Environment and Social Psychology

The impact of employees’ perceived corporate social responsibility on employee sustainable performance: Exploring the moderating role of authentic leadership and empathy

Ruiying Hu

Chinese International College, Dhurakij Pundit University, Bangkok, 10210, Thailand GongQing Institute of Science and Technology, 332020, China

Chun-Shuo Chen

Chinese International College, Dhurakij Pundit University, Bangkok, 10210, Thailand

Chaoqiao Yang

Chinese International College, Dhurakij Pundit University, Bangkok, 10210, Thailand

DOI: https://doi.org/10.59429/esp.v10i2.3448

Keywords: CSR, Employee Sustainable Performance, Organizational Pride, Authentic Leadership, Empathy

---

Abstract

This study investigates the impact of employees' perceptions of corporate social responsibility (CSR) on their sustainable performance, with a specific focus on the moderating roles of authentic leadership and empathy. Drawing on social identity theory, this study proposes that employees' identification with their organization, which is fueled by CSR activities, enhances their organizational pride and leads to improved sustainable performance. A survey of 563 employees from CSR-focused companies reveals that when employees perceive their organization as actively engaged in CSR, they are more likely to align their personal values with their organizational values, thereby fostering a sense of pride and improving their sustainable performance. Authentic leadership and high levels of empathy among employees strengthen this relationship and consequently enhance CSR engagement and individual performance. These results contribute to the current understanding of the dynamic interactions among CSR, leadership, and individual behavior and offer practical implications for organizations seeking to leverage CSR for long-term organizational success.

---

References

[1]. 1.Ji T, de Jonge J, Peeters MC, Taris TW. Employee sustainable performance (E-SuPer): Theoretical conceptualization, scale development, and psychometric properties. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 2021; 18(19): 10497. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph181910497

[2]. 2.Ji T, de Jonge J, Peeters MC, Taris TW. Matching job demands and job resources as linear and non-linear predictors of employee vigor and sustainable performance. Human Performance 2024; 37(3): 81-99. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2024.2332683

[3]. 3.De Jonge J, Peeters MC. The vital worker: Towards sustainable performance at work. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 2019; 16(6): 910-922. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16060910

[4]. 4.Iqbal Q, Ahmad NH, Nasim A, Khan SAR. A moderated-mediation analysis of psychological empowerment: Sustainable leadership and sustainable performance. Journal of Cleaner Production 2020; 262: 121429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121429

[5]. 5.Fu F, Zha W, Zhou Q. The Impact of Enterprise Digital Capability on Employee Sustainable Performance: From the Perspective of Employee Learning. Sustainability 2023; 15(17): 12897. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151712897

[6]. 6.Ortiz-Martínez E, Marín-Hernández S, Santos-Jaén JM. Sustainability, corporate social responsibility, non-financial reporting and company performance: Relationships and mediating effects in Spanish small and medium sized enterprises. Sustainable Production and Consumption 2023; 35: 349-364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2022.11.015

[7]. 7.Turker D. Measuring Corporate Social Responsibility: A Scale Development Study. Journal of Business Ethics 2009; 85: 189-204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9780-6

[8]. 8.Silva P, Moreira AC, Mota J. Employees' perception of corporate social responsibility and performance: the mediating roles of job satisfaction, organizational commitment and organizational trust. Journal of Strategy and Management 2023; 16(1): 92-111. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSMA-10-2021-0213

[9]. 9.Cunha S, Proença T, Ferreira MR. Employees perceptions about corporate social responsibility understanding CSR and job engagement through meaningfulness, bottom-up approach and calling orientation. Sustainability 2022; 14(21): 14606. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142114606

[10]. 10.Kallmuenzer A, Bichler B, Petry T, Valeri M. Employee perceptions of corporate social responsibility activities: The case of family firms. European Business Review 2023; 35(5): 600-623. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-09-2022-0171

[11]. 11.Fatima T, Badar K, Waqas M, et al. CSR Communication Matters! An Examination of CSR, Organizational Pride, and Task-Related Pro-Environmental Behavior Nexus. Sustainability 2023; 15(12): 9665-9678. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15129665

[12]. 12.Raza A, Farrukh M, Iqbal MK, et al. Corporate social responsibility and employees' voluntary pro‐environmental behavior: The role of organizational pride and employee engagement. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 2021; 28(3): 1104-1116. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2109

[13]. 13.Yang T, Jiang X, Cheng H. Employee recognition, task performance, and OCB: Mediated and moderated by pride. Sustainability 2022; 14(3): 1631. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031631

[14]. 14.Islam MN, Furuoka F, Idris A. Mapping the relationship between transformational leadership, trust in leadership and employee championing behavior during organizational change. Asia Pacific Management Review 2021; 26(2): 95-102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmrv.2020.09.002

[15]. 15.Kim BJ, Nurunnabi M, Kim TH, Kim T. Doing good is not enough, you should have been authentic: Organizational identification, authentic leadership and CSR. Sustainability 2018; 10(6): 2026. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10062026

[16]. 16.Pasricha P, Nivedhitha KS, Raghuvanshi J. The perceived CSR-innovative behavior conundrum: Towards unlocking the socio-emotional black box. Journal of Business Research 2023; 161(11): 113809. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.113809

[17]. 17.Verhaert GA, Van den Poel D. Empathy as added value in predicting donation behavior. Journal of Business Research 2011; 64(12): 1288-1295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2010.12.024

[18]. 18.Tian Q, Robertson JL. How and when does perceived CSR affect employees’ engagement in voluntary pro-environmental behavior? Journal of Business Ethics 2019; 155(4): 399-412. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3497-3

[19]. 19.Jones DA. Does serving the community also serve the company? Using organizational identification and social exchange theories to understand employee responses to a volunteerism programme. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 2010; 83(4): 857-878. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317909X477495

[20]. 20.Turner JC, Oakes PJ. The significance of the social identity concept for social psychology with reference to individualism, interactionism and social influence. British Journal of Social Psychology 1986; 25(3): 237-252. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1986.tb00732.x

[21]. 21.John A, Qadeer F, Shahzadi G, Jia F. Getting paid to be good: How and when employees respond to corporate social responsibility? Journal of Cleaner Production 2019; 215: 784-795. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019. 01.074

[22]. 22.Widyanti R, Irhamni G, Silvia Ratna B. Organizational justice and organizational pride to achieve job satisfaction and job performance. Journal of Southwest Jiaotong University 2020; 55(3): 1-13. https://doi.org/10.35741/issn.0258-2724.55.3.47

[23]. 23.Chaudhary R. Authentic leadership and meaningfulness at work: role of employees' CSR perceptions and evaluations. Management Decision 2021; 59(8): 2024-2039. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-02-2019-0271

[24]. 24.Raza SA, Khan KA, Hakim F. Whether organizational citizenship behavior is triggered by employee CSR perception and spiritual values: The moderating role of Islamic work ethics. Management Research Review 2024; 47(3): 353-373. https ://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-10-2022-0714

[25]. 25.Chaudhary R, Akhouri A. CSR perceptions and employee creativity: Examining serial mediation effects of meaningfulness and work engagement. Social Responsibility Journal, 2019; 15(1): 61-74. https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-01-2018-0018

[26]. 26.Sturm RE, Jolly P M, Williams SD. It’s a matter of organizational pride: How perceptions of organizational virtuousness and competence affect employee behaviors. Journal of Business and Psychology, 2022; 37(5): 1079-1097. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-021-09786-9

[27]. 27.Yassin Y, Beckmann M. CSR and employee outcomes: A systematic literature review. Management Review Quarterly 2024; 1-47. https ://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-023-00389-7

[28]. 28.Gouthier MH, Rhein M. Organizational pride and its positive effects on employee behavior. Journal of Service Management 2011; 22(5): 633-649. https://doi.org/10.1108/09564231111174988

[29]. 29.Tsachouridi I, Nikandrou I. Organizational virtuousness and spontaneity: A social identity view. Personnel Review 2016; 45(6): 1302-1322. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-09-2014-0192

[30]. 30.Neider LL, Schriesheim CA. The authentic leadership inventory (ALI): Development and empirical tests. The Leadership Quarterly 2011; 22(6): 1146-1164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.09.008

[31]. 31.Zerbini F. CSR initiatives as market signals: A review and research agenda. Journal of Business Ethics 2017; 146(1): 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2922-8

[32]. 32.Ng TW, Yam KC, Aguinis H. Employee perceptions of corporate social responsibility: Effects on pride, embeddedness, and turnover. Personnel Psychology 2019; 72(1): 107-137. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12294

[33]. 33.Hyun MY, Gao L, Lee S. Corporate social responsibility (CSR), ethical climate and pride in membership moderated by casino dealers’ customer orientation. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 2021; 33(10): 3256-3276. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-01-2021-0083

[34]. 34.Chong S, Van Dyne L, Kim YJ, Oh JK. Drive and direction: empathy with intended targets moderates the proactive personality–job performance relationship via work engagement. Applied Psychology 2021; 70(2): 575-605. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12240

[35]. 35.Wut TM, Ng PML. Perceived CSR motives, perceived CSR authenticity, and pro-environmental behavior intention: An internal stakeholder perspective. Social Responsibility Journal 2023; 19(5): 797-811.https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-08-2020-0350

[36]. 36.Ko A, Chan A, Wong SC. A scale development study of CSR: Hotel employees’ perceptions. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 2019; 31(4): 1857-1884. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-09-2017-0560

[37]. 37.Dietz J, Kleinlogel EP. Wage cuts and managers’ empathy: How a positive emotion can contribute to positive organizational ethics in difficult times. Journal of Business Ethic 2014; 119: 461-472. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1836-6

[38]. 38.Li Y, Chen CH. The impact of employee-perceived CSR on organizational citizenship behavior—evidence from China. Asia Pacific Management Review 2023; 28(4): 487-500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmrv.2023.02.003

[39]. 39.Simmering MJ., Fuller CM, Richardson HA, et al. Marker variable choice, reporting, and interpretation in the detection of common method variance: A review and demonstration. Organizational Research Methods 2015; 18(3): 473-511. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114560023

[40]. 40.Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 1951; 16: 297–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555

[41]. 41.Hair Jr JF, Hult GTM, Ringle CM, et al. Mediation analysis. Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) using R: A workbook. Springer; 2021. 139-153 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80519-7_7

[42]. 42.Robinson C, Schumacker RE. Interaction effects: centering, variance inflation factor, and interpretation issues.Multiple Linear Regression Viewpoints 2009; 35(1): 6-11. http://glmj.org/archives/MLRV_2009_35_1.pdf#page=8

[43]. 43.Preacher KJ, Hayes AF. SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers 2004; 36: 717-731. doi:https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/bf03206553

[44]. 44.Niazi A, Qureshi MI, Iftikhar M, Obaid A. The impact of GHRM practices on employee workplace outcomes and organizational pride: a conservation of resource theory perspective. Employee Relations: The International Journal 2024; 46(2): 383-407.https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-05-2023-0249

[45]. 45.Salama WMSM, Khairy HA, Badwy HE, et al. (2024). Sustainable leadership and work behavior in hotel businesses: The influence of perceived environmental corporate social responsibility. Environment and Social Psychology 2024; 9(11): 1-23. https://doi.org/10.59429/esp.v9i11.3251