Next Article in Journal
DHDRDS: A Deep Reinforcement Learning-Based Ride-Hailing Dispatch System for Integrated Passenger–Parcel Transport
Previous Article in Journal
Recycling Industrial Waste: Ferritization Products for Zn2+ Removal from Wastewater
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Analyzing the Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on Employee Satisfaction Using a Hybrid SEM-ANN Approach

by
Anđelka Stojanović
1,
Sanela Arsić
1,*,
Isidora Milošević
1,
Ivan Mihajlović
2 and
Vesna Spasojević Brkić
2
1
Engineering Management Department, Technical Faculty in Bor, University of Belgrade, 19210 Bor, Serbia
2
Industrial Engineering Department, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, University of Belgrade, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(9), 4009; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17094009
Submission received: 11 March 2025 / Revised: 11 April 2025 / Accepted: 23 April 2025 / Published: 29 April 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Economic and Business Aspects of Sustainability)

Abstract

:
In the conditions of modern market dynamics, corporate social responsibility (CSR) is increasingly evolving from a formal ethical principle into a powerful strategic instrument, key to achieving sustainable growth and long-term competitive advantage. Companies that integrate CSR into their business not only affirm the values of social responsibility, but also position themselves as reliable and ethically oriented actors, thereby winning the trust of investors, motivating employees and building a stable base of loyal consumers. Hence, the aim of this research is to determine, through empirical analysis, to what extent and in what way individual aspects of corporate social responsibility influence employee perception and satisfaction, as well as to develop a predictive model of their mutual connection. The specific hybrid SEM-ANN methodology in the CSR field was applied to obtain more precise results than standard data analysis methods, which fulfilled the literature gap in this research field. The detailed hypotheses designed were empirically tested using SEM methodology and indicated a positive association between the social and stakeholder aspects with employee satisfaction. These outcomes were confirmed by the results of the ANN models. The findings obtained are not only theoretical, but also have a useful application in the real business environment, which is reflected in the development of strategies that can serve as a road map for organizations in achieving employee satisfaction. This could lead to a change in organizational culture with an emphasis on ethical business and greater responsibility towards society and stakeholders.

1. Introduction

The evolution of modern business required a rethinking of the relationship between the company and its environment, which resulted in constant adaptation of companies to new circumstances. It has become unacceptable for companies conducting their operations to endanger the social community and the natural environment. It is expected from the companies that, along with profit, social results should be achieved. In order to respond to stakeholders’ expectations and signal the impact and role that business has in society, companies have begun to implement specific activities recognized as corporate social responsibility (CSR) [1,2]. Companies adopt and implement socially responsible activities driven by various motives, from fulfilling legal obligations and avoiding negative consequences to improving business results. When socially responsible activities are implemented, a certain reciprocity can be expected, which can be direct, by enhancing the company’s financial performance or indirect, when affecting intangible aspects such as organizational identification, satisfaction and loyalty of stakeholders. Companies, realizing the importance of employees, are paying more and more attention to incorporating CSR into business strategies so that employees are involved in efficiently completing business tasks and achieving excellent performance [3]. Although previous research has extensively studied the impact of CSR on various aspects of organizational behavior, including company image, consumer loyalty [4], and financial performance [5,6], the relationship between CSR and employee satisfaction remains relatively underexplored [4], especially in the context of integrating multidimensional aspects of CSR (economic, social, environmental, stakeholder, volunteerism). Most existing studies rely on traditional statistical methods, such as regression analyses and classical structural equation models (SEMs), which often fail to fully capture nonlinear relationships and complex interdependencies among variables. Considering this, there is a clear need for the application of hybrid methodological approaches, which combine the power of theoretically based SEM modeling with the predictive capacities of artificial neural networks (ANNs). The main motive of this research is to fill the identified gap through the application of the innovative SEM-ANN methodology.
Hence, this paper aims to overview and predict the impact of CSR aspects on employee satisfaction. For this purpose, a multidimensional approach to corporate social responsibility has been developed. The model includes five aspects of corporate social responsibility, the economic, environmental, social, stakeholder, and voluntary aspects. A two-stage technique for model development is utilized, comprising structural equation model (SEM) and artificial neuron networking (ANN) methods. The SEM methodology is employed to establish which CSR aspects affect employees’ satisfaction. Further, the ANN model is used in the predicting process to precisely assess the previously developed model, i.e., how the CSR aspects will impact employee satisfaction in practice. In this way, this research contributes to the field of CSR research by discovering relevant aspects of CSR based on which effective initiatives can be developed to improve employee satisfaction and commitment to the company.

2. Literature Review

The authors of [7] underline that scientific interest in CSR is increasing, but the concept is mainly studied at the macro level. According to [8], the majority of CSR research focuses on the performance and financial consequences of CSR activities in the long term. More recently, researchers have turned their focus to the micro level, emphasizing the impact of CSR on the attitudes of specific stakeholder groups, the consequences for social welfare and other effects on the company [9,10,11]. Research that looks at CSR through the prism of stakeholders is mainly based on the views of Stakeholder theory, which includes a broader range of groups affected by the company’s activities [12]. In the context of Stakeholder theory, CSR plays a unique role in a company’s strategy for building strong relationships with stakeholders. In addition to financial results, the quality of CSR activities is associated with reputation and improved relations with stakeholders, resulting in a better competitive position.
A review of the academic literature shows that research dealing with the perspective of employees is less common [7,13,14]. The authors of [15] conclude that companies are not fully aware of how many benefits it can bring if employees believe that the company’s engagement in CSR activities has sincere intentions. However, in modern business, employees are recognized as essential for achieving competitive advantage and business results [16,17]. In the research of [18], the impact of employees’ CSR perceptions on their behavior and performance was confirmed. The authors of [19] explore the key role of achieving CSR results by improving internal communication to involve employees in organizational values. The authors of [20] examine how CSR transparency should be implemented by establishing communication channels through which stakeholders will be instructed in the company’s CSR activities. The results of [20] indicate that employees’ attitudes about morals and beliefs could be framed through organizational behavior and shaped by CSR.
The authors of [21] proposed a model that examines the impact of CSR on company performance that is mediated through employee satisfaction. The authors of [22] discuss the effect of CSR on employee performance, distinguishing between performance that refers to the attitude towards tasks that are part of the employee’s job and employee behavior that improves organizational effectiveness and is not part of a formal reward system. The authors of [23] conducted research aimed at explaining how CSR affects employee work engagement, and the results indicate that perceived prestige and organizational identification have a partial mediating role. The authors of [5] also established links between CSR and business performance using employee satisfaction, sustainable competitive advantage, and reputation as mediators. Therefore, in the literature, employee satisfaction is often found as a specific mediator between CSR and business results.
The impact of CSR on business performance indicates that the results are often positive [24,25] but some are inconclusive or negative [6,26,27]. In contrast, a review of research related to the impact of CSR on employee satisfaction exclusively points to positive results [28]. However, there is still room for research on whether and how implementing business strategies that include CSR affects employees, job satisfaction, commitment and ethic [7,29].
Employee satisfaction at work is a measure of the employees’ emotions towards the organization in which they work [29]. Work engagement is an attitude toward work that results in commitment and positive emotional fulfillment when performing business activities. Therefore, employee satisfaction includes employees’ satisfaction with their work, the experiences they gain while working, and the organization they work for [30]. Nurturing employee satisfaction enables the company to achieve its goals because a satisfied employee will show greater commitment and make an extra effort to contribute to the company [31]. CSR activities can represent a connection between the organization and the employee, measured from a subjective point of view based on the employee’s belief about the honest motives and actions implemented in the organizations where they work. Research shows that employees react differently to the organization’s involvement in CSR activities and the values and outcomes resulting from CSR [32]. In their research, the authors of [33] confirmed a strong link between CSR activities and employees, both an emotional connection with the company and its values and experience in performing business activities.
The impact on employee satisfaction can be primarily made directly through elements such as opportunities for professional development in the company, relationships and participation in decision-making, and sharing mutual values through organizational culture. The authors of [34] confirmed that CSR is important for building organizational culture and that it plays a role in employee organizational citizenship behavior and enthusiasm at work. Then, the employees, with their behavior, give back to the company for the benefits and opportunities they obtain through the company’s CSR activities to improve human capital. The authors of [35] also focused on internal CSR, which represents specific activities of the company directed towards employees. The results showed that internal CSR contributes the most to the affective organizational commitment, a consequence of the emotional bond the employee creates with the company [28].
Organizational (corporate) culture includes authentic organizational values that unite the company and is manifested by typical company behavior, shared values and internal integration [36,37,38]. Strong identification with the organization, called “person-organization fit” in the literature, represents the overlap between personal and company values and beliefs, which are demonstrated through the organizational culture. Therefore, numerous studies have established a connection between employees and CSR activities precisely through person–organization fit [39] and confirmed a strong positive link between these elements.
In addition, employee satisfaction also increases indirectly through the social responsibility that the company realizes towards society and other stakeholders. Although, in that case, CSR activities are not directly aimed at employees, they react with a greater commitment to work and loyalty to the company. Namely, employees observe the way in which the organization devotes itself to CSR activities and how the environment reacts to them [40]. Also, they care about the kind of organization they work in and feel honored when they work for an organization that is respected, prestigious and known as socially responsible [41]. The identification of employees with a company, which has a strong reputation, makes them more satisfied and proud. This feeling of strong organizational belonging can lead to very beneficial behavior for the company. Therefore, working for a socially responsible company that demonstrates high ethical standards can lead to workers developing responsibility towards work and performance and the transfer of organizational behavior to individual behavior [23].

Conceptual Framework and Hypotheses’ Development

The conceptualization of CSR is still ongoing, as the literature abounds with numerous definitions and models [42]. Thus, CSR is perceived and implemented in multiple directions and must be analyzed through various aspects to evaluate it [21,41]. Various definitions of CSR have been presented in numerous studies, from which some common aspects can be observed. The authors of [43] developed comprehensive coding schemes for analyzing CSR definitions that resulted in the acquisition of the most prominent CSR aspects. The evolution of CSR led to an emphasis on two additional aspects, stakeholders and voluntariness, in addition to traditional attention on environmental, social and economic aspects. Additionally, this research is in agreement with the definition of the European Commission that indicates CSR through responsibilities towards the economy, ecology, society and stakeholders voluntarily [44].
Corporate responsibility is becoming an effective business practice through which companies focus on the environment [45]. The activities carried out by the company in the field of ecology do not go unnoticed by employees [21]. Such activities increase employee satisfaction because they demonstrate the company’s ability to care for the well-being of the current and future generations [29]. As a result, business and environmental risks are reduced, and the trust of institutions and consumers is improved. However, research conducted to determine the positive effects of environmentally responsible practices on company performance does not indicate unique results [21,46].
H1. 
Company engagement in the CSR ecological aspect positively influences employee satisfaction.
Socially responsible behavior, as one of the key components of CSR, includes the responsibility of businesses towards the community. The basic principle on which social responsibility integration into business is based is that if companies take resources from their environment, they are obliged to provide something in return [47]. The company will be judged on whether it represents a social threat or whether its motives are socially acceptable. Public opinion will be built on whether the company can contribute to the community. Based on that, the decision to cooperate with such a company will be formed. The research results by [29] showed that investing in the community is a significant predictor of employee satisfaction, while protecting the natural environment and taking care of the well-being of future generations did not show a statistically significant impact on employee satisfaction.
H2. 
Company engagement in the CSR social aspect positively influences employee satisfaction.
The economic aspect of CSR can cause certain doubts, given that business in the free market has the main goal of the realization of financial results. However, the essence of the economic CSR aspect is that society expects a certain behavior that reflects the ability of the business system to survive in the long term, and this could be achieved, first, by making a profit. CSR actually supports the company’s goals of achieving economic benefits through a simultaneous positive impact on the life quality of the local community where the company conducts its business operations. Therefore, the essence is to make a balanced impact on the environment and achieve sustainable development of the company through a contribution to ecology, society and stakeholders. The results of [48] indicate the existence of a relationship between profitability and CSR. However, an increase in profitability does not necessarily lead to a rise in the CSR level [48]. Nevertheless, in modern business, when many other aspects such as ecology, society and sustainability must be taken into account, fulfilling economic responsibilities is a prerequisite for other aspects of CSR.
H3. 
Company engagement in the CSR economic aspect positively influences employee satisfaction.
Through activities related to the previous aspects, values are created for some of the stakeholder groups, whether by affecting the increase in well-being in society (social aspect) or contributing to the sustainability of the natural environment (ecological aspect), and all this voluntarily in addition to the obligations prescribed by law (voluntariness aspect) [49,50]. Managers in companies dealing with corporate responsibility create programs that help achieve the company’s purpose and communicate about CSR efforts to be recognized by stakeholders [51]. It can be said that CSR is the most common strategy used in corporate practice to ensure a good business reputation and long-term sustainability. The authors of Refs. [21,52] find that the stakeholder aspect of CSR is essential for creating employees’ opinions about corporate responsibility. Additionally, ref. [53] shows that employee commitment is based on CSR activities related to human resource management practices. Such activities of professional development, motivation and concern for the well-being of employees, which are related to the behavior of companies towards their employees, not only affect the daily dynamics in the organization, but also shape the broader attitude of the company towards its employees. Companies create a positive working atmosphere that contributes to greater productivity, loyalty and employee satisfaction.
H4. 
Company engagement in CSR activities related to stakeholders positively influences employee satisfaction.
Regardless of different understandings and definitions, CSR essentially refers to activities implemented voluntarily, above the level prescribed by law. Some authors favor the view that CSR activities are carried out with an opportunistic background [54], which calls voluntariness into question. However, what distinguish a socially responsible business from a business based on legal frameworks are discretionary activities by business systems that are highly aware of the impact and role in the environment. The authors of [42] equate volunteerism with philanthropy as the highest level of responsibility, which is not understood in the literal sense as social responsibility, but as the company’s desire to contribute to society’s welfare. While certain responsibilities of the company are necessary, based on laws and the need for business sustainability, CSR is based on voluntariness. Researchers [11] emphasize that CSR initiatives are voluntary and can be said to reflect corporate values. However, voluntary engagement in reducing the impact of various external events goes beyond a company’s traditional behavior and, therefore, has a positive effect on both the interests of stakeholders and competitive interests.
H5. 
Company voluntary engagement in CSR activities positively influences employee satisfaction.
Figure 1 depicts a conceptual model which examines how certain CSR aspects implemented in the companies affect employee satisfaction.

3. Methodology

The data used in this research were collected through a survey. The questionnaire was specially designed for this research and consisted of questions that determined measures of employee satisfaction and aspects of CSR. The measurement scales are adapted instruments from earlier research [40,42,55,56]. All statements were rated using a five-point Likert scale where 1 states “does not apply” and 5 states “is completely applicable”.
To ensure the validity of the questionnaire, a qualitative and quantitative approach was used. Through a series of working groups and interviews, experts from the field of management reviewed all proposed questions to determine whether the measurements used to define the CSR aspects and employee satisfaction were adequate. Furthermore, the validity of the questionnaire was checked by standard statistical techniques such as exploratory factor analysis (EFA), Cronbach’s alpha, the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin test and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity, which resulted in the final set of indicators presented in Appendix A. Additionally, the validity of the measurement scale was checked through the testing of the measurement model as the first stage of the applied SEM methodology.
The research on the CSR topic presented in the paper was initiated by the Academic Entrepreneurship and Innovation Network of Universities—The RESITA Network, which comprises 16 universities from Southeast Europe. The ideas of this network, especially the CSR research, were expanded to partner institutions, where, over a long period from 2018 to 2021, quantitative data were collected. By the end of 2021, data from three countries, Serbia, Bulgaria, and Russia, had been collected. In order to collect data, the questionnaire was translated into the native languages of the countries where the research was conducted for better understanding and then distributed to respondents. At the beginning of the questionnaire, the respondents were informed about the purpose and anonymity of participating in this research. To provide valid and high-quality data, there were control questions in the questionnaire related to general knowledge of the concept of corporate responsibility and implementation of certain forms of socially responsible practices in the company where the respondent works. Those questions were used to select the adequacy of the answers; therefore, surveys where the responses to these questions were negative were removed from further analysis. A total of 467 valid questionnaires were collected. The survey was undertaken mainly by directly interviewing respondents, which ensured a high understanding of the questions and a small number of missing answers. Also, to avoid bias when giving answers, the survey was not conducted within companies, and the respondents did not have to state which company they worked for. This way, anonymity and confidentiality were ensured, and the respondents could answer freely and without pressure. Out of the total number of respondents, the majority in the sample were aged between 26 and 35 (41.8%), while the second age group, 36–45, is represented by 19.5%. The fewest respondents belonged to the over-65 age group, making up only 1.1% of the total respondents. When it comes to gender, 61.5% of respondents were women, while 38.5% of respondents were male. In the sample, 61.0% of respondents were workers, 28.5% were supervisors, and 10.5% were managers.
A two-stage methodology, including the SEM methodology and ANN model, was used in this study. Which CSR aspects significantly impacted employee satisfactions were identified using the SEM methodology. The findings obtained by SEM were upgraded with the ANN model for predicting employee satisfaction. The statistical programs AMOS v.22.0 and SPSS v. 22.0 were used to process the data.

3.1. Structural Equation Modeling (SEM)

Structural equation modeling (SEM) defines, evaluates, and tests a network of complex relationships among variables. This quantitative research technique uses qualitative methods and models to reveal the interdependence between observed and latent variables [57]. This comprehensive statistical approach has a long history and is applied in many disciplines, such as social sciences, behavioral science, technical science, psychology, medical research, education, ecology, etc. [57,58,59,60,61,62,63]. This indicates that researchers recognize the applicability of various research questions and data types. Since the SEM technique mainly focuses on the inter-relationship between given variables, this study simultaneously explores several CSR aspects affecting employee satisfaction.
SEM methodology is based on defining a measurement model and a structural model. The measurement model determines the relationship between one or more latent variables [64]. The structural model defines the direction and the strength of the relationships of latent variables. Latent variables are free from random errors because errors are calculated and eliminated, leaving only the overall variance. Latent variables can be dependent (endogenous) or independent (exogenous) variables [4,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84].

3.1.1. Measurement Model

The measurement scale’s reliability is first reviewed within the measurement model’s framework. Reliability refers to the ability of a measuring instrument to represent the phenomenon being measured consistently. The indicators of the reliability of the coefficient of internal consistency are Spearman–Brown [66], Omega [67], and Cronbach’s alpha coefficient [68]. Furthermore, according to [69], the obtained values which are greater than 0.7 (Table 1) show good coexistence of certain variables within defined latent groups of variables. Hence, the data can be considered reliable for testing the proposed model.
Considering that internal consistency is not a sufficient condition for the validity of the defined concept, Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was performed. This analysis ensures the reliability and validity of the tested model. The measurement model fits the data well (χ2/df = 1.95, RMSEA = 0.045, CFI = 0.96, NFI = 0.92, RFI = 0.91, IFI = 0.96, TLI = 0.95). The calculated results of the measurement model are presented in Table 2. The normed chi-square (χ2 divided by degrees of freedom) shows that there is no deviation in the covariance matrix. According to [70], all values lower than 2.0 indicate a good fit. Also, the results of CFI, NFI, RFI, IFI, TLI (higher than 0.90) and RMSEA (lower than 0.08) imply a good fit of the measurement model [70,71].
Additionally, convergent validity and discriminant validity were assessed through the measurement model. Convergent validity evaluates the consistency across items in the defined model. All estimated standard loadings are significant (p < 0.05), as shown in Table 2. Therefore, the convergent validity in this research model was achieved because AVE is higher than 0.5, which is suggested by [72], except for the economic aspect (where this value is lower than recommended value). The AVE was employed to assess the discriminant validity, i.e., indicates that different constructs diverge from one another. All square roots of AVEs are above 0.75 (except one) and much higher than the cross-correlations represented in Table 3. Such a result implies that the discriminant validity of the constructs is achieved [72].
Based on the correlation matrix (Table 3), the potential sensitivity of the model on multicollinearity was investigated. According to [73], all of the squared correlation coefficients are below 0.8 and indicate no multicollinearity problem.

3.1.2. Structural Model

A structural equation model (SEM) was calculated to estimate the hypothesis relationships proposed in the defined research model. To determine support for the formulated hypotheses, the significance of the regression coefficients (β coefficients) and determination coefficients (R2) was examined, the results of which are shown in Table 4 and Figure 2. The regression analysis allows for the determination of the influence of the independent latent variables on the latent dependent variable. It was discovered that the impact of five latent variables (CSR aspects) on employee satisfaction could be estimated with 33.8% of the variance. The corresponding significance level tests the effect of each independent factor in the model. If the p-value is lower than 0.05, then the parameter is significant. For the total sample, the following findings are notable.
The results of the path analysis (Table 4) indicate that the hypotheses which concern the social aspect (H3): βSOC→SAT = 0.349; t = 5.529; (p < 0.001) and the stakeholder aspect (H4): βSTAK→SAT = 0.501; t = 4.242; (p < 0.001) are confirmed. At the same time, the ecological aspect (H1); βECO→SAT = 0.039; t = 0.423; (p > 0.05), economic aspect (H2): βECON→SAT = −0.188; t = −1.437; (p > 0.05), and voluntariness aspect (H5): βVOL→SAT = −0.029; t = −0.376; (p > 0.05) are not statistically significant.
After this stage, the ANN model was applied in order to predict the relative influence of significant variables obtained from the first stage (using SEM methodology).

3.2. Artificial Neural Network

The structural equation model (SEM) was used to investigate linear relationships, while the artificial neural network (ANN) technique was used to assess the relative importance of predictors. Modeling with artificial neural networks (ANNs) is performed using variables from the SEM methodology [4,74,75]. An ANN consists of three vital structures such as network architecture, learning rule, and transfer function [76]. A characteristic of ANN is that it consists of three hierarchical layers: input, hidden and output. Each layer includes neurons connected to the next layer’s neurons. Each neuron from the hidden layer is connected to each neuron from the layers on both sides, with neurons in the input and output layers. The number of hidden layers depends on the complexity of the problem being modeled [77,78,79].
The number of neurons in the input layer should be equal to the number of input variables from the SEM methodology [74,78,79]. In this research, five input variables were used: the ecological, economic, social, stakeholder and voluntariness aspects. The number of neurons in the output layer depends on the number of dependent variables [74,77] which, in this case, is one variable such as employee satisfaction. The network created four neurons in hidden layers, and all five input variables were impactful variables (Figure 3). For ANN modeling, SPSS v. 22.0 was used for data processing.
In order to generalize the results of the conducted statistical analysis into an independent data set, an assessment technique was used, i.e., cross-validation. This technique is used in the forecasting process to assess how accurate the forecasting model will be in practice. In this research, testing was carried out in the training phase, i.e., cross-validation, consistent with similar research [74,75,77]. Ten repeated procedures were carried out (Table 5), where 71.9% of the data were used for training and 29.1% for testing.
Based on the calculation of testing and training data sets, the root mean square of error (RMSE—Root Mean Square of Error) is used to reveal the accuracy of the proposed model. The RMSE of the training model is 0.045, while that of the testing model is 0.070. All obtained results of RMSE values are presented in Figure 4 and Table 5, where relatively low values can be observed, indicating the modeled networks’ high accuracy [75,80].
Sensitivity analysis was used to determine the relative impact of each analyzed aspect [4,80]. In this research, sensitivity analysis was calculated using the average importance of independent variables (social, environmental, economic, stakeholder and voluntariness aspects) to predict the dependent variable (employee satisfaction). The obtained results of the sensitivity analysis of the independent variables are shown in Table 6, indicating that the stakeholder aspect has the greatest importance for predicting employee satisfaction, while the voluntariness aspect has the least importance.
After the sensitivity analysis, a comparison was made of the influential predictors of employee satisfaction, obtained using the SEM methodology and ANN. Table 7 shows that the comparison of the stakeholder, social, economic, ecological and voluntariness aspects between the SEM model and the ANN model shows approximately the same values, which confirms the accuracy of predicting employee satisfaction based on the given CSR aspects.
According to the obtained results, the ANN model verifies that the stakeholder aspect of CSR is the most effective predictor of employee satisfaction, followed by the social aspect. The related results were acquired in SEM methodology; so, the conceptual model is confirmed.
Interestingly, the voluntariness aspect was negative in the SEM and is the weakest predictor in the ANN model. The final conclusion of the obtained results using the two-stage technique is reflected in the non-linear relationship among variables disclosed in both the SEM and ANN models.

4. Discussion

This study developed and tested a model that explains the impact of CSR on employee satisfaction through five aspects: ecological, social, economic, stakeholder, and voluntariness. This paper uses a hybrid SEM-ANN model that combines two data analysis approaches: structural equation modeling and an artificial neural network.
The most important results of this research indicate that the impact on employee satisfaction is realized through stakeholders and the company’s social engagement, given that these aspects of CSR are positively evaluated in the model. Therefore, hypotheses H3 (the social aspect impacts employee satisfaction) and H4 (the stakeholder aspect impacts employee satisfaction) are confirmed. These results are consistent with the research findings in [46,81,82]. The company’s efforts to ensure the well-being of employees through certain activities most often result in increased employee engagement and stronger connections with the company [22]. Employees’ attitudes towards CSR activities are a significant factor in the company’s results, especially when implemented activities motivate employees and increase their commitment [22,81]. The authors of [21,52] confirm that CSR aimed at stakeholders is equally important for shaping employees’ opinions about corporate responsibility and consequently affects their satisfaction. The results also indicate a strong impact of socially oriented activities on employee satisfaction. Namely, employees today are more aware of the need to respect certain values. They are closer to companies that continuously and consistently show specific behaviors and meet economic and social expectations [47]. Engaging the company in social CSR sends a signal to both external stakeholders and employees, achieving a strong identification with the organization those results in additional employee engagement and greater satisfaction [81].
The influence of the ecological aspect of CSR on employee satisfaction is negative. Therefore, hypothesis H1 is not accepted. In the examined sample, the obtained results are slight, which can be explained by the poor economic situation of the respondents, which conditions the reduced sensitivity to environmental issues. Similar results were obtained in [81], research conducted in developing countries.
The effects of the economic aspect of CSR did not show a positive connection with employee satisfaction; hence, hypothesis H2 is rejected. The main reason found is that companies do not communicate their economic activities clearly and transparently; therefore, employees do not evaluate them as relevant. These findings are related to the findings of [81,83,84]. It is possible that the economic aspects of CSR are not directly visible and do not affect working conditions, and therefore do not have a strong impact on employee satisfaction. Therefore, it can be concluded that in order to improve the impact of economic CSR on employee satisfaction, it is necessary to improve internal communication, transparency and the connection of economic results with concrete benefits for employees [85].
Also, the voluntariness aspect negatively impacts employee satisfaction, which highlights that hypothesis H5 is not accepted. The voluntariness aspect of CSR refers to the companies’ engagement in CSR of their own free will rather than being pressured by society or government regulations. All additional voluntariness activities can have a negative impact on employee satisfaction [47,86], especially if they are not carefully designed and targeted. Also, if the voluntary CSR activities are not well integrated into the company’s strategy, that can cause a lack of alignment between corporate goals and employee expectations, which further reduces their satisfaction. Therefore, the effects of CSR depend not only on its existence, but also on the way it is implemented and communicated within the organization [87].
Outcomes obtained by SEM were generally confirmed by the results of ANN models. According to the ANN analysis, the most significant predictors of employee satisfaction are the stakeholder and social aspects. Moreover, the economic, ecology and voluntariness aspects were weaker predictors of employee satisfaction.
The results of research on corporate responsibility indicate that it can be seen as an element of modernization and increasing competitiveness in the market. However, in the socio-economic context of the researched countries, many companies face challenges such as a low rate of investment in sustainable practices and a weaker implementation of environmental standards, which may be related to a lower level of market development and economic stability. Given the socio-economic conditions in countries such as Serbia, Bulgaria, and Russia, where the lower standard of living can reduce the priorities of socially responsible initiatives among employees, there is an increased interest in improving labor conditions and the protection of social rights [88,89]. The attitudes of corporate responsibility clearly show that greater economic pressures can reduce employee engagement in CSR initiatives, relating to environmental or economic aspects.
Therefore, the results of this research indicate that economic conditions strongly influence the creation of priorities within companies, with socially responsible activities gaining importance only to the extent that they directly respond to the basic needs of employees and business sustainability. This highlights the need for careful adaptation of CSR strategies to the local socio-economic context in order to ensure their relevance, effectiveness and long-term impact.

5. Conclusions

Companies that engage in CSR activities are often perceived as companies that think about the consequences of their operations, which can increase the company’s attractiveness as a place to work and attract competent employees. The aim of this research was to test relations and predict the impact of CSR aspects on employee satisfaction. Consequently, the research results indicate that predicting the impact of CSR on employee satisfaction is not always unequivocal because the impact depends on many factors. This research contributes to the literature by revealing how CSR aspects may increase employee satisfaction and dedication to the company.
Given that this paper integrates five aspects of CSR, which so far rarely appear together in the literature, it opens up a space for a deeper understanding of the internal organizational mechanisms through which CSR affects employees, considering multidimensional aspects. This enriches the existing theoretical models, which until now were mainly focused on the individual consideration of aspects of CSR. Also, the applied hybrid SEM-ANN methodology provides more accurate and detailed results than traditional data analysis methods, contributing to the CSR field. In this way, the literature gaps are overcome.
This research on CSR aspects can have many practical implications for management and company employees. Through CSR initiatives, the working environment can be improved, which will encourage employees to take greater responsibility for socially responsible behavior in their daily lives. Also, employees who feel proud of their company and its socially responsible activities are more satisfied and motivated in their work. All of this will improve the company’s reputation and image, leading to increased sales and profitability.
The present paper is not free from limitations. The data collection was conducted prior to the outbreak of the Russia–Ukraine conflict, which means that the current geopolitical and economic factors could further influence the development of corporate social responsibility (CSR) in these countries. The evolving geopolitical situation may alter companies’ priorities and strategies, potentially shifting the focus of CSR initiatives. To overcome this limitation, future research should consider incorporating more recent data that reflect the impact of ongoing geopolitical events. Moreover, it would be beneficial to examine CSR in the context of other global crises to understand the broader implications of shifting economic and political dynamics on corporate responsibility.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.S.; methodology, I.M. (Isidora Milošević), S.A. and A.S.; software, I.M. (Ivan Mihajlović); validation, I.M. (Isidora Milošević), S.A. and A.S.; formal analysis, I.M. (Ivan Mihajlović); investigation, A.S.; writing—original draft preparation, I.M. (Isidora Milošević), S.A. and A.S.; writing—review and editing, I.M. (Ivan Mihajlović) and V.S.B.; visualization, V.S.B.; project administration, I.M. (Ivan Mihajlović) and V.S.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Science Fund of the Republic of Serbia, grant number 5151, Support Systems for Smart, Ergonomic and Sustainable Mining Machinery Workplaces—SmartMiner and the Ministry of Science, Technological Development and Innovations of the Republic of Serbia, contract numbers 451-03-137/2025-03/200131 and 451-03-137/2025-03/200105.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable. This study is an anonymous questionnaire survey, which does not involve sensitive personal information or commercial interests, and does not cause harm to the human body.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within this article.

Acknowledgments

The authors extend their gratitude to the Editor of Sustainability and the anonymous reviewers for their valuable and constructive feedback, which has significantly contributed to the development of this manuscript. Additionally, the authors wish to express their appreciation to Sandra Vasković, for her thorough proofreading and linguistic refinement of this paper.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
CSRCorporate Social Responsibility
SEMStructural Equation Modeling
ANNArtificial Neuron Network
AVEAverage Variance Extracted
RMSERoot Mean Square of Error

Appendix A. Measurement Scale Items

Construct and Scale ItemsFactor LoadingCronbach’s Alpha
Ecological aspect
Ecl_1Participates in activities related to the protection and improvement of the natural environment.0.8480.808
Ecl_2Has a positive attitude towards the use, purchase and production of ecological products.0.873
Ecl_3There is an awareness of the importance of planning investments that would reduce the impact on the environment.0.829
Economic aspect
Ecn_1The product and/or service warranty is higher than the market average.0.8160.679
Ecn_2Consumers are provided with accurate and complete information about products and/or services.0.808
Ecn_3Social responsibility programs increase a company’s costs0.715
Social aspect
Soc_1Conducts marketing campaigns for the benefit of society0.8520.790
Soc_2Participates in partner projects of social solidarity0.861
Soc_3Owns a corporate fund to help the social community0.804
Stakeholder aspect
St_1Considers the initiatives and proposals of employees when making management decisions.0.8240.872
St_2Demonstrates commitment to improving the quality of life of employees.0.845
St_3There are equal opportunities for all employees, without any discrimination.0.806
St_4Compensation of employees is according to their abilities and results.0.804
St_5The initiative of employees is seriously taken into account when making management decisions.0.796
Voluntariness aspect
Vo_1Helps solve social problems.0.8520.840
Vo_2Has a strong sense of corporate social responsibility.0.830
Vo_3Gives adequate contributions to local communities0.836
Vo_4Encourages us to participate in volunteer activities or in collaboration with NGOs0.774
Employee satisfaction
Es_1How would you rate your organization’s culture?0.7380.848
Es_2How would you rate the performance of your direct supervisor?0.795
Es_3How much opportunity do you have for professional growth in this organization?0.795
Es_4I get excited when going to my work.0.837
Es_5I speak about your company with pleasure, sometimes with proudness outside of my working place.0.781
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. = 0.904; Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity p < 0.001

References

  1. Dyllick, T.; Muff, K. Clarifying the meaning of sustainable business: Introducing a typology from business-as-usual to true business sustainability. Organ. Environ. 2016, 29, 156–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Ye, N.; Kueh, T.B.; Hou, L.; Liu, Y.; Yu, H. A bibliometric analysis of corporate social responsibility in sustainable development. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 272, 122679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Faeq, D.K.; Ali, B.J.; Akoi, S. The Impact of People Related TQM and CSR on Employees’ Job Satisfaction. UKH J. Soc. Sci. 2022, 6, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Leong, L.Y.; Hew, T.S.; Lee, V.H.; Ooi, K.B. An SEM–artificial-neural-network analysis of the relationships between SERVPERF, customer satisfaction and loyalty among low-cost and full-service airline. Expert Syst. Appl. 2015, 42, 6620–6634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Saeidi, S.P.; Sofian, S.; Saeidi, P.; Saeidi, S.P.; Saaeidi, S.A. How does corporate social responsibility contribute to firm financial performance? The mediating role of competitive advantage, reputation, and customer satisfaction. J. Bus. Res. 2015, 68, 341–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Brower, J.; Dacin, P.A. An institutional theory approach to the evolution of the corporate social performance–corporate financial performance relationship. J. Manag. Stud. 2020, 57, 805–836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Akhouri, A.; Chaudhary, R. Employee perspective on CSR: A review of the literature and research agenda. J. Glob. Responsib. 2019, 10, 355–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Velte, P. Meta-analyses on corporate social responsibility (CSR): A literature review. Manag. Rev. Q. 2022, 72, 627–675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Dawkins, C.E.; Jamali, D.; Karam, C.; Lin, L.; Zhao, J. Corporate social responsibility and job choice intentions: A cross-cultural analysis. Bus. Soc. 2016, 55, 854–888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Billedeau, D.B.; Wilson, J.; Samuel, N. From Responsibility to Requirement: COVID, Cars, and the Future of Corporate Social Responsibility in Canada. Sustainability 2022, 14, 6658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Danish, R.Q.; Ali, M.; Baker, M.; Islam, R. Influence of corporate social responsibility, green practices and organizational politics on sustainable business performance: The importance of employee pro-environmental behavior. Soc. Responsib. J. 2025, 21, 54–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Boğan, E.; Sarıışık, M. Organization-related determinants of employees’ CSR motive attributions and affective commitment in hospitality companies. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2020, 45, 58–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Farooq, M.S.; Salam, M. Nexus between CSR and DSIW: A PLS-SEM approach. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2020, 86, 102437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Rosak-Szyrocka, J.; Żywiołek, J.; Shengelia, N.; Stverkova, H.; Santo, P.E.; Pilař, L. Employee perception of CSR and its effects on the company’s image. Prod. Eng. Arch. 2021, 28, 210–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. 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]
  17. Marakova, V.; Wolak-Tuzimek, A.; Tuckova, Z. Corporate social responsibility as a source of competitive advantage in large enterprises. J. Compet. 2021, 13, 113–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. 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]
  19. Gill, R. Why the PR strategy of storytelling improves employee engagement and adds value to CSR: An integrated literature review. Public Relat. Rev. 2015, 41, 662–674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Sendlhofer, T.; Tolstoy, D. How employees shape CSR transparency: A sensemaking perspective. J. Bus. Res. 2022, 150, 268–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Chaudhary, R. Corporate social responsibility and employee performance: A study among Indian business executives. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2020, 31, 2761–2784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Story, J.; Neves, P. When corporate social responsibility (CSR) increases performance: Exploring the role of intrinsic and extrinsic CSR attribution. Bus. Ethics Eur. Rev. 2015, 24, 111–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Gürlek, M.; Tuna, M. Corporate social responsibility and work engagement: Evidence from the hotel industry. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2019, 31, 195–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Le, T.T.; Huan, N.Q.; Hong, T.T.T.; Tran, D.K. The contribution of corporate social responsibility on SMEs performance in emerging country. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 322, 129103. [Google Scholar]
  25. Alnehabi, M.; Al-Mekhlafi, A.-B.A. The association between corporate social responsibility, employee performance, and turnover intention moderated by organizational identification and commitment. Sustainability 2023, 15, 14202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Newman, C.; Rand, J.; Tarp, F.; Trifkovic, N. Corporate social responsibility in a competitive business environment. J. Dev. Stud. 2020, 56, 1455–1472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Chang, C.-H.; Lin, H.-W.; Tsai, W.-H.; Wang, W.-L.; Huang, C.-T. Employee satisfaction, corporate social responsibility and financial performance. Sustainability 2021, 13, 9996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. He, H.; Zhang, Y.; Ding, Y. When does CSR fail to incentive employees’ affective organizational commitment? Exploring the moderating effects based on the CSR concerns model. Sustainability 2022, 14, 8115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Appiah, J.K. Community-based corporate social responsibility activities and employee job satisfaction in the US hotel industry: An explanatory study. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2019, 38, 140–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. 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]
  31. Owusu, V.K.; Gregar, A.; Ntsiful, A. Organizational diversity and competency-based performance: The mediating role of employee commitment and job satisfaction. Manag. Mark. Chall. Knowl. Soc. 2021, 16, 352–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Stawiski, S.; Deal, J.J.; Gentry, W. Employee perceptions of corporate social responsibility: The implications for your organization. Quick View Leadersh. Ser. 2010, 1, 1–11. [Google Scholar]
  33. Sarfraz, M.; Qun, W.; Abdullah, M.I.; Alvi, A.T. Employees’ perception of corporate social responsibility impact on employee outcomes: Mediating role of organizational justice for small and medium enterprises (SMEs). Sustainability 2018, 10, 2429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Tuan, V.K.; Ferasso, M. Corporate social responsibility influence on organizational culture: Fostering citizenship and enthusiastic behavior in Vietnamese enterprises. Int. J. Organ. Theory Behav. 2025; in print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Mory, L.; Wirtz, B.W.; Göttel, V. Factors of internal corporate social responsibility and the effect on organizational commitment. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2016, 27, 1393–1425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Brunton, M.; Eweje, G.; Taskin, N. Communicating corporate social responsibility to internal stakeholders: Walking the walk or just talking the talk? Bus. Strategy Environ. 2017, 26, 31–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Aćimović, S.; Mijušković, V.M.; Todorović-Spasenić, A. The influence of organizational culture on supply chain integration. Serb. J. Manag. 2021, 16, 161–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Lin, Y.T.; Liu, N.C.; Lin, J.W. Firms’ adoption of CSR initiatives and employees’ organizational commitment: Organizational CSR climate and employees’ CSR-induced attributions as mediators. J. Bus. Res. 2022, 140, 626–637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Nejati, M.; Salamzadeh, Y.; Loke, C.K. Can ethical leaders drive employees’ CSR engagement? Soc. Responsib. J. 2019, 16, 655–669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Glavas, A.; Kelley, K. The effects of perceived corporate social responsibility on employee attitudes. Bus. Ethics Q. 2014, 24, 165–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. 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]
  42. Carroll, A.B. Carroll’s pyramid of CSR: Taking another look. Int. J. Corp. Soc. Responsib. 2016, 1, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Dahlsrud, A. How corporate social responsibility is defined: An analysis of 37 definitions. Cor. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2007, 15, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. European Commission. Green Paper: Promoting a European Framework for Corporate social Responsibility; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2001; Available online: https://shorturl.at/I17Ht (accessed on 25 June 2024).
  45. Arrive, T.J.; Feng, M.; Yan, Y.; Chege, S.M. The involvement of telecommunication industry in the road to corporate sustainability and corporate social responsibility commitment. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2019, 26, 152–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Fijałkowska, J.; Zyznarska-Dworczak, B.; Garsztka, P. Corporate social-environmental performance versus financial performance of banks in Central and Eastern European countries. Sustainability 2018, 10, 772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Sharma, E. A review of corporate social responsibility in developed and developing nations. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2019, 26, 712–720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Man, M.; Păunescu, C.F.; Bogeanu-Popa, M.M. Analysis of the influence of financial factors on corporate social responsibility: Evidence from Romania. Pol. J. Manag. Stud. 2021, 24, 202–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Martos-Pedrero, A.; Cortés-García, F.J.; Jiménez-Castillo, D. The relationship between social responsibility and business performance: An analysis of the agri-food sector of Southeast Spain. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Chao, A.C.; Hong, L. Corporate social responsibility strategy, environment and energy policy. Struct. Change Econ. Dyn. 2019, 51, 311–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Benitez, J.; Ruiz, L.; Castillo, A.; Llorens, J. How corporate social responsibility activities influence employer reputation: The role of social media capability. Decis. Support Syst. 2020, 129, 113223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. De Roeck, K.; Marique, G.; Stinglhamber, F.; Swaen, V. Understanding employees’ responses to corporate social responsibility: Mediating roles of overall justice and organisational identification. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2014, 25, 91–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Chen, H.-L.; Hu, Y.-C.; Lee, M.-Y.; Yen, G.-F. Importance of employee care in corporate social responsibility: An AHP-based study from the perspective of corporate commitment. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Hickman, L.E.; Iyer, S.R.; Jadiyappa, N. The effect of voluntary and mandatory corporate social responsibility on earnings management: Evidence from India and the 2% rule. Emerg. Mark. Rev. 2021, 46, 100750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Park, E.; Lee, S.; Kwon, S.J.; Del Pobil, A.P. Determinants of behavioral intention to use South Korean airline services: Effects of service quality and corporate social responsibility. Sustainability 2015, 7, 12106–12121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Madueno, J.H.; Jorge, M.L.; Conesa, I.M.; Martínez-Martínez, D. Relationship between corporate social responsibility and competitive performance in Spanish SMEs: Empirical evidence from a stakeholders’ perspective. BRQ Bus. Res. Q. 2016, 19, 55–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Lei, P.-W.; Zhao, H. A tutorial on structural equation modeling. Int. Encycl. Educ. 2023, 4, 619–626. [Google Scholar]
  58. Beran, T.N.; Violato, C. Structural equation modeling in medical research: A primer. BMC Res. Notes 2010, 3, 267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Stojanovic, A.; Milosevic, I.; Arsic, S.; Urosevic, S.; Mihajlovic, I. Corporate social responsibility as a determinant of employee loyalty and business performance. J. Compet. 2020, 12, 149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Yin, H.; Huang, S. Applying structural equation modelling to research on teaching and teacher education: Looking back and forward. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2021, 107, 103438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Hurley, J.C. How to apply structural equation modelling to infectious diseases concepts. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2022, 28, 1567–1571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Chuenyindee, T.; Torres, R.B.; Prasetyo, Y.T.; Nadlifatin, R.; Persada, S.F. Determining Factors Affecting Perceived Quality among Shoe Manufacturing Workers towards Shoe Quality: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022, 8, 82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Kruk, M.; Pawlak, M.; Shirvan, M.E.; Soleimanzadeh, S. Revisiting boredom in practical English language classes via exploratory structural equation modeling. Res. Methods Appl. Linguist. 2023, 2, 100038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Bollen, K.A. Measurement Models: The Relation between Latent and Observed Variables. Struct. Equ. Latent Var. 2014, 179, 179–225. [Google Scholar]
  65. Mesbah, M.; Sahraei, M.; Soltanpour, A.; Habibian, M. Perceived service quality based on passenger and trip characteristics: A structural equation modeling approach. J. Rail Transp. Plan. Manag. 2022, 23, 100340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. de Vet, H.C.; Mokkink, L.B.; Mosmuller, D.G.; Terwee, C.B. Spearman–Brown prophecy formula and Cronbach’s alpha: Different faces of reliability and opportunities for new applications. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2017, 85, 45–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Green, S.B.; Yang, Y. Evaluation of dimensionality in the assessment of internal consistency reliability: Coefficient alpha and omega coefficients. Educ. Meas. Issues Pract. 2015, 34, 14–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Cronbach, L.J. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 1951, 16, 297–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Nunnally, J.C. An overview of psychological measurement. Clin. Diagn. Ment. Disord. 1978, 97, 97–146. [Google Scholar]
  70. Hair, J.F.; Anderson, R.E.; Tatham, R.L.; Black, W.C. Multivariate Data Analysis; Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  71. Byrne, B. Qualitative interviewing. Res. Soc. Cult. 2004, 2, 179–192. [Google Scholar]
  72. 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]
  73. Gujarati, D.N. Multicollinearity. In Basic Econometrics; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1988; p. 299. [Google Scholar]
  74. Xu, Y.; Zhang, W.; Bao, H.; Zhang, S.; Xiang, Y. A SEM–neural network approach to predict customers’ intention to purchase battery electric vehicles in China’s Zhejiang province. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Tan, G.W.H.; Ooi, K.B.; Leong, L.Y.; Lin, B. Predicting the drivers of behavioral intention to use mobile learning: A hybrid SEM-Neural Networks approach. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2014, 36, 198–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Alhumaid, K.; Alnazzawi, N.; Akour, I.; Al Khasoneh, O.; Alfaisal, R.; Salloum, S. An integrated model for the usage and acceptance of stickers in WhatsApp through SEM-ANN approach. Int. J. Data Netw. Sci. 2022, 6, 1261–1272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Dastres, R.; Soori, M. Artificial Neural Network Systems. Int. J. Imaging Robot. 2021, 21, 13–25. [Google Scholar]
  78. Milošević, I.; Ruso, J.; Glogovac, M.; Arsić, S.; Rakić, A. An integrated SEM-ANN approach for predicting QMS achievements in Industry 4.0. Total Qual. Manag. Bus. Excell. 2021, 1, 1896–1912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Asadi, S.; Abdullah, R.; Safaei, M.; Nazir, S. An integrated SEM-Neural Network approach for predicting determinants of adoption of wearable healthcare devices. Mob. Inf. Syst. 2019, 2019, 8026042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Sim, J.J.; Tan, G.W.H.; Wong, J.C.; Ooi, K.B.; Hew, T.S. Understanding and predicting the motivators of mobile music acceptance–a multi-stage MRA-artificial neural network approach. Telemat. Inform. 2014, 31, 569–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Farooq, M.; Farooq, O.; Cheffi, W. How do employees respond to the CSR initiatives of their organizations: Empirical evidence from developing countries. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Wong, A.K.F.; Kim, S.; Hwang, Y. Effects of perceived corporate social responsibility (CSR) performance on hotel employees’ behavior. Int. J. Hosp. Tour. Adm. 2021, 1, 1145–1173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Lassaad, B.M.; Khamoussi, H. Determinants of communication about corporate social responsibility: Case of French companies. Int. J. Contemp. Bus. Stud. 2012, 3, 49–60. [Google Scholar]
  84. Kühn, A.L.; Stiglbauer, M.; Heel, J. Does mandatory CSR reporting lead to higher CSR transparency? The case of France. Corp. Own. Control 2014, 11, 29–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Wagner, R.; Roza, L.; Haski-Leventhal, D. The Role of Internal Communication in Encouraging Employee Engagement in CSR: A Sense-Making Approach. In Employee Engagement in Corporate Social Responsibility; SAGE Publications Ltd.: Washington, DC, USA, 2020; pp. 82–97. [Google Scholar]
  86. Jain, A.; Keneley, M.; Thomson, D. Voluntary CSR disclosure works! Evidence from Asia-Pacific banks. Soc. Responsib. J. 2015, 11, 2–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Im, S.; Chung, Y.W.; Yang, J.Y. Employees’ participation in corporate social responsibility and organizational outcomes: The moderating role of person–CSR fit. Sustainability 2016, 9, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Kharchenko, T.; Sokhan, I.; Shalimov, V.; Baistriuchenko, N.; Klietsova, N. Management of social responsibility strategies of multinational corporations in Russia during the war against Ukraine. Probl. Perspect. Manag. 2024, 22, 95–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Clancey-Shang, D.; Fu, C. CSR disclosure, political risk and market quality: Evidence from the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Glob. Financ. J. 2024, 60, 100938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Conceptual model. Source: Authors’ processing.
Figure 1. Conceptual model. Source: Authors’ processing.
Sustainability 17 04009 g001
Figure 2. Structural model. Source: Authors’ processing.
Figure 2. Structural model. Source: Authors’ processing.
Sustainability 17 04009 g002
Figure 3. The artificial neural network architecture for four neurons. Note: Econ—economic aspect, Social—social aspect, Ecol—environmental aspect, Stak—stakeholder aspect, Volunt—volunteerism aspect, Satisf—employee satisfaction.
Figure 3. The artificial neural network architecture for four neurons. Note: Econ—economic aspect, Social—social aspect, Ecol—environmental aspect, Stak—stakeholder aspect, Volunt—volunteerism aspect, Satisf—employee satisfaction.
Sustainability 17 04009 g003
Figure 4. RMSE performance. Source: Authors’ processing.
Figure 4. RMSE performance. Source: Authors’ processing.
Sustainability 17 04009 g004
Table 1. Inter-consistency coefficients of CSR.
Table 1. Inter-consistency coefficients of CSR.
ConstructNo. of ItemsCronbach’s αSpearman–BrownΩ
Ecological aspect30.8080.7680.739
Economic aspect30.6790.5920.592
Social aspect30.7800.7350.719
Stakeholder aspect50.8720.8330.897
Voluntarism aspect40.8400.8190.735
Satisfaction of employee50.8480.8420.827
Source: Authors’ processing.
Table 2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA).
Table 2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA).
Construct (Fx)Standard Factor
Loadings
t-ValueAVEDiscriminant Validity
Ecological aspect0.756–0.821 *16.127–16.5130.5870.766
Economic aspect0.528–0.750 *9.752–12.6170.4320.657
Social aspect0.660–0.805 *12.966–14.3820.5610.749
Stakeholder aspect0.706–0.810 *15.423–18.3850.5810.762
Voluntariness aspect0.676–0.797 *14.420–17.1890.5730.756
Employee satisfaction0.646–0.805 *11.918–13.6490.5240.724
Fit indicesχ2/dfRMSEANFIRFIIFITLICFI
Fit results1.950.0450.9240.9050.9610.9510.961
Accepted fitX2/df < 3RMSEA
<0.08
NFI
>0.90
RFI
>0.90
IFI
>0.90
TLI
>0.90
CFI
>0.90
Note: * p < 0.05. Source: Authors’ processing.
Table 3. Correlation matrix.
Table 3. Correlation matrix.
ConstructEcological
Aspect
Economic
Aspect
Social
Aspect
Stakeholder
Aspect
Voluntariness
Aspect
Employee Satisfaction
Ecological aspect1
Economic aspect0.699 *1
Social aspect0.361 *0.314 *1
Stakeholder aspect0.654 *0.797 *0.333 *1
Voluntariness aspect0.629 *0.547 *0.450 *0.609 *1
Employee satisfaction0.361 *0.339 *0.461 *0.469 *0.360 *1
Note: * p < 0.05. Source: Authors’ processing.
Table 4. The results of the SEM.
Table 4. The results of the SEM.
ConstructStandard Factor
Loadings
t-ValueR2Path Analysisβt-ValueRemarks
Ecological aspect0.719–0.81714.491–16.079 H1: Eco→Sat0.0390.423Not accepted
Economic aspect0.539–0.7509.604–12.758 H2: Econ→Sat−0.188−1.437Not accepted
Social aspect0.657–0.80213.019–14.540 H3: Soc→Sat0.349 *5.529Accepted
Stakeholder aspect0.699–0.81515.307–18.499 H4: Stak→Sat0.501 *4.242Accepted
Voluntariness aspect0.676–0.79514.385–17.107 H5: Vol→Sat−0.029−0.376Not accepted
Satisfaction of employee0.649–0.80211.923–13.6420.338
Note: * p < 0.001. Source: Authors’ processing.
Table 5. Results of ANN model.
Table 5. Results of ANN model.
Training (Data Sample 335)Testing (Data Sample 132)
ANNNSSERMSENSSERMSE
ANN13340.6730.0451330.6880.072
ANN23150.6150.0441520.6990.068
ANN33150.6990.0471520.7270.069
ANN43220.6050.0431450.7210.071
ANN53190.6280.0441480.6900.068
ANN63250.7360.0481420.7200.071
ANN73300.8000.0491370.6180.067
ANN83330.7160.0461340.7930.077
ANN93230.6770.0461440.6830.069
ANN103380.6650.0441290.7480.076
Means 0.046 0.071
Source: Authors’ processing.
Table 6. Independent variables’ importance.
Table 6. Independent variables’ importance.
ConstructsImportanceNormalized Importance
Stakeholder0.359100%
Social0.28980.7%
Economic0.21559.9%
Ecological0.10328.7%
Voluntariness0.0359.7%
Source: Authors’ processing.
Table 7. Comparisons between SEM and ANN.
Table 7. Comparisons between SEM and ANN.
ConstructsANNSEM
Stakeholder35.9%50.1%
Social28.9%34.9%
Economic21.5%18.8%
Ecological10.3%3.9%
Voluntariness3.5%2.9%
Source: Authors’ processing.
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

Stojanović, A.; Arsić, S.; Milošević, I.; Mihajlović, I.; Spasojević Brkić, V. Analyzing the Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on Employee Satisfaction Using a Hybrid SEM-ANN Approach. Sustainability 2025, 17, 4009. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17094009

AMA Style

Stojanović A, Arsić S, Milošević I, Mihajlović I, Spasojević Brkić V. Analyzing the Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on Employee Satisfaction Using a Hybrid SEM-ANN Approach. Sustainability. 2025; 17(9):4009. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17094009

Chicago/Turabian Style

Stojanović, Anđelka, Sanela Arsić, Isidora Milošević, Ivan Mihajlović, and Vesna Spasojević Brkić. 2025. "Analyzing the Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on Employee Satisfaction Using a Hybrid SEM-ANN Approach" Sustainability 17, no. 9: 4009. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17094009

APA Style

Stojanović, A., Arsić, S., Milošević, I., Mihajlović, I., & Spasojević Brkić, V. (2025). Analyzing the Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on Employee Satisfaction Using a Hybrid SEM-ANN Approach. Sustainability, 17(9), 4009. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17094009

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