||
Indirect effect of PCER on EE via OP | 0.13 | 0.03 | 0.08 | 0.18 | ||||||
R2 | 0.24 | 0.57 | ||||||||
Moderated mediation effect | ||||||||||
Online media coverage (OMC) | ||||||||||
Conditional indirect effect | SE | LLCI | ULCI | |||||||
−SD | 0.01 | 0.02 | −0.03 | 0.06 | ||||||
Mean | 0.10 | 0.02 | 0.06 | 0.14 | ||||||
+SD | 0.18 | 0.04 | 0.12 | 0.26 | ||||||
Index of moderated mediation model | 0.10 | 0.03 | 0.05 | 0.15 |
OMC | Effect | SE | t | LLCI | ULCI |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
−0.87 | 0.03 | 0.05 | 0.54 | −0.08 | 0.13 |
0.00 | 0.25 | 0.04 | 5.83 | 0.17 | 0.34 |
0.87 | 0.48 | 0.06 | 7.46 | 0.35 | 0.60 |
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. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Wang, X.; Hu, W.; Ren, M.; Liu, Y.; Yu, X. The Role of Corporate Environmental Responsibility in Driving Sustainability-Oriented Employee Engagement: A Moderated Mediation Model. Sustainability 2025, 17, 7199. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17167199
Wang X, Hu W, Ren M, Liu Y, Yu X. The Role of Corporate Environmental Responsibility in Driving Sustainability-Oriented Employee Engagement: A Moderated Mediation Model. Sustainability. 2025; 17(16):7199. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17167199
Chicago/Turabian StyleWang, Xin, Wenxiu Hu, Mudan Ren, Yazhou Liu, and Xinli Yu. 2025. "The Role of Corporate Environmental Responsibility in Driving Sustainability-Oriented Employee Engagement: A Moderated Mediation Model" Sustainability 17, no. 16: 7199. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17167199
APA StyleWang, X., Hu, W., Ren, M., Liu, Y., & Yu, X. (2025). The Role of Corporate Environmental Responsibility in Driving Sustainability-Oriented Employee Engagement: A Moderated Mediation Model. Sustainability, 17(16), 7199. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17167199