Next Article in Journal
Advanced Monitoring and Management Systems for Improving Sustainability in Precision Irrigation
Next Article in Special Issue
Sustainable EOQ under Lead-Time Uncertainty and Multi-Modal Transport
Previous Article in Journal
A New Perspective on Formation of Haze-Fog: The Fuzzy Cognitive Map and Its Approaches to Data Mining
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Emergency Vehicle Routing Problem with Uncertain Demand under Sustainability Environments

Corporate Social Responsibility Motive Attribution by Service Employees in the Parcel Logistics Industry as a Moderator between CSR Perception and Organizational Effectiveness

by 1 and 2,*
College of Business Administration, Chonnam National University, Yongbong-ro 77, Buk-gu, Gwangju 61186, Korea
College of Business and Economics, Chung Ang University, Heukseok-ro 82, Seoul 06974, Korea
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Academic Editor: Ilkyeong Moon
Sustainability 2017, 9(3), 355;
Received: 20 December 2016 / Revised: 16 February 2017 / Accepted: 19 February 2017 / Published: 28 February 2017
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainability in Supply Chain Management)


With sustainability and corporate social responsibility (CSR) emerging as urgent issues in the logistics service industry, the effects of CSR on employee work behavior is receiving increasing attention. This study explores this issue by considering intrinsic and extrinsic CSR motive attributions as moderating variables between CSR perception and organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior. The results of a cross-sectional survey and hierarchical regression analyses of 241 survey responses from parcel delivery logistics employees indicate that their perception of CSR strongly enhances their organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior. This study also presents evidence that the positive effect of CSR on organizational commitment is weakened when employees attribute CSR practices to intrinsic motives. This study provides guidance for managers in the logistics sector and for academics who wish to address sustainability and CSR issues and to enhance employees’ organizational commitment.
Keywords: sustainable logistics; corporate social responsibility (CSR); organizational commitment; organizational citizenship behavior; CSR motive attributions sustainable logistics; corporate social responsibility (CSR); organizational commitment; organizational citizenship behavior; CSR motive attributions

1. Introduction

Sustainability and corporate social responsibility (CSR) have become one of the most important topics in the field of business. When making business decisions, firms are concerned about how to reflect expectations and demands for CSR from various stakeholders, including shareholders, customers, suppliers, and local communities [1]. CSR has been spreading through the supply chain particularly rapidly in recent days because problems that arise from supply chain partners—such as the violation of environmental regulations, fair trade, labor disputes, and civil rights issues—are identified as risk factors for firms [2]. Logistics plays the central role in delivering products from manufacturers to consumers through the supply chain. Although CSR has spread rapidly through the supply chain and logistics, academic research in this field currently faces challenges at a number of levels.
First, the importance of logistics service has sharply increased as the structure of the global economy has rapidly digitized. Logistics involves managing the circulation of goods throughout an industry and therefore has a considerable ripple effect on other businesses. Parcel logistics is a service industry that involves numerous employee–customer encounters, in which the dynamic triad among the organization in addition to its members and consumers is highly relevant. However, logistics in general and parcel logistics in particular have hardly been examined in terms of CSR. Recently, some studies have started to address the issues related to the good practices of CSR in relation to labor practices in the transport and logistics industries [3].
Second, although logistics has the characteristics of a service industry, existing studies of sustainability of supply chains and CSR in supply chains are mainly focused on the manufacturing industry. Moreover, CSR in services management has mostly been considered from the marketing and consumer perspectives, as for instance in research on the effect of service industry CSR as perceived by customers on service quality and customer satisfaction [4,5]. In contrast, there have been relatively few studies examining employees’ understanding of CSR, although they are one of the most important stakeholders in the service industry and those responsible for organizational operations [6,7]. Recent studies providing evidence that CSR directed at employees is an indirect predictor of individual task performance and extra-role helping behavior (e.g., organizational citizenship behavior), and have urged scholars to pay more attention to CSR research from the micro-organizational perspective, which can elucidate the perception of organizational CSR by internal stakeholders and determine how those attitudes link to other aspects of organizational performances [8,9].
Third, parcel logistics, especially in Asian countries (including South Korea, the site of the present research), requires intense physical and emotional labor, thereby creating occasional social problems within the organization and industry. When a labor environment is poor, CSR as perceived by a service employee can affect that employee’s sense of belonging to the organization. In particular, the employee’s perceived reason of why the organization invests in CSR may explain more effectively how employees behave toward the organization [6,10]. However, the motives that employees attribute to logistics CSR practices have not been properly investigated.
To address this gap, this study explores CSR motive attribution in the parcel logistics industry. It examines the effect of CSR on organizational effectiveness from the service employee perspective and researches whether different CSR motive attributions affect employee’s perceptions of CSR, their organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior. This study makes three main contributions to the field. First, it is an early effort to explore CSR in parcel logistics, which links the supply chains to producers (or sellers) and consumers (or buyers). It focuses on one specific stakeholder, the service employee (delivery person), who is involved in various social issues within the organization and actual businesses practices. Parcel logistics has exhibited sharp annual growth as the digital economy, in the form of online and mobile electronic commerce, has sped up its growth. This study not only shows the academic importance of verifying the effect of CSR from the organizational behavior perspective but also provides implications toward solutions to employee-related social problems that arise from the growth in logistic services. Second, this study explores CSR from the micro-level, organizational behavior perspective, which takes the individual member of an organization as an analysis unit. Hence, it satisfies the academic need for integration of organizational behavior theory and CSR theory, which has hardly been tackled by existing CSR studies, which have instead focused on the organizational unit [7]. Third, this study explores CSR motive attribution from the employee perspective. Greenwashing and endless corporate social scandals may arouse cynical responses from stakeholders towards CSR, and research into CSR motives will help accurately analyze employee stakeholders’ perceptions of the effects and effectiveness of CSR [6].
The rest of the study is organized as follows. Section 2 covers the theoretical background and develops the research model and hypotheses. Section 3 explains the research method, and Section 4 presents and interprets the results of the analysis. The last section summarizes the research results and proposes future research directions that can address the limitations of the study.

2. Theoretical Background and Research Hypotheses

2.1. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Motive Attributions

In the literature, corporate sustainability and CSR were commonly used with slightly different meanings and contexts, eventually diverging down separate paths. For example, sustainability was related to only the environment and CSR referred exclusively to social aspects. These terms, however, have begun to conceptually converge [11]. At present, many consider sustainability and CSR to be synonyms, whereby a minimum performance is required in both the environmental and social dimensions as well as the economic dimension [12,13]. We use CSR and sustainability interchangeably throughout this paper.
The same corporate social responsibility practices (CSR practices) can be perceived differently by various stakeholders, because each makes attributions based on competing information. For example, employees place varying importance on CSR given their role in the organization. For instance, high-ranking managers are more concerned with and aware of CSR than regular employees [14]. Similarly, individual attributions of motives behind CSR practices will differ between employees and across teams.
Existing studies have explored CSR motive attributions usually from the consumer perspective; for instance, Groza et al. [4] used attribution theory to explain that consumer sympathy for companies’ CSR efforts differs across perceptions of CSR motives: the consumer experiences attribution and sympathy from active CSR practice positively prior to disclosure of any negative information about a firm (positively affecting purchase intention), and negative attribution afterward (negatively affecting purchase intention). CSR motive attributions are categorized differently among researchers. For instance, Ellen et al. [15] proposed egoistic-driven, strategic-driven, stakeholder-driven, and values-driven attributions, while other researchers have categorized attributions into self-centered and other-centered [16].
Vlachos et al. [17] is one of the few studies to have verified CSR motive attributions from the employee perspective. Targeting sales employees, they revealed that loyalty and positive word-of-mouth from employees increase as perception of stakeholder-driven attribution (the motive to satisfy the demand of stakeholders) and values-driven attribution (the pure motive to increase social value) increases. Another recent study investigated the effect of CSR on the job satisfaction of employees and reported that charismatic leadership influence the motives attributed to CSR, increasing employees’ job satisfaction [18].
The study of CSR from the employee perspective needs an approach different from the consumer perspective because employees not only have more information about the organization’s practices than consumers do, but they also experience its applications [19]. Moreover, they can better evaluate the reason that an organization conducts CSR based on the organization’s historical and cultural context. This study takes into account two kinds of attribution of CSR motives as perceived by employees: intrinsic and extrinsic attribution. Intrinsic CSR practices begin from a pure interest in the social environment. They can be understood as “practices with sincerity” [18], and an employee truly believes the organization cares for the cause. This attribution is thus related to the moral aspect of the firm, in which employees trust the ‘benevolent’ character of the firm as representing its true values [6]. Extrinsic CSR practices are those initiated for a specific purpose and to fulfill a specific intention [18]. This does not mean that they are morally questionable practices, reflect harmful intentions, have harmful effects, or negatively influence society; it merely means they are strategic in nature. An employee can interpret the specific CSR scenario through various ways.

2.2. The Effect of CSR Perception Among Parcel Logistics Employees on Organizational Commitment and Citizenship Behavior

Theories that assist the understanding of the behavior and attitude of employees in relation to CSR include social identity theory and normative theory; more specifically, deontic justice theory [6]. Social identity theory explains that an individual stipulates his/her existence and forms a self-concept after considering the characteristics of his/her group [20]. Employees who belong to an organization that conducts active CSR may align themselves with the respect and reputation that (they perceive ) the firm receives from society for this activity, thereby forming a positive self-concept, which can lead to better organizational citizenship behavior such as voluntarily helping other employees [8,9]. CSR thus sometimes becomes a signal that illustrates the firm’s law-abidingness, fairness, and morality not only to the public but also to its own employees (also in relation to its treatment of them themselves as internal stakeholders). This perception of justice can increase the employee’s sense of belonging in an organization and thus increase organizational commitment and satisfaction [21,22,23].
Moreover, employees, as internal stakeholders, hope that their organization will meet the standard of morality and value that they expect. In this regard, an employee pays attention to how the organization treats not only him/her but also other employees [24]. If employees think that an organization works to fulfill its moral and ethical responsibilities as perceived by the employee, they will respond positively. CSR in this sense serves as a proxy for the individual’s vocation and values and potentially even increases the meaningfulness of the employee’s life, leading to improved organizational commitment [25,26,27].
Organizational citizenship behavior is defined here as employee voluntary behavior promoting organizational effectiveness although not formally recognized by an organization’s reward system [28]. This behavior works as an important resource for improving organizational efficiency and effectiveness by helping transformation, innovativeness, and adaptability. The CSR practices of an organization are also voluntary, based on the principle of help for others. If employees perceive an increase in fairness and interaction within an organization, their activities are more likely to surpass expectations [29]. Similarly, if employees believe that their organization performs voluntary CSR practices effectively, it increases not only organizational commitment but also the possibility of voluntarily doing more than required [6,26].
Based on these points, we propose the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1.
The CSR perception by a logistics service employee has a positive effect on organizational commitment.
Hypothesis 2.
The CSR perception by a logistics service employee has a positive effect on organizational citizenship behavior.

2.3. The Moderating Effect of CSR Motive Attribution

Interestingly, while an employee (an internal stakeholder) is a target of CSR, s/he is also in most cases the principal agent who conducts CSR. Because employees have more information about a firm than consumers or other external stakeholders, they have a high possibility of evaluating the firm’s reason(s) for conducting CSR more carefully than external stakeholders. This study explores CSR motive attribution by categorizing it as intrinsic (altruistic) or extrinsic (instrumental) [18].
Employee perspectives can differ from those of external stakeholders in other ways as well. First, from the employee perspective, though probably not the external perspective, intrinsic CSR attribution may backfire; that is, if stakeholders perceive a considerable investment in CSR, made with a pure heart, this may increase the positive effect of CSR on perception among external stakeholders but weaken it among internal stakeholders. This is because employees who believe that their firm has used its limited resources disproportionately for the utility of others could think that their firm will lose its competitiveness and potentially put their job at risk [6]. Such a “reverse effect” among employees could be particularly strong in logistics, since the labor environment in this industry (especially in South Korea) is extremely poor, physical and emotional workload is intense, and the work is performed externally (i.e., in relation to customers) and there are fewer interactions among members, reducing their sense of belonging [30]. If employees strongly perceive intrinsic CSR attribution under such circumstances, they will believe that the organization cares more about external stakeholders than internal ones and will experience cognitive dissonance. Hence, intrinsic CSR motive attribution would weaken the belief that the organization is more considerate of external members than for internal members, instead involving the attribution of CSR efforts to the (intrinsic) desire to do good, and would in that sense strengthen the positive effect of CSR. That is, when employees believe that an organization invests in CSR practices with a certain instrumental objective, they evaluate the effect of CSR practices in terms of the benefits that the organization and ultimately they themselves will receive. The idea that CSR is an investment is a self-interested activity that will be beneficial for the organization by increasing, for instance, the employees’ perception of job stability. That is, extrinsic attributions are perceived as strategic, strengthening the individual’s sense of shared value creation with the organization [6] and thus the organizational effectiveness that CSR yields.
Based on the points made above, we propose the following hypotheses about the moderating effect of CSR motive attribution on the effect of CSR perception on organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior.
Hypothesis 3.
Intrinsic CSR attribution by a logistics service employee weakens the positive effect of CSR perception on organizational commitment.
Hypothesis 4.
Intrinsic CSR attribution by a logistics service employee weakens the positive effect of CSR perception on organizational citizenship behavior.
Hypothesis 5.
Extrinsic CSR attribution by a logistics service employee strengthens the positive effect of CSR perception on organizational commitment.
Hypothesis 6.
Extrinsic CSR attribution by a logistics service employee strengthens the positive effect of CSR perception on organizational citizenship behavior.
These hypotheses are placed in a framework in Figure 1.

3. Research Methodology

3.1. Sample

This study examines the influence of CSR perception among logistics service employees on their organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior. In addition, the moderating effect of CSR motive attribution is assessed. The unit of analysis is the logistics service employee (delivery person). To verify the hypotheses, this study conducted a survey of delivery employees from Korea’s major parcel logistics firms. It collected responses from 241 employees from all over the country in November and December 2015. The respondents are distributed in terms of the size of the major parcel delivery firms of South Korea in Table 1.
The great majority of respondents were male (237 respondents, 98.2%), reflecting the general gender breakdown in parcel logistics in South Korea [24]. By age, participants were categorized as being in their 20s (26 respondents, 9.6%), 30s (86 respondents, 31.7%), 40s (117 respondents, 43.2%), 50s (39 respondents, 14.4%), and 60s or older (3 respondents, 1.1%); average age was 42.3. The number of respondents from the capital region was 112 (41.3%), and 159 (58.7%) from other regions, establishing rough regional balance and representativeness. Average length of employment in the respondent’s current firm was 5.75 years.

3.2. Survey

The major variables used in this study were CSR perception, organizational commitment, organizational citizenship behavior, and CSR motive attribution. Control variables, including the affiliated firm, work location, age, and length of employment, were held constant. These variables, which have often been used in the existing literature, are used again here for increased validity. Some question items from Turker [31] were adopted to assess CSR perception: respect for diversity and human rights, emphasis on fair trade, mutual cooperation with suppliers, contribution to the development of the local community, and environmental conservation efforts. Organizational commitment refers to voluntary strong attachment to and involvement in an organization; seven questions from Allen and Meyer [32] are used as measurement items. Organizational citizenship behavior refers to behavior that an individual voluntarily undertakes to promote organizational effectiveness despite a lack of any formalized reward; nine questions from Smith et al. [33] are used as measurement items. CSR motive attributions are measured by ranking the importance or value of reasons for conducting CSR. The questions on intrinsic attribution include questions on voluntary responsibility and contribution, ethical duty, will of top management, and values of stakeholders. Extrinsic attribution includes questions on reputation and image of a firm, improvement of consumer awareness, reduction in potential danger, and cost reduction. Each attribution was scored via a weighted aggregation method (i.e., 3 with the first rank, 2 with the second rank, 1 with the third rank, otherwise 0) from zero to six. Age and tenures of respondents are controlled in analysis. The survey questions are provided in the Appendix A.

3.3. Validity and Reliability

The measurement tools were examined for content validity, construct validity, and nomological validity [34]. Most of the survey questions had been used in the existing literature, and this study improved its content validity by conducting a careful literature review of CSR and organizational behavior. The unidimensionality of the explanatory factor analysis was verified to ensure construct validity. Nomological validity will be discussed in the Results and Discussion section (Section 4). Factor analysis was conducted for all the questions on CSR perception, organizational citizenship behavior, and organizational commitment, through principal component analysis and varimax orthogonal rotation, and on that basis the questions were categorized into three dimensions. The discriminant validity of measurement tools was examined by identifying whether the variates explained through the measurement questions were larger than the common variates among the variables; validity was taken as confirmed when the variable’s average variance extracted (AVE) was larger than the square of the correlation coefficient [35]. The analysis results demonstrate that the discriminant validity of the measurement tools is acceptable (Table 2).
The reliability of the measurement tools was examined using Cronbach’s alpha. Following alpha results, three of the 26 initial measurement questions were eliminated, and the validity and reliability of the 23 remaining questions were secured; these 23 questions were used in the analysis. The content of measurement questions, factor loading of the confirmatory factor analysis, internal composite reliability, AVE, and value of Cronbach’s alpha are presented in the Appendix A.

4. Results

The study conducted a hierarchical regression analysis to investigate the effects of CSR perception of logistics service employees on their organizational commitment and citizenship behavior. First, the study investigated the moderating effects of intrinsic and extrinsic motive attribution on the direct effect of CSR perception on organizational commitment (as a dependent variable) (Table 3). The same analysis was then conducted using organizational citizenship behavior as the dependent variable (Table 4). Age and length of service were held constant. The affiliated firm is not indicated in the table because there are numerous dummies. In order to improve the practical interpretation of main effects and moderating effects, the study utilized mean centering [36].
Table 3 and Table 4 show the effect of service employees’ CSR perception on organizational commitment (β = 0.69, p < 0.01). CSR perception is shown to play a crucial role in improving the organizational commitment of logistics service employees. Even when intrinsic and extrinsic CSR motive attributions are added to the moderating effect, the positive effect of CSR perception on organizational commitment is maintained. This result supports Hypothesis 1. At the same time, the employee’s satisfaction towards the organization is shown to increase as s/he perceives that the organization is performing CSR well; here, the moderating effect of intrinsic attribution was the only significant effect (β = −0.09, p < 0.05).
As an employee attributes CSR motive to an intrinsic cause, the positive effect of CSR perception on organizational commitment weakens. In contrast, the moderating effect of extrinsic attribution was not found to be statistically significant. Thus, only Hypothesis 3, on the moderating effect of intrinsic attribution, is supported.
Table 5 and Table 6 demonstrate the effect of CSR perception on organizational citizenship behavior and the moderating effect of motive attribution, respectively. Perception of CSR as effective has a positive effect on organizational citizenship behavior (β = 0.57, p < 0.01), and this effect does not decrease even when moderating variables for motive attribution are added. This implies that the logistics service employee voluntarily helps coworkers as s/he perceives that his/her firm performs CSR well, supporting Hypothesis 2. However, a moderating effect of CSR motive attribution was identified. Hence, Hypotheses 5 and 6 were not supported.
The results thus reveal that CSR perception had positive effects on organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior, and the former but not the latter is moderated by intrinsic CSR motive attribution. Given this difference in moderating effects, a graph can be used to explore the details. Figure 2 illustrates the moderating effect of intrinsic attribution on the relationship between CSR perception and organizational commitment: as the employee perceives that the CSR motive is purer (intrinsic attribution), the positive effect of CSR perception on organizational commitment weakens.

5. Discussion

5.1. Academic Implications

This study is early-stage literature that explores CSR’s effect and attitudes toward CSR of parcel logistics service employees. It provides important implications for not only sustainable logistics and CSR research but also for service industry research generally. First, this study is meaningful as academic evidence that the social identity theory of organizational behavior can explicate the effects of CSR in the service industry. To date, few CSR studies have considered such micro-level outcomes and thus relatively little is known about the effects of CSR on employees (Shen and Benson, 2016). This study narrows a major knowledge gap in the CSR literature [7] by exploring the effects of CSR on employees’ organizational commitment and extra-role helping behavior (i.e., organizational citizenship behavior) in the service sector. The study provides empirical evidence on positive effects, namely how organizational citizenship behavior and organizational commitment increase when employees perceive that the firm’s level of CSR is high. The correlation is due to an increasing sense of belonging. Consequently, their expectation of the firm’s beneficence in addition to their own life satisfaction derived from work continue to grow [9,26]. The positive link between CSR at the organization level and organizational effectiveness in terms of organizational citizenship behavior and organizational commitment at the individual level revealed in this study is much in line with the results of recent studies [8,25]. These results connect CSR, organizational behavior, and service business literature, as CSR plays a crucial role in forming positive employee attitudes by improving organizational solidarity in this externally oriented work field.
This study also empirically identified a moderating effect of intrinsic CSR motive attribution on the effect described above. CSR motives differ between external and internal stakeholders; while external stakeholders generally view intrinsic attributions positively [37], the study confirmed that intrinsic attributions can negatively affect employees—as the internal stakeholders—especially in fields like logistics in Korea known for high job insecurity and overtime [30]. If employees perceive that CSR practices, which often target external stakeholders, are conducted with altruistic motives, they might complain that the firm’s resources are being invested in something that is not in their own best interest. In this case, the employees would experience cognitive dissonance, and the positive effect of CSR on organizational commitment would weaken. This study thus indicates that the direction of perception could be different between external stakeholders and internal stakeholders regarding CSR practices for sustainable logistics. This study, however, did not identify any moderating effect of extrinsic attribution. There are a number of possible reasons for this. First, it could be that intrinsic and extrinsic CSR attribution are inversely related: when one is strong (as intrinsic attribution in the present case), the other is weak (as extrinsic attribution in the present case). Second, for employees as internal stakeholders, extrinsic attribution—i.e., the belief that CSR practices are conducted for a specific strategic purpose—may not moderate the effect of CSR, perhaps because it causes little cognitive dissonance for individuals to feel that the investment in them is low due to priority on external stakeholders if they think that the reason for that order of priority is strategic/instrumental.

5.2. Managerial Implications

As CSR has increasingly become a social norm, business leaders and management practitioners have recognized that engagement in CSR becomes an important source of organizational competitive advantage. The results of this study provide practical implications that may help resolve social issues often mentioned in the logistics industry, increase organizational identification and ultimately improve the competitiveness of parcel logistics services. First, logistics firms should prioritize CSR when making business decisions, because CSR, rather than being mere altruism, could increase the firm’s competitiveness by improving the organizational commitment and citizenship behavior of its employees. Thus, CSR could become an investment target and source of potential value increase. In addition, firms should consider individual CSR values in order to recruit socially responsible employees [8]. Second, CSR must be promoted and publicized more actively internally; CSR has often been treated as a kind of philanthropic activity and promoted through (external) public relations, but if employees do not perceive CSR, improvements to CSR will not likely improve organizational effectiveness. Firms should provide CSR training, link social performance to promotion and rewards, and enhance employees’ awareness of CSR by facilitating organizational CSR communications and associated activities. This will be especially true in parcel logistics, with the intensity and external orientation of the work. Third, logistics firms should remember that not only external stakeholders but also employees (internal stakeholders) are the important targets of CSR practices and promotions. A firm should be careful not to give the impression that it takes care of external stakeholders from pure and ethical motives that are not applied internally, to prevent employees from experiencing cognitive dissonance when they are excluded from CSR. Firms need to identify the nature of employees’ concerns and attempt to meet them by providing substantial organizational support, which realize the positive effects of CSR on employee work performance.

6. Conclusions

This study empirically tested the effect of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and the moderating effect of motive attribution from the perspective of the employee, an important stakeholder in the logistics industry, where study of sustainability and CSR is still sparse. The results provide important implications about logistics, CSR, organizational behavior theory, and service management. The main results are as follows. First, organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior improve as the firm’s CSR improves. This provides empirical evidence that social identity theory explains the relationship between CSR at the organizational level and positive attitudes at the individual level in the service industry. Second, however, the coupling of CSR and individual behavior differs by the presence or absence of intrinsic attribution of CSR motives. As an employee attributes pure motives, the positive effect of CSR perception on organizational commitment weakens. Based on these results, the study provided practical implications for efforts to improve employees’ organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior through sharing and fostering participation in CSR practices in the logistics field, characterized by intense physical and emotional labor.
This early-stage study should provide an empirical basis for future research. However, it has a number of limitations that should be addressed in the future. First, the survey relied upon individual informants and is therefore not free from common-method bias. Although we checked that bias using Harman’s one-factor analysis [38], a more sophisticated survey is desirable, utilizing a wider range of informational sources such as a supervisor−employee dyad to measure employees’ task performance and organizational citizenship behavior. Second, this study focused on CSR motive attribution as a moderating effect, but other variables such as age and tenures, may also moderate the effect of CSR perception. Also, this study placed intrinsic and extrinsic motive attributions in a continuum and estimated them based on order of priority; they should also be investigated as independent dimensions [6] or using the Likert scale [31]. Third, this study did not adequately control other potentially influential variables when analyzing the practical effect of CSR perception; many variables in the literature, such as leadership, team climate and level of skills, should be incorporated in future research. Last, a CSR study that reflects certain distinctive aspects of Korea’s parcel logistics industry, such as the system where employees register their own vehicles to deliver parcels, which is used in only a few other countries, should be investigated for potential effects on CSR.


This work was supported by a Jungseok Logistics Foundation Grant.

Author Contributions

Su-Yol Lee designed the study, conducted literature review, and collected data. Yong Won Seo conducted statistical data analysis. Su-Yol Lee wrote the manuscript and Yong Won Seo read and approved the final manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A. Questionnaire Items Used for This Study

Table A1. Questions on the survey and the reliability and validity of the measurement tools.
Table A1. Questions on the survey and the reliability and validity of the measurement tools.
VariablesLoadingComposite ReliabilityAVECronbach’s α
CSR perception 0.930.600.92
Our company generally...
CSR01. Respects the diversity and human rights of employees.0.76
CSR02. Makes the effort to reduce environmental impact (e.g., green logistics, recycling packing materials).0.72
CSR03. Tells the truth to the public when there is something wrong.0.74
CSR04. Treats employees fairly.0.82
CSR05 *. Emphasizes the security of customer information, safety, and health of a customer.-
CSR06 *. Does not use unfair methods when competing with other companies.-
CSR07. Actively conducts philanthropic activities and donates for the development of the regional community.0.74
CSR08. Donates considerable resources to recipients who deal with social issues including poverty, public health, and human rights.0.72
CSR09. Discloses internal information about business management and firm performance transparently.0.79
CSR10. Emphasizes fair trade and makes the effort to mutually cooperate with partners.0.83
Organizational citizenship behavior 0.890.510.89
“In our company, I usually/generally...”0.69
OCB01. Willingly help coworkers who are overloaded with work.0.67
OCB02. Voluntarily help when new employees begin to work.0.69
OCB03. Voluntarily take on more than my responsibilities for development of the organization.0.74
OCB04. Pay attention in order to understand the recent situation of our company.0.78
OCB05. Am voluntarily participating in activities to improve the reputation and image of our company.0.69
OCB06. Propose various suggestions for change and innovation in the organization.0.77
OCB07. Make the effort to understand the policies or guidelines of the firm.0.71
OCB08. Voluntarily follow the official and unofficial regulations that the firm has established.-
OCB09 *. Make effort to prevent myself from violating or interfering with coworkers’ rights.
Organizational commitment 0.920.640.92
1) I enjoy discussing my organization with people outside it.0.81
2) I feel like ‘part of the family’ at my organization.0.78
3) I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career with this organization.0.69
4) I feel a strong sense of belonging to this organization.0.80
5) This organization has a great deal of personal meaning for me.0.82
6) I feel ‘emotionally attached’ to this organization.0.85
7) I really feel as if this organization’s problems are my own.0.82
CSR motive attributions
Please choose and rank the three major motives (reasons) that you believe your company conducts CSR practices: the first rank ( ), the second rank ( ), and the third rank ( ):
1) Improvement of firm’s reputation and image.
2) Improvement of customer awareness.
3) Cost reduction.
4) Reduction in potential danger.
5) Will of CEO.
6) Voluntary responsibility and contribution.
7) Firm’s pure ethical duty.
8) Improvement of the values of stakeholders.
Note: * questions that were excluded during the process of the analysis of reliability and validity.


  1. Falkenberg, J.; Brunsael, P. Corporate social responsibility: A strategic advantage or a strategic necessity. J. Bus. Ethics 2011, 99, 9–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Handfield, R.B.; Sroufe, R.; Walton, S. Integrating environmental management and supply chain strategies. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2005, 14, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Turon, K. Corporate social responsibility to employees: The best labour practices in transport and logistics companies. J. Corp. Responsib. Leadersh. 2016, 3, 37–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Groza, M.D.; Pronschinske, M.R.; Walker, M. Perceived organizational motives and consumer responses to proactive and reactive CSR. J. Bus. Ethics 2011, 102, 639–652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Vlachos, P.A.; Tsamakos, A.; Vrechopoulos, A.P.; Avramidis, P.K. Corporate social responsibility: Attributions, loyalty, and the mediating role of trust. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2009, 37, 170–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. 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]
  7. Aguinis, H.; Glavas, A. What we know and don't know about corporate social responsibility: A review and research agenda. J. Manag. 2012, 38, 932–968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Shen, J.; Benson, J. When CSR is a social norm: How socially responsible human resource management affects employee work behavior. J. Manag. 2016, 42, 1723–1746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Bauman, C.W.; Skitka, L.J. Corporate social responsibility as a source of employee satisfaction. Res. Organ. Behav. 2012, 32, 63–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Martinko, M.J.; Harvey, P.; Dasborough, M.T. Attribution theory in the organizational sciences: A case of unrealized potential. J. Organ. Behav. 2011, 32, 144–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Keijzers, G. The transition to the sustainable enterprise. J. Clean. Prod. 2002, 10, 349–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Dyllick, T.; Hockert, K. Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2002, 11, 130–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Elkington, J. Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business; New Society: Stony Creek, CT, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  14. Factor, R.; Oliver, A.L.; Montgomery, K. Beliefs about social responsibility at work: Comparison between managers and non-managers over time and cross-nationality. Bus. Ethics Eur. Rev. 2013, 22, 143–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Ellen, P.S.; Webb, D.J.; Mohr, L. Building corporate associations: Consumer attributions for corporate socially responsible programs. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2006, 34, 147–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Handelman, J.M.; Arnold, S.J. The role of marketing actions with a social dimension: Appeals to the institutional environment. J. Mark. 1999, 63, 33–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Vlachos, P.A.; Theotokis, A.; Panagopoulos, N. Sales-force reactions to corporate social responsibility: Attributions, outcomes and the mediating role of organizational trust. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2010, 39, 1207–1218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Vlachos, P.A.; Panagopoulos, N.G.; Rapp, A.A. Feeling good by doing good: Employee CSR-induced attributions, job satisfaction, and the role of charismatic leadership. J. Bus. Ethics 2013, 118, 577–588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Rowley, T.J. Moving beyond dyadic ties: A network theory of stakeholders’ influences. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1997, 22, 887–910. [Google Scholar]
  20. Ashforth, B.E.; Mael, F. Social identity theory and the organizations. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1989, 14, 20–39. [Google Scholar]
  21. Hansen, S.D.; Dunford, B.B.; Boss, A.D.; Boss, R.W.; Angermeier, I. Corporate social responsibility and the benefits of employee trust: A cross-discipline perspective. J. Bus. Ethics 2011, 102, 29–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Valentine, S.; Fleischman, G. Ethics programs, perceived corporate social responsibility and job satisfaction. J. Bus. Ethics 2008, 77, 159–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Brammer, S.; Millington, A.; Rayton, B. The contribution of corporate social responsibility to organizational commitment. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2007, 18, 1701–1719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Cropanzano, R.; Bowen, D.; Gilliland, S. Management of organizational justice. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 2007, 21, 34–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Huang, C.-C. Employees’ perception of corporate social responsibility: Corporate volunteer and organizational commitment. Int. Bus. Res. 2016, 9, 142–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Lin, C.P.; Lyau, N.M.; Tsai, Y.H.; Chen, W.Y.; Chiu, C.K. Modeling corporate citizenship and its relationship with organizational citizenship behaviors. J. Bus. Ethics 2010, 95, 357–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Rupp, D.E.; Ganapathy, J.; Aguilera, R.V.; Williams, C.A. Employees’ reactions to corporate social responsibility: An organizational justice framework. J. Organ. Behav. 2006, 27, 537–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Organ, D.W. Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome; Lexington Books: Lexington, MA, USA, 1988. [Google Scholar]
  29. Niehoff, B.P.; Moorman, R.H. Justice as a mediator of the relationship between methods of monitoring and organizational citizenship behavior. Acad. Manag. J. 1993, 36, 527–556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Chun, B. Creating shared value in senior parcel delivery: The case of CJ Korea Express. Korea Bus. Rev. 2015, 19, 105–128. (In Korean) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Turker, D. Measuring corporate social responsibility: A scale development study. J. Bus. Ethics 2009, 85, 411–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Allen, N.J.; Meyer, J.P. The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. J. Occup. Psychol. 1990, 63, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Smith, C.; Organ, D.W.; Near, J.P. Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. J. Appl. Psychol. 1983, 68, 653–663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. O’Leary-Kelly, S.W.; Vokurka, R.J. The empirical assessment of construct validity. J. Oper. Manag. 1998, 16, 387–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. 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]
  36. Hayes, A.F.; Glynn, C.J.; Huge, M.E. Cautions regarding the interpretation of regression coefficients and hypothesis tests in linear models with interactions. Commun. Methods Meas. 2012, 6, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Marin, L.; Cuestas, P.J.; Roman, S. Determinants of consumer attributions of corporate social responsibility. J. Bus. Ethics 2016, 138, 247–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Lee, J.Y.; Podsakoff, N.P. Common method bias in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 2003, 88, 879–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1. Research model and hypotheses.
Figure 1. Research model and hypotheses.
Sustainability 09 00355 g001
Figure 2. The moderating effect of intrinsic attribution in the relationship between CSR perception and organizational commitment.
Figure 2. The moderating effect of intrinsic attribution in the relationship between CSR perception and organizational commitment.
Sustainability 09 00355 g002
Table 1. Distribution of survey respondents by size of firm.
Table 1. Distribution of survey respondents by size of firm.
FirmRespondents (No.)Proportion
Korean UPS3514.5%
CJ Korea Express6828.2%
KG Yellow Cap104.1%
Table 2. Correlation matrix.
Table 2. Correlation matrix.
Tenure6.554.460.35 **-
CSR perception4.211.010.05−0.08
Organizational commitment4. **
Organizational citizenship behavior4.560.820.090.020.56 **0.65 **
Intrinsic attribution1.531.38−0.060.06−0.04−0.09−0.03-
Extrinsic attribution4.441.410.10−−0.03−0.96 **
Notes: (1) ** p < 0.01; (2) The lower half of the matrix shows estimated correlations between variables, and the values in parentheses in diagonal are the AVE values.
Table 3. The effect of corporate social responsibility (CSR) perception on organizational commitment moderated by intrinsic attribution.
Table 3. The effect of corporate social responsibility (CSR) perception on organizational commitment moderated by intrinsic attribution.
VariableModel 1Model 2Model 3Model 4
CSR perception 0.69 **0.69 **0.70 **
Intrinsic attribution (CSR motive) −0.07−0.5
CSR × Intrinsic attribution −0.09 *
F statistics0.8031.85 **55.52 **45.99
Note: * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.
Table 4. The effect of CSR perception on organizational commitment moderated by extrinsic attribution.
Table 4. The effect of CSR perception on organizational commitment moderated by extrinsic attribution.
VariableModel 1Model 2Model 3Model 4
CSR perception 0.69 **0.70 **0.70 **
Extrinsic attribution (CSR motive) 0.040.03
CSR × Extrinsic attribution 0.06
F statistics0.8031.85 **54.90 **44.43 **
Note: ** p < 0.01.
Table 5. The effect of CSR perception on organizational citizenship behavior moderated by intrinsic attribution.
Table 5. The effect of CSR perception on organizational citizenship behavior moderated by intrinsic attribution.
VariableModel 1Model 2Model 3Model 4
CSR perception 0.57 **0.57 **0.57 **
Intrinsic attribution (CSR motive) −0.04−0.04
CSR × Intrinsic attribution −0.03
F statistics1.3037.95 **28.35 **22.71 **
Note: ** p < 0.01.
Table 6. The effect of CSR perception on organizational citizenship behavior moderated by extrinsic attribution.
Table 6. The effect of CSR perception on organizational citizenship behavior moderated by extrinsic attribution.
VariableModel 1Model 2Model 3Model 4
CSR perception 0.57 **0.56 **0.57 **
Extrinsic attribution (CSR motive) −0.03−0.04
CSR × Extrinsic attribution −0.03
F statistics1.3037.95 **28.57 **22.83 **
Note: ** p < 0.01.
Back to TopTop