Next Article in Journal
Cultural Capital of Sea Salt Farming in Ban Laem District of Phetchaburi Province as per the Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems (GIAHS)
Next Article in Special Issue
Global Supply Chain Nervousness (GSCN)
Previous Article in Journal
Water Management and Environmental Engineering: Current Practices and Opportunities
Previous Article in Special Issue
Resilient Supply Chain Framework for Semiconductor Distribution and an Empirical Study of Demand Risk Inference
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 15
10.3390/su151511946
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

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

Employee Performance Implications of CSR for Organizational Resilience in the Banking Industry: The Mediation Role of Psychological Empowerment

by
Paraskevi (Evi) Dekoulou
1,
Anna Anastasopoulou
2 and
Panagiotis Trivellas
2,*
1
Department of Journalism & Mass Communications, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 54625 Thessaloniki, Greece
2
Organisational Innovation & Management Systems Laboratory (ORIMAS LAB), Department of Agribusiness and Supply Chain Management, Agricultural University of Athens, 32200 Thiva, Greece
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(15), 11946; https://doi.org/10.3390/su151511946
Submission received: 30 June 2023 / Revised: 27 July 2023 / Accepted: 28 July 2023 / Published: 3 August 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Building Resilience in the Supply Chain in the Digital Era: The Challenges for Social, Environmental and Economic Sustainability)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) has been found to be important in boosting organizations’ sustainability and resilience against crisis. Although employees constitute key internal stakeholders for CSR, limited attention has been paid to them. The purpose of this research is to examine how employee perceptions of CSR activities affect employee performance through their sense of psychological empowerment. Drawing upon a sample of 203 employees in the Cypriot banking sector, a structured questionnaire was administered to measure employee performance, psychological empowerment, and CSR activities as perceived by employees. The analysis of data, based on path modeling using the partial least squares (PLS) approach, confirms the mediating role of psychological empowerment between CSR activities (philanthropic, ethical, and environmental) and job performance. This study contributes to the theoretical evolvement of the CSR literature, as it established the mediating role that psychological empowerment plays between perceived CSR and job performance. The findings suggest that CSR should be treated not just as a pressing obligation but as a dynamic investment in organizational effectiveness, sustainability, and resilience because positive employee perceptions of CSR can contribute to staff empowerment and indirectly to job performance.

1. Introduction

The concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR) has become increasingly prominent in a growing number of countries in recent years, and it continues attracting intense attention from both academics and practitioners in many industries [1,2,3]. In response to societal pressure and ethical obligations, more and more organizations are seeking to exhibit their commitment to CSR principles and are putting increasing emphasis on the social impact of their activity [4,5]. Future organizations could severely jeopardize their survival if they do not effectively integrate CSR in their corporate strategy and culture [6,7]. Engagement in CSR activities has been shown to be a reliable indicator of how resilient an organization is to the COVID-19 pandemic’s external shock [8]. In addition, according to Harwood et al. [9], CSR programs seem to have the capacity to endure pressure, shock, or change brought on by conflicting priorities and/or resource limitations in an organization. Therefore, it appears that CSR is not only an organizational activity resilient to crises and external pressures [9] but also an activity that helps organizations foster their resilience and cope with and recover from external threats [10,11,12,13,14,15].
Despite the growing body of literature dedicated to CSR, the concept remains complex, since there is not a definition that is accepted worldwide. To conduct the present study, the definition by Aguinis [16] has been adopted. CSR can thus be regarded as entailing “context-specific organizational actions and policies that take into account stakeholders’ expectations and the triple bottom line of economic, social and environmental performance” (p. 855), which can lead to long-term sustainability. Organizations are expected to establish processes enabling close collaboration with their stakeholders in integrating environmental, social, and ethical concerns into their strategy and business operations [17]. According to stakeholder theory [18], organizations are required to responsibly manage an extended web of stakeholder interests, build relationships, and create long-term value for all stakeholders, both internal and external [19]. Even if an organization seeks to satisfy its shareholders as a primary concern, its success can be affected by other stakeholders [20]. Organizational CSR programs should not only take into account customers, suppliers, and other external stakeholders [21] but also include internal activities in which employees can participate [22].
CSR activities focusing on internal stakeholders (internal CSR) has become an essential part of an organization’s social responsibility, as well as a concern for business management and organizational science. Current studies have highlighted the strong association between CSR activities perceived by employees and individual attitudes such as emotional exhaustion and job satisfaction, as well as the positive impact of corporate ethical values on employee work-related attitudes and job performance. Literature reviews on CSR demonstrate that external stakeholders have been more inquired than internal ones [23]. Although employees constitute a key stakeholder group in the context of CSR [24], limited attention has been given to them. The importance of focusing on employees stems from their crucial significance for an organization’s performance and success. Therefore, it is critically important to inquire about the relationship between CSR practices and staff perceptions of CSR [25], as well as their impact on employee behaviors and work outcomes [23]. Although CSR has been associated with many positive employee outcomes, its impact on individual performance [26,27,28] and psychological empowerment [29] has not been extensively investigated.
In spite of the growing attention given to CSR practices in many industries, CSR initiatives in the banking sector have received limited attention from researchers until now [30]. However, the concept of CSR and its impact on stakeholders is particularly important in dynamic and stigmatized industries [23,31] such as banking. Since the financial crisis of 2008/2009, bank institutions have been more interested in CSR practices [32]. Banks, which were held at least partly responsible for this crisis, have sought to restore their credibility and consumers’ trust and to reinforce their corporate identity by investing in CSR initiatives [33]. Banks are expected to foster society’s well-being by enacting sustainability strategies and are required to combine their concern for profit with socially responsible behavior [34].
The present paper focuses on the exploration of the association between employee perceptions of CSR, psychological empowerment, and job performance within the banking sector, where internal marketing and the adoption of CSR practices positively affect not only employee job satisfaction and organizational commitment [35,36] but also all groups of stakeholders [37]. More specifically, the present study examines whether employee perceptions of CSR influence job performance (RQ1) and psychological empowerment (RQ2), as well as whether psychological empowerment affects job performance (RQ3). According to Harwood et al. [9], the most common reason for undertaking CSR was “it’s just the right thing to do”, indicating relational and moral motives that go beyond pure instrumentalism. By investing in CSR activities, banks strengthen their organizational resilience in general. Organizational resilience refers to the capacity of an organization to anticipate, respond to, and recover from unforeseen occurrences in emergency situations and in challenging, unpredictable, and dangerous settings while attempting to sustain its functions and results [38,39,40,41]. Banks need to achieve this to restore their bond with their stakeholders, especially within their own organization, as employees are not only organizational members but also citizens and members of society.
The Section 2 presents the literature around this topic and the research hypotheses. Then, the research methodology is described and the results are presented. The article concludes with a discussion of the results, implications for practitioners and directions for future research.

2. Theoretical Background and Literature Review

2.1. Examining Human Resource Management Benefits of CSR Perceptions

Contemporary organizations are increasingly aware of the strategic significance of CSR to improve their business decisions and results [42,43,44]. The notion of CSR entails not only compliance with legislation but also ongoing contributions to society’s well-being; thus, CSR initiatives impact not only profit seeking groups such as shareholders, but also customers, employees, and the local community [23]. Organizations can enact both internal CSR practices related to improving working conditions and external CSR practices related to environmental protection and economic and social development [45]. Organizations that have integrated CSR into their strategy are regarded more favorably by stakeholders.
CSR and the concept of stakeholder theory can be regarded as critical notions when inquiring about the role of business in society, and their relationship has been studied for many decades [46]. According to stakeholder theory, managers are required to take into account the values, wants, and expectations of their key stakeholders [47], i.e., any individual or group that can affect or be affected by the organization’s activity. An organization’s value and performance can be critically affected by the strategic actions organized to satisfy the interests and expectations of different stakeholder groups [48,49]. More specifically, CSR actions focusing on the well-being of the internal stakeholders (e.g., employees, managers), the most influential groups in an organization [50], could strengthen employee performance and loyalty, which in turn could boost the organization’s financial performance [51,52]. Moreover, employees can significantly impact external stakeholders’ perceptions about the organization, favorably affecting the corporate image and reputation as well as customer satisfaction [53,54]. Employees appreciate working for organizations that are regarded as ethical, in terms of both how they treat their employees and how they engage with the community [55]. Since employees are crucial to an organization’s success, their positive attitude and the support of organizational actions are of critical interest to the upper management [56].
According to the stakeholder approach, organizations are expected to play a prolific role in broader society by investing in CSR actions. Employee perceptions of CSR activities can be defined as the degree to which employees perceive that an organization supports activities related to society’s well-being [57]. The present study has adopted an approach with three dimensions of employee perceptions of CSR activities: philanthropic CSR, ethical CSR, and environmental CSR [58]. The first CSR dimension, philanthropy, can be described as the voluntary offering of resources to solve social problems and benefit or help people and local communities without pursuing personal gains. Ethical CSR entails practices that improve the workplace and enforce fairer treatment for employees in ways that go above and beyond what an organization is legally required to do [59]. Finally, environmental CSR is related to the impact of an organization’s actions on the ecosystem and the need for constant efforts to reduce the eventual damaging effects of business processes on the natural environment [60].
HRM can significantly contribute to the development as well as the execution of CSR strategies due to its growing critical influence on an organization’s relationships with employees [61,62]. Sustainability in the workplace is becoming an issue of increasing significance for human resource management [63]. The way employees view CSR actions can influence the perceptions of the organization and could lead to changes in their behavior [64]. Aguilera et al. [65] underline that employees’ perceptions of firms’ CSR posture positively affect their willingness to participate in and contribute to firms’ activities. Perceptions of CSR practices influence both employee attitudes and behaviors [66,67]. Branco and Rodrigues [68] have associated CSR activities with a significant number of internal benefits: (i) increased staff motivation, morale, commitment, and loyalty to the organization, (ii) reduced staff turnover, (iii) positive employee attitudes regarding workplace quality, and (iv) improved job performance and operational efficiency. Valentine and Fleischman [55] and Mansour et al. [36] have found a positive correlation between perceptions of CSR and job satisfaction. Ali et al. [1] and Shaikh et al. [69] highlight a favorable relationship between perceptions of CSR and employee commitment, while other studies have linked such perceptions directly with employee performance [28,70,71,72]. Confirming the positive impact of CSR on employee commitment and morale, Porter and Kramer [19] stress that employees appear willing to work harder and for less when they work for socially responsible organizations. Similar studies have linked high CSR performance with increased employer attractiveness [73].

2.2. Psychological Empowerment and Its Implications on HRM Outcomes

Psychological capital and empowerment can be regarded as the keys to better understanding the enablers for building a sustainable workplace [74]. Empowerment can be described as a psychological phenomenon that should be felt by employees instead of obliging them to be empowered. Oladipo [75] portrays psychological empowerment as an individual’s cognitive state characterized by perceived control, competence, and goal internalization. Psychological empowerment entails employee perceptions of the extent to which they can perform their work in an independent and self-effective way [76]. Seibert et al. [77] consider it as an “intrinsic task motivation reflecting a sense of control in relation to one’s work and an active orientation to one’s work role” (p. 981). Maynard et al. [78] stress that psychological empowerment is a state of consciousness perceived by employees and reflects employee perceptions, wants, and feelings about the possibilities of shaping their work role. It is not something that an organization does or imposes on its employees but a frame of mind that staff members have regarding their role in the organization, a type of intrinsic motivation.
Psychological empowerment manifests in four major dimensions: meaning, competence, self-determination, and impact [79]. Meaning describes how well employee perceptions and values fit job requirements. Competence reflects the degree of confidence regarding employees’ skills, enabling them to fulfill his/her duties successfully [80]. Self-determination describes employees’ sense of having a choice to initiate and regulate work processes. Impact describes the degree to which an employee believes that they can influence activities and outcomes at work [81].

2.3. Job Performance

Human capital is a major source of competitiveness for contemporary organizations [82], a significant contributor to increased organizational performance [23], and a central pillar of success [83] and organizational resilience [84]. Employees show that the quality of products/services and their well-being are related to job performance [25]. Employee performance can be defined as the degree to which the level of one’s productivity meets the organization’s standards of performance [85]; it is related to one’s ability to effectively perform a certain job compared to what the employee is expected to do [86]. Job satisfaction and organizational commitment have an impact on transformational leadership with respect to employee performance. Individual performance refers to employee results and behaviors that are associated with and contribute to organizational goals [87] and entails that all employees’ work achievements are accomplished in the process of undertaking work responsibilities [88]. Employee performance can be categorized into in-role behavior, referring to task performance, and extra-role behavior, referring to contextual performance [89]. Task performance includes behaviors and outcomes achieved by employees instead of the monetary benefits they receive [90]. Contextual performance entails roles and voluntary actions that are not officially prescribed but contribute to the social and psychological core of an organization and generate great corporate benefits [91].

3. Research Hypotheses

3.1. CSR Employee Perceptions and Job Performance

Although CSR practices have been positively associated with diverse employee outcomes, their link with individual performance has not been extensively investigated [28]. By investing in CSR initiatives, contemporary organizations seek not only to enhance their corporate image but also to attract and retain high-potential employees as a major contributor to organizational success [92,93]. The majority of organizations do not invest in CSR initiatives as a means to strengthen individual performance, since the degree to which staff members perceive whether their organization enacts CSR policies is not regarded as a direct performance enabler [94]. It is highly expected that employee perceptions of CSR impact their psychological states or other work outcomes, which in turn affect their job performance [95]. There is strong evidence of relationships between perceptions of CSR and employee engagement, commitment, job satisfaction, and emotional exhaustion [69,96,97,98,99,100,101].
On the other hand, there are a number of studies that have revealed a positive relationship between CSR and employee performance indicators [71,72,102]. Employees working for socially responsible organizations are more likely to have positive attitudes about their organization and work more productively on its behalf, increase their output, and achieve higher sales and net income per person [103]. Perceived CSR is positively related to employees’ innovative behavior [104]. CSR scholars argue that employee perceptions of CSR reinforce their pride in being members of the organization, which in turn strengthens their connection and affective attachment to the organization and, as a result, stimulates innovative staff behavior [105,106]. If employees find their work meaningful, organizations could significantly reduce their annual operating expenses [107]. Employees enjoy being involved in work that gives meaning to their lives [108]. Meaningfulness at work is a critical psychological process that strengthens and stabilizes the social identification of employees with their peers and the overall organization [109]. Boadi et al. [93] underline that employees exhibit favorable behavior toward their employer organization in exchange for positive social behavior demonstrated by the organization. Staff members working for socially responsible organizations experience significant intrinsic rewards such as motivation and job satisfaction [110] and are expected to reward an organization’s CSR initiatives through their performance and pride [111,112]. Εmployee perceptions of CSR are highly akin to self-identification with the organization [113]; employee identification has been found to be positively associated with both work motivation and performance [114].
Therefore, in response to RQ1, the following hypothesis was formulated:
H1: 
Employee perceptions of CSR activities are positively associated with job performance.
H1a: 
Employee perceptions of philanthropic CSR activities are positively associated with job performance.
H1b: 
Employee perceptions of ethical CSR activities are positively associated with job performance.
H1c: 
Employee perceptions of environmental CSR activities are positively associated with job performance.

3.2. CSR Employee Perceptions and Psychological Empowerment

The role of employees could be considered a critical factor for the integration of sustainability in corporate strategy and effective CSR management [108,115]. Staff members are often engaged voluntarily in CSR activities motivated by their consciousness of sustainability [116]. Based on the concept of green work–life balance, Muster and Schrader [117] highlight a mutual influence among sustainability-oriented perceptions, values, and attitudes in private life and behavior in the workplace. This is in congruence with social identity theory, implying a desired agreement between personal and professional values and attitudes. People have many social identities, and they need to be identified in a positive way [118,119,120]. Therefore, the more positively an identity is seen, the more salient this identity is. When employees recognize values that are expressed by the organization through CSR activities that have a positive impact on society, their identification with the organization gets stronger. They feel that they share common values with the organizations, they feel attached to the organization they work for, and they can even define themselves through this identification. Moreover, the literature describes sustainability-oriented employees as having an intrinsic motivation to protect the environment and contribute to ecological, social, and economic prosperity through work [77,116,121].
Harrach et al. [29] have defined a specific form of psychological empowerment, named sustainability empowerment; it describes employees’ engagement in CSR initiatives by “reflecting his/her sense of control in relation to his/her work in the context of sustainability” (p. 96). Sustainability could be considered a critical motivator for sustainability-oriented employees who work for organizations investing in CSR initiatives [122]. Individuals who are regularly offered opportunities to get engaged in an organization’s CSR activities and contribute in this way to environmental, economic and social prosperity appear more empowered. Fostering sustainability-oriented competencies is an additional enabler of sustainability empowerment; building employee competence and developing their skills through education and training programs favor psychological empowerment and employee retention [123]. Sustainability self-determination reflects employees’ degree of freedom to bring sustainability-related aspects of their personality to work. The more an organization integrates its employees into sustainable development, the more empowered they feel [108]. Finally, the impact of sustainability is related to the perceived degree to which employees can influence sustainability outcomes at work. The greater the influence exerted by an employee on CSR strategy and activities in the workplace, the more empowered the employee. Forsgren and Haskell [124] have confirmed the positive effect of an organization’s CSR activities on intrinsic employee motivation. Kariri and Radwan [74] underline the fact that staff members with high levels of psychological empowerment are expected to be more determined to participate in organizational activities that contribute to the well-being of their community.
Therefore, in response to RQ2, the following hypothesis was suggested:
H2: 
Employee perceptions of CSR activities have a positive impact on psychological empowerment.
H2a: 
Employee perceptions of philanthropic CSR activities have a positive impact on psychological empowerment.
H2b: 
Employee perceptions of ethical CSR activities have a positive impact on psychological empowerment.
H2c: 
Employee perceptions of environmental CSR activities have a positive impact on psychological empowerment.

3.3. Psychological Empowerment and Job Performance

Researchers have been paying close attention to the relationship between psychological empowerment and job performance since it is widely accepted that empowerment is a key driver of individual and, consequently, organizational performance [77]. Azeem et al. [125] and Fong and Snape [126] highlight a significant positive impact on job performance. Psychologically empowered employees have been found to exhibit positive attitudes and increased performance [127,128]. Since employees feel good about their job and recognize the importance of their work as well as its impact on others, they achieve greater performance [129]. Moreover, employees who have decision-making control and flexibility in the workplace, feel satisfied with their professional life, and perceive themselves as proficient in performing their duties are expected to perform better [130].
According to the psychological empowerment theory, empowered employees exhibit a more positive orientation towards their work [131] and tend to achieve increased performance compared to employees who are not empowered. Bartram and Casimir [132] and Meyerson and Kline [133] have revealed a strong positive impact exerted by psychological empowerment on the in-role performance of employees. In alignment with the arguments of Siachou and Gkorezis [134], psychological empowerment reinforces employees’ capacity to absorb knowledge, and this further improves job performance. Moreover, psychological empowerment fosters self-efficacy and intrinsic task motivation, both of which are positively associated with job performance [135]. More specifically, Bartram et al. [136] have found that psychological empowerment is a significant predictor of job performance in the context of the banking industry. Psychological empowerment also positively influences job performance through the mediation of job satisfaction [137,138]. Individuals with high levels of job satisfaction hold positive feelings about their job and are, in turn, motivated to strive to perform well by increasing their work quality and quantity [139].
Therefore, in response to RQ3, the following hypothesis was tested:
H3: 
Psychological empowerment has a positive impact on job performance.
The present study examined the full conceptual model illustrated in Figure 1.

4. Method

4.1. Participants

The research population includes employees working for banks situated in Cyprus, in particular, three out of the five existing banks, which substantially and regularly invest in CSR initiatives. The field research was carried out in 2019 using a structured self-administered questionnaire. The survey tool was tested twice by six staff members from different banks. In total, 203 fully completed questionnaires were obtained (response rate 40.6%). Characteristics of the sample are shown in Table 1.

4.2. Measures

In this study, as illustrated in Table 2, employees’ perceived CSR activities were measured on a 14-item scale based on a synthesis of existing scales [140,141,142] and empirically validated by Lee, Park, and Lee [57].
The psychological empowerment scale was adopted by Spreitzer’s [76,79] research. The individual in-role performance scale was based on Williams and Anderson’s [143] recommendations. In addition, gender, age, education level, working experience, hierarchical level, and annual wage served as control variables for our research design, and no significant effects were detected.

5. Results

Data were analyzed through path modeling using the partial least squares (PLS) approach and the Smart PLS 3 software [144,145]. A strong advantage of the PLS approach compared to covariance-based structural equation modeling is its ability to deal with situations where little is known about the distribution of the latent variables, the requirements about the closeness between estimates and the data that is met, and the sample size is too small [146]. More specifically, a minimum sample size that is ten times the largest number of structural paths directed at a particular construct in the inner path model is recommended [147]. Thus, the sample of our study meets the minimum requirements of PLS. In the present research model, all first-order factors are constructs specified with reflective indicators.
First, the validity and reliability of the constructs in the measurement model were evaluated. All constructs exhibited CR and Cronbach’s alpha greater than the minimum acceptable level of 0.70 [148], as illustrated in Table 3.
Fornell and Larcker’s [148] criterion of average variance extracted (AVE) is adopted for the estimation of scales’ convergent validity. As shown in Table 1, all scales met this criterion, since the AVE value of each latent variable is higher than 0.50 [149]. In addition, the factor loadings of all items on their respective constructs are greater than 0.739 (p < 0.01), surpassing the 0.70 cut-off value [147], while their loadings on unrelated constructs are less than 0.40, designating adequate convergent validity.
Discriminant validity was examined using Fornell and Larcker’s [148] AVE test and the correlation criterion. As shown in Table 1, all constructs demonstrated adequate discriminant validity since the diagonal elements, which are the square roots of the AVEs, are greater than the off-diagonal elements (correlations) in the corresponding rows and columns.
The path relationships (standardized coefficients) of the model were estimated by performing PLS [144,145]. The bootstrapping procedure was conducted to evaluate the structural model and in particular the statistical significance of all parameter estimates.
The results confirmed moderate R2 values in our study for all organizational aspects following Chin’s [150] recommendations (R-square = 0.232 for psychological empowerment and R-square = 0.279 for job performance). No serious problems of multicollinearity exist between the independent variables, as the Variance Inflation Factors (VIF) are far below the five-point limit suggested in the social sciences literature. Regarding the indices of model fit, the SRMR is 0.092, and the NFI is close to 0.9 (0.896), reflecting satisfactory model fit for the proposed model.
The results of the parameter estimation (path coefficients, level of significance) are shown in Table 4 and illustrated in Figure 2.
The results presented in Table 4 indicate that all aspects of employee perceptions of CSR activities are related to job performance, but only through psychological empowerment. In particular, all three dimensions of CSR (philanthropic, ethical, and environmental) are significantly related to psychological empowerment (std. beta = 0.175, p < 0.01, std. beta = 0.220, p < 0.01. and std. beta = 0.180, p < 0.05, respectively). On the contrary, statistically significant direct associations between CSR activities and job performance failed to be detected. Thus, in response to RQ2 and RQ1, accordingly, H2a, H2b, and H2c are supported, while hypotheses H1a, H1b, and H1c are not supported in the presence of psychological empowerment. Concerning RQ3, psychological empowerment (EMPOWER) is strongly associated with job performance (std. beta = 0.536, p < 0.001). Therefore, hypothesis H3 is confirmed. Hence, the aforementioned relationships imply that psychological empowerment may act as a mediator between employee perceptions of CSR activities and individual performance.
Results examining the indirect effects in the proposed model are shown in the following Table 5, confirming the statistically significant indirect effect of CSR activities on job performance.

6. Discussion

This study sheds light on the relationships among employee perceptions about CSR activities, psychological empowerment, and job performance in the banking sector in Cyprus. In response to RQ2, our findings are in congruence with studies stressing that an organization’s engagement in CSR activities strengthens employee empowerment since they find greater meaningfulness at work [107,122,151,152]. Farid et al. [153], Gao et al. [154], and Glavas [122] consider CSR as a crucial factor favoring employee cooperative behavior and engagement in work. Employees who consider their organization as socially responsible feel more aligned with organizational goals and appear more empowered to utilize their potential to contribute to the achievement of these goals. Furthermore, contributing to sustainability values and public welfare helps employees feel good about themselves [155]. Our results have also confirmed the findings of the study carried out by Valentine and Godkin [156] in the banking and financial service sector, which indicated that an organization’s engagement in CSR exerts a positive correlation with employee commitment and a negative association with turnover intention.
Following a similar pattern, McShane and Cunningham [157] highlight the key role of employees as ambassadors and actual enactors of organizational CSR, while Collier and Esteban [158] assert the dependence of organizations on employee empowerment for the fruitful implementation of CSR programs. Our results are also in alignment with the findings of research carried out by De Roeck et al. [159], Lee and Seo [160], and Ng et al. [106], according to which perceived CSR is positively associated with employee pride in the organization. Pride emerges when employees are given information, fostering a favorable appraisal of their organizational membership. Employees are highly motivated to seek pride in their membership in pursuit of improved self-evaluation and higher social status. Pride increases when staff members feel that their employer tends to go beyond what average organizations do [161], since this satisfies employees’ ideological need to contribute to society’s well-being [155,162]. From an employee perspective, participating in CSR practices represents an adequate way to contribute to society through one’s work [163]; this significantly strengthens employees’ sense of the meaningfulness of work [73,164]. Employees combine perceived CSR with an organization’s willingness to invest resources in serving stakeholders’ interests. An organization engaging in CSR is highly regarded as one that has ethical core values such as respect, trust, and honesty and that implements a fair management approach towards all groups of stakeholders [52,72,165]. As Su Mi Dahlgaard-Park [166] confirms, ethical organizational values are incorporated along with employee psychological needs and are positively related to employee motivation, empowerment, and loyalty.
In response to RQ1, the present research does not concur with studies that have detected a direct impact of employee perceptions about CSR on employee performance indicators [1,71,72,102,167]. This study shows that employee perceptions of CSR indirectly influence their performance through the mediation of psychological empowerment. Socially responsible organizations that create value for their stakeholders and show concern about their well-being favorably affect individual performance. Employees do realize the critical significance of CSR practices, and this reinforces their identification with the organization they work for. Employees identify strongly with organizations they perceive as being socially responsible [61,168]. Organizations that invest in CSR have high perceived external prestige in the eyes of their staff members [169], who feel prouder and put in extra effort in pursuit of optimum performance. The present research provides support for those studies underlining that engagement in CSR should not be regarded by organizations as a means to directly boost individual performance, since employee perceptions of CSR are expected to impact their psychological states and work attitudes, which in turn influence individual performance [94,95]. Moreover, this inquiry is in total agreement with studies that have indicated psychological empowerment as a significant antecedent of individual performance [130,170]. Empowered employees who can skillfully perform their work and feel good about it, recognize the importance of their work and its impact on others, and have control over their work behaviors tend to achieve greater performance.
In response to RQ3, although the study conducted by Bose [171] in the banking sector failed to discover a significant relationship between employee empowerment and performance, the present study has verified the opposite. This result confirms previous studies [172,173,174] that have revealed empowerment’s direct effect on individual performance. Psychological empowerment is a powerful mechanism used by numerous organizations in pursuit of positive employee behaviors [175]. Empowered employees feel “ownership” of their job, and this gives them more incentive to perform above average. Moreover, empowered employees feel that they are of great value to the organization and derive satisfaction from their engagement in a meaningful job [36]; they perceive themselves as important assets and psychologically identify with the organization [176]. Increased organizational identification [177,178] contributes to enhanced job satisfaction [179,180,181].

7. Implications

The majority of published studies exploring perceived CSR and employee behavior have focused on organizational commitment [45,151], organizational identification [69,113,159,182], organizational trust [183,184], and job satisfaction [25,55,92,185]. The present study provided empirical evidence to the small body of research that has examined the impact of perceptions of CSR on job performance [23,23,28]. By reaching this result and identifying the mediating role of psychological empowerment in the link between employee perceptions of CSR and their job performance, this study contributes to the theoretical evolution of the CSR literature, as it has provided a new clear route from perceived CSR to job performance. In addition, this study has discerned the three sub-dimensions of CSR (philanthropic, ethical, environmental) and examined the effect of each sub-dimension on employee empowerment.
This study also suggests practical recommendations for managers in contemporary banking institutions. Managers should concern themselves with employee perceptions of organizational CSR activities. Our findings highlight that it is critically important for managers to understand that positive employee perceptions of CSR can contribute to staff empowerment, trust in the organization, and individual performance. Since employee perceptions of their organization significantly contribute to positive employee behaviors [186], managers are expected to fully understand how staff members interpret and respond to organizational CSR policies. The results can offer managers a useful insight that CSR should not be treated as a pressing obligation but as a dynamic investment for organizational effectiveness, sustainability, and resilience. By participating in CSR activities, banking organizations enable their staff members to feel that their employer accomplishes socially valuable acts, and therefore, their meaningfulness of work can be significantly reinforced. From this perspective, CSR could play a crucial role in reinforcing the bond between the organization and its staff, especially for employees in the banking industry who are not strongly motivated to enhance their performance [171].
Moreover, employee empowerment is of vital significance for organizations providing services, since customers and employees interact simultaneously in the production of the service; thus, employees are responsible for the quality of service delivered to customers. Enhancing banks’ employee performance through psychological empowerment should be regarded as a strategic priority, and CSR could be utilized as a dynamic mechanism for attaining this objective. Furthermore, since various banking institutions offer similar services and products, competition is no longer just about price [187]; in the current highly competitive banking industry, managers are required to build and maintain a positive internal and external brand image, as well as effective relationships with all groups of stakeholders, including employees. Therefore, it is of critical importance to investigate and cultivate factors such as psychological empowerment in the staff. In addition, in order for banking institutions to cope with intense competition, and to sustain their long-run sustainability and resilience, they are required to embrace creativity and innovation, especially from the employees. Takeuchi and Shibata [188] highlight that creativity is hard to imitate when generated as a result of employees’ tacit knowledge. However, the banking sector can be regarded as a risk-averse sector, implying that employee creativity is not highly encouraged [123]. Employees’ positive perceptions of an organization’s CSR activities and their involvement in such activities can favorably induce their creativity and innovative behavior.
It is meaningful that organizations not only develop and implement CSR policies, but also communicate CSR efforts to both external and internal stakeholders. A rather effective strategy to raise awareness in internal stakeholders, and mainly in employees, is to involve them in CSR initiatives; this could strengthen employee attitudes towards their organization and job [168]. However, organizations need to show sincerity about their socially responsible practices and avoid being hypocritical about the impact of their CSR action, since greenwashing could harm relationships with both external and internal stakeholders [189].

8. Conclusions

The main objective of the present study was to examine the impact of employees’ perceptions of CSR on psychological empowerment and job performance. The findings suggest that the adoption of CSR initiatives by banking institutions is important and rather promising, since when employees perceive that their organization takes part in socially responsible actions, they appear more empowered and strongly motivated to exhibit superior performance at work. Employee perceptions of CSR enhance their job performance not directly but indirectly, with psychological empowerment playing an important mediating role.
CSR, as highlighted by Harwood et al. [9], seems to be a resilient mechanism. The robustness of CSR activities has been questioned during periods of economic hardship, especially by the media (e.g., [190]), since such activities could be regarded as rather resource-consuming. However, it appears that CSR actions are considered by stakeholders as simply “the right thing to do”, regardless of recessions, economic pressures, or other crises. Although CSR initiatives have no direct link to the profitability of an organization and theoretically could be among the first costs that could be constrained in difficult economic times for organizations, there seems to be a need to be maintained and thus to highlight the added social value for organizations.

9. Limitations and Future Directions

The present study has certain limitations that could be ideally resolved in future research. Primary data were collected from only one industry, the banking industry, which has been blamed for the long-term financial crisis that the EU has been facing since 2008. Results might have been different in a less stigmatized industry, and CSR initiatives might not be considered to be as crucial by employees. Moreover, our findings have shown that psychological empowerment acts as a mediator in the relationship between employee CSR perceptions and individual performance. Future research is needed to examine the conditions under which this mediator is stronger. For this reason, incorporating additional potential mediators such as leadership style, organizational culture, and climate is advisable in pursuit of a better understanding of how employee perceptions of CSR can indirectly impact individual performance. Finally, a subsequent inquiry could investigate whether/how various employee characteristics (e.g., hierarchical level, age, educational level, and work experience) affect employee perceptions of CSR and their impact on their job performance.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization and theoretical framework, P.D., P.T. and A.A.; methodology, P.T. and P.D.; software, P.T.; data analysis and discussion, P.D., P.T. and A.A.; data collection and entry, P.D. and P.T.; supervision, P.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

We acknowledge the support for this work from the project “SMART AGRICULTURE AND CIRCULAR BIO-ECONOMY—SmartBIC” (MIS MIS5047106), which is implemented under the Action “Reinforcement of the Research and Innovation Infrastructure”, funded by the Operational Programme “Competitiveness, Entrepreneurship and Innovation” (NSRF 2014–2020) and co-financed by Greece and the European Union (European Regional Development Fund).

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was carried out in accordance to the 23 points of the Declaration of Helsinki of 1975 (revised in 2013) and meets all the standards and guidelines followed in research ethics by the Agricultural University of Athens (https://www2.aua.gr/sites/default/files/contentpage_attachedfiles/politiki_prostasias_prosopikon_dedomenon_gpa_0.pdf) accessed on 1 May 2023.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy reasons.

Acknowledgments

Preliminary findings of this research have been presented in the 21st QMOD Conference on Quality and Service Sciences that was held in Cardiff 22–24 August 2018. Moreover, we acknowledge support for this work from the project “SMART AGRICULTURE AND CIRCULAR BIO-ECONOMY—SmartBIC” (MIS MIS5047106), which is implemented under the Action “Reinforcement of the Research and Innovation Infrastructure”, funded by the Operational Programme “Competitiveness, Entrepreneurship and Innovation” (NSRF 2014–2020) and co-financed by Greece and the European Union (European Regional Development Fund).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Ali, H.Y.; Asrar-ul-Haq, M.; Amin, S.; Noor, S.; Haris-ul-Mahasbi, M.; Aslam, M.K. Corporate Social Responsibility and Employee Performance: The Mediating Role of Employee Engagement in the Manufacturing Sector of Pakistan. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2020, 27, 2908–2919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. 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]
  3. Kiliç, M.; Kuzey, C.; Uyar, A. The Impact of Ownership and Board Structure on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Reporting in the Turkish Banking Industry. Corp. Gov. 2015, 15, 357–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Adu-Gyamfi, M.; He, Z.; Nyame, G.; Boahen, S.; Frempong, M.F. Effects of Internal CSR Activities on Social Performance: The Employee Perspective. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Moratis, L. The Credibility of Corporate CSR Claims: A Taxonomy Based on ISO 26000 and a Research Agenda. Total Qual. Manag. Bus. Excell. 2017, 28, 147–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Melo, T.; Garrido-Morgado, A. Corporate Reputation: A Combination of Social Responsibility and Industry: Corporate Reputation as a Result of Multidimensional CSR. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Mgmt. 2012, 19, 11–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Arabeche, Z.; Soudani, A.; Brahmi, M.; Aldieri, L.; Vinci, C.P.; Abdelli, M.E.A. Entrepreneurial Orientation, Organizational Culture and Business Performance in SMEs: Evidence from Emerging Economy. Sustainability 2022, 14, 5160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Huang, W.; Chen, S.; Nguyen, L.T. Corporate Social Responsibility and Organizational Resilience to COVID-19 Crisis: An Empirical Study of Chinese Firms. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Harwood, I.; Humby, S.; Harwood, A. On the Resilience of Corporate Social Responsibility. Eur. Manag. J. 2011, 29, 283–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Johannessen, Å.; Rosemarin, A.; Thomalla, F.; Gerger Swartling, Å.; Axel Stenström, T.; Vulturius, G. Strategies for Building Resilience to Hazards in Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) Systems: The Role of Public Private Partnerships. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2014, 10, 102–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Rodríguez-Sánchez, A.; Guinot, J.; Chiva, R.; López-Cabrales, Á. How to Emerge Stronger: Antecedents and Consequences of Organizational Resilience. J. Manag. Organ. 2021, 27, 442–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Peña-Miranda, D.D.; Guevara-Plaza, A.; Fraiz-Brea, J.A.; Camilleri, M.A. Corporate Social Responsibility Model for a Competitive and Resilient Hospitality Industry. Sustain. Dev. 2022, 30, 433–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Kanji, R.; Agrawal, R. Exploring the Use of Corporate Social Responsibility in Building Disaster Resilience through Sustainable Development in India: An Interpretive Structural Modelling Approach. Prog. Disaster Sci. 2020, 6, 100089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Chen, C.-D.; Su, C.-H.J.; Chen, M.-H. Are ESG-Committed Hotels Financially Resilient to the COVID-19 Pandemic? An Autoregressive Jump Intensity Trend Model. Tour. Manag. 2022, 93, 104581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Han, Z.; Jiang, S.; Zheng, Z.; Jin, Y. Doing Good Right: Building Resilience through Donations during the Pandemic. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2023. ahead-of-print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Aguinis, H. Organizational Responsibility: Doing Good and Doing Well. In APA Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol 3: Maintaining, Expanding, and Contracting the Organization; Zedeck, S., Ed.; American Psychological Association: Washington, DC, USA, 2011; pp. 855–879. ISBN 978-1-4338-0734-3. [Google Scholar]
  17. Baron, D.P. A Positive Theory of Moral Management, Social Pressure, and Corporate Social Performance. J. Econ. Manag. Strategy 2009, 18, 7–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Freeman, R.E. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2010; ISBN 978-0-521-15174-0. [Google Scholar]
  19. Porter, M.E.; Kramer, M.R. The Link between Competitive Advantage and Corporate Social Responsibility. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2006, 84, 78–92. [Google Scholar]
  20. Alniacik, U.; Alniacik, E.; Genc, N. How Corporate Social Responsibility Information Influences Stakeholders’ Intentions. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2011, 18, 234–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Tian, Q.; Liu, Y.; Fan, J. The Effects of External Stakeholder Pressure and Ethical Leadership on Corporate Social Responsibility in China. J. Manag. Organ. 2015, 21, 388–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Koch, C.; Bekmeier-Feuerhahn, S.; Bögel, P.M.; Adam, U. Employees’ Perceived Benefits from Participating in CSR Activities and Implications for Increasing Employees Engagement in CSR. Corp. Commun. Int. J. 2019, 24, 303–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Silva, P.; Moreira, A.C.; Mota, J. Employees’ Perception of Corporate Social Responsibility and Performance: The Mediating Roles of Job Satisfaction, Organizational Commitment and Organizational Trust. J. Strat. Manag. 2023, 16, 92–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Slack, R.E.; Corlett, S.; Morris, R. Exploring Employee Engagement with (Corporate) Social Responsibility: A Social Exchange Perspective on Organisational Participation. J. Bus. Ethics 2015, 127, 537–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Lee, Y.-K.; Kim, Y.S.; Lee, K.H.; Li, D. The Impact of CSR on Relationship Quality and Relationship Outcomes: A Perspective of Service Employees. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2012, 31, 745–756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Jamali, D.; Karam, C. Corporate Social Responsibility in Developing Countries as an Emerging Field of Study: CSR in Developing Countries. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2018, 20, 32–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Rupp, D.E.; Mallory, D.B. Corporate Social Responsibility: Psychological, Person-Centric, and Progressing. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2015, 2, 211–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Story, J.S.P.; Castanheira, F. Corporate Social Responsibility and Employee Performance: Mediation Role of Job Satisfaction and Affective Commitment. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2019, 26, 1361–1370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Harrach, C.; Geiger, S.; Schrader, U. Sustainability Empowerment in the Workplace: Determinants and Effects. Sustain. Manag. Forum Nachhalt. 2020, 28, 93–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. El Sayad, S.; Diab, A. Bank Employee Perceptions of Corporate Social Responsibility Practices: Evidence from Egypt. Sustainability 2022, 14, 1862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Rahiman, H.U.; Kodikal, R.; Biswas, S.; Hariharasudan, A. A Meta-Analysis of Emotional Intelligence and Organizational Commitment. Pol. J. Manag. Stud. 2020, 22, 418–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Marin, L.; Ruiz, S.; Rubio, A. The Role of Identity Salience in the Effects of Corporate Social Responsibility on Consumer Behavior. J. Bus. Ethics 2009, 84, 65–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Bravo, R.; Buil, I.; Chernatony, L.D.; Martínez, E. Brand Identity Management and Corporate Social Responsibility: An Analysis from Employees’ Perspective in the Banking Sector. J. Bus. Econ. Manag. 2017, 18, 241–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Paulet, E. Banking Ethics. Corp. Gov. Int. J. Bus. Soc. 2011, 11, 293–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Bailey, A.A.; Albassami, F.; Al-Meshal, S. The Roles of Employee Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment in the Internal Marketing-Employee Bank Identification Relationship. Int. J. Bank Mark. 2016, 34, 821–840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Mansour, M.; Alaghbari, M.A.; Beshr, B.; Al-Ghazali, B.M. Perceived CSR on Career Satisfaction: A Moderated Mediation Model of Cultural Orientation (Collectivism and Masculinity) and Organisational Pride. Sustainability 2023, 15, 5288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Wong, H.; Wong, R. Corporate Social Responsibility Practices in Banking Industry. J. Manag. Res. 2015, 7, 205–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Annarelli, A.; Nonino, F. Strategic and Operational Management of Organizational Resilience: Current State of Research and Future Directions. Omega 2016, 62, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Barasa, E.; Mbau, R.; Gilson, L. What Is Resilience and How Can It Be Nurtured? A Systematic Review of Empirical Literature on Organizational Resilience. Int. J. Health Policy Manag. 2018, 7, 491–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Duchek, S. Organizational Resilience: A Capability-Based Conceptualization. Bus. Res. 2020, 13, 215–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Vogus, T.J.; Sutcliffe, K.M. Organizational Resilience: Towards a Theory and Research Agenda. In Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Montreal, QC, Canada, 7–10 October 2007; pp. 3418–3422. [Google Scholar]
  42. Newman, A.; Nielsen, I.; Miao, Q. The Impact of Employee Perceptions of Organizational Corporate Social Responsibility Practices on Job Performance and Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Evidence from the Chinese Private Sector. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2015, 26, 1226–1242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Siegel, D.S.; Vitaliano, D.F. An Empirical Analysis of the Strategic Use of Corporate Social Responsibility. J. Econ. Manag. Strategy 2007, 16, 773–792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Franzoni, S.; Sarwar, H.; Ishaq, M.I. The Mediating Role of HRM in the Relationship between CSR and Performance in the Hospitality Industry. Sustainability 2021, 13, 13699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Turker, D. How Corporate Social Responsibility Influences Organizational Commitment. J. Bus. Ethics 2009, 89, 189–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Kakabadse, N.K.; Rozuel, C.; Lee-Davies, L. Corporate Social Responsibility and Stakeholder Approach: A Conceptual Review. Int. J. Bus. Gov. Ethics 2005, 1, 277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Taghian, M.; D’Souza, C.; Polonsky, M. A Stakeholder Approach to Corporate Social Responsibility, Reputation and Business Performance. Soc. Responsib. J. 2015, 11, 340–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Ferrell, O.C.; Gonzalez-Padron, T.L.; Hult, G.T.M.; Maignan, I. From Market Orientation to Stakeholder Orientation. J. Public Policy Mark. 2010, 29, 93–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Wing-Hung Lo, C.; Fryxell, G.E.; Tang, S.-Y. Stakeholder Pressures from Perceived Environmental Impacts and the Effect on Corporate Environmental Management Programmes in China. Environ. Politics 2010, 19, 888–909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Rupp, D.E.; Ganapathi, J.; Aguilera, R.V.; Williams, C.A. Employee Reactions to Corporate Social Responsibility: An Organizational Justice Framework. J. Organiz. Behav. 2006, 27, 537–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. 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]
  52. Berniak-Woźny, J.; Kwasek, A.; Gąsiński, H.; Maciaszczyk, M.; Kocot, M. Business Case for Corporate Social Responsibility in Small and Medium Enterprises—Employees’ Perspective. Sustainability 2023, 15, 1660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Javed, M.; Rashid, M.A.; Hussain, G.; Ali, H.Y. The Effects of Corporate Social Responsibility on Corporate Reputation and Firm Financial Performance: Moderating Role of Responsible Leadership. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. 2020, 27, 1395–1409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Singal, M. Corporate Social Responsibility in the Hospitality and Tourism Industry: Do Family Control and Financial Condition Matter? Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2014, 36, 81–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Valentine, S.; Fleischman, G. Ethics Programs, Perceived Corporate Social Responsibility and Job Satisfaction. J. Bus. Ethics 2008, 77, 159–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Spitzeck, H.; Hansen, E.G. Stakeholder Governance: How Stakeholders Influence Corporate Decision Making. Corp. Gov. Int. J. Bus. Soc. 2010, 10, 378–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Lee, E.M.; Park, S.-Y.; Lee, H.J. Employee Perception of CSR Activities: Its Antecedents and Consequences. J. Bus. Res. 2013, 66, 1716–1724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Carroll, A.B. A Three-Dimensional Conceptual Model of Corporate Performance. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1979, 4, 497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Nussbaum, A.K. Ethical Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and the Pharmaceutical Industry: A Happy Couple? J. Med. Mark. 2009, 9, 67–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Babiak, K.; Trendafilova, S. CSR and Environmental Responsibility: Motives and Pressures to Adopt Green Management Practices. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2011, 18, 11–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. 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]
  62. Jamali, D.R.; El Dirani, A.M.; Harwood, I.A. Exploring Human Resource Management Roles in Corporate Social Responsibility: The CSR-HRM Co-Creation Model. Bus. Ethics Eur. Rev. 2015, 24, 125–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Khusanova, R.; Choi, S.B.; Kang, S.-W. Sustainable Workplace: The Moderating Role of Office Design on the Relationship between Psychological Empowerment and Organizational Citizenship Behaviour in Uzbekistan. Sustainability 2019, 11, 7024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. Turner, M.R.; McIntosh, T.; Reid, S.W.; Buckley, M.R. Corporate Implementation of Socially Controversial CSR Initiatives: Implications for Human Resource Management. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 2019, 29, 125–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Aguilera, R.V.; Rupp, D.E.; Williams, C.A.; Ganapathi, J. Putting the S Back in Corporate Social Responsibility: A Multilevel Theory of Social Change in Organizations. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2007, 32, 836–863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Santana, M.; Morales-Sánchez, R.; Pasamar, S. Mapping the Link between Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and Human Resource Management (HRM): How Is This Relationship Measured? Sustainability 2020, 12, 1678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. You, C.-S.; Huang, C.-C.; Wang, H.-B.; Liu, K.-N.; Lin, C.-H.; Tseng, J.-S. The Relationship between Corporate Social Responsibility, Job Satisfaction, and Organizational Commitment. Int. J. Organ. Innov. 2013, 5, 65. [Google Scholar]
  68. Branco, M.C.; Rodrigues, L.L. Corporate Social Responsibility and Resource-Based Perspectives. J. Bus. Ethics 2006, 69, 111–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Shaikh, E.; Brahmi, M.; Thang, P.C.; Watto, W.A.; Trang, T.T.N.; Loan, N.T. Should I Stay or Should I Go? Explaining the Turnover Intentions with Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), Organizational Identification and Organizational Commitment. Sustainability 2022, 14, 6030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Montgomery, D.B.; Ramus, C.A. Calibrating MBA Job Preferences for the 21st Century. Acad. Manag. Learn. Educ. 2011, 10, 9–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Reklitis, P.; Trivellas, P.; Mantzaris, I.; Mantzari, E.; Reklitis, D. Employee Perceptions of Corporate Social Responsibility Activities and Work-Related Attitudes: The Case of a Greek Management Services Organization. In Sustainability and Social Responsibility: Regulation and Reporting; Gal, G., Akisik, O., Wooldridge, W., Eds.; Accounting, Finance, Sustainability, Governance & Fraud: Theory and Application; Springer: Singapore, 2018; pp. 225–240. ISBN 978-981-10-4502-8. [Google Scholar]
  72. Trivellas, P.; Rafailidis, A.; Polychroniou, P.; Dekoulou, P. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and Its Internal Consequences on Job Performance: The Influence of Corporate Ethical Values. Int. J. Qual. Serv. Sci. 2019, 11, 265–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Kim, H.; Hur, W.-M.; Yeo, J. Corporate Brand Trust as a Mediator in the Relationship between Consumer Perception of CSR, Corporate Hypocrisy, and Corporate Reputation. Sustainability 2015, 7, 3683–3694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Kariri, H.D.H.; Radwan, O.A. The Influence of Psychological Capital on Individual’s Social Responsibility through the Pivotal Role of Psychological Empowerment: A Study Towards a Sustainable Workplace Environment. Sustainability 2023, 15, 2720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Oladipo, S.E. Psychological Empowerment and Development. Edo J. Couns. 2009, 2, 118–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Spreitzer, G.M. Psychological Empowerment in the Workplace: Dimensions, Measurement, and Validation. Acad. Manag. J. 1995, 38, 1442–1465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Seibert, S.E.; Wang, G.; Courtright, S.H. Antecedents and Consequences of Psychological and Team Empowerment in Organizations: A Meta-Analytic Review. J. Appl. Psychol. 2011, 96, 981–1003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  78. Maynard, M.T.; Gilson, L.L.; Mathieu, J.E. Empowerment—Fad or Fab? A Multilevel Review of the Past Two Decades of Research. J. Manag. 2012, 38, 1231–1281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Spreitzer, G.M. Social Structural Characteristics of Psychological Empowerment. Acad. Manag. J. 1996, 39, 483–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Dewettinck, K.; Van Ameijde, M. Linking Leadership Empowerment Behaviour to Employee Attitudes and Behavioural Intentions: Testing the Mediating Role of Psychological Empowerment. Pers. Rev. 2011, 40, 284–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  81. Zhou, H.; Chen, J. How Does Psychological Empowerment Prevent Emotional Exhaustion? Psychological Safety and Organizational Embeddedness as Mediators. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 546687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Campbell, B.A.; Coff, R.; Kryscynski, D. Rethinking Sustained Competitive Advantage from Human Capital. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2012, 37, 376–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  83. Mishra, S.; Singh, S.; Tripathy, P. Linkage Between Employee Satisfaction and Employee Performance: A Case in Banking Industry. Glob. Bus. Rev. 2020, 0, 097215092097035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Douglas, S. Building Organizational Resilience through Human Capital Management Strategy. Dev. Learn. Organ. Int. J. 2021, 35, 19–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Diamantidis, A.D.; Chatzoglou, P. Factors Affecting Employee Performance: An Empirical Approach. Int. J. Prod. Perform. Manag. 2019, 68, 171–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Eliyana, A.; Ma’arif, S. Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment Effect in the Transformational Leadership towards Employee Performance. Eur. Res. Manag. Bus. Econ. 2019, 25, 144–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Vel, V.; Park, I.; Liu, J. The Effect of Enterprise Crowdsourcing Systems on Employees’ Innovative Behavior and Job Performance. In Proceedings of the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences 2018 (HICSS-51), Hilton Waikoloa Village, HI, USA, 3–6 January 2018. [Google Scholar]
  88. Jalalkamali, M.; Ali, A.J.; Hyun, S.S.; Nikbin, D. Relationships between Work Values, Communication Satisfaction, and Employee Job Performance: The Case of International Joint Ventures in Iran. Manag. Decis. 2016, 54, 796–814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Goodman, S.A.; Svyantek, D.J. Person–Organization Fit and Contextual Performance: Do Shared Values Matter. J. Vocat. Behav. 1999, 55, 254–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Yang, C.-L.; Hwang, M. Personality Traits and Simultaneous Reciprocal Influences between Job Performance and Job Satisfaction. Chin. Manag. Stud. 2014, 8, 6–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Ingusci, E.; Spagnoli, P.; Zito, M.; Colombo, L.; Cortese, C. Seeking Challenges, Individual Adaptability and Career Growth in the Relationship between Workload and Contextual Performance: A Two-Wave Study. Sustainability 2019, 11, 422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  92. Asrar-ul-Haq, M.; Kuchinke, K.P.; Iqbal, A. The Relationship between Corporate Social Responsibility, Job Satisfaction, and Organizational Commitment: Case of Pakistani Higher Education. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 142, 2352–2363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Boadi, E.A.; He, Z.; Darko, D.F.; Abrokwah, E. Unlocking from Community Stakeholders, Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Projects for Effective Company–Community Relationship. Labor Hist. 2018, 59, 746–762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Shin, I.; Hur, W.-M.; Kang, S. Employees’ Perceptions of Corporate Social Responsibility and Job Performance: A Sequential Mediation Model. Sustainability 2016, 8, 493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  95. 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] [Green Version]
  96. Chaudhary, R. Corporate Social Responsibility and Employee Engagement: Can CSR Help in Redressing the Engagement Gap? Soc. Responsib. J. 2017, 13, 323–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Gupta, N.; Sharma, V. The Relationship between Corporate Social Responsibility and Employee Engagement and Its Linkage to Organizational Performance: A Conceptual Model. IUP J. Organ. Behav. 2016, 15, 59. [Google Scholar]
  98. Trivellas, P.; Dekoulou, P.; Polychroniou, P.; Tokakis, V. Which Leadership Roles Modify Employee Perceptions of CSR Activities? Job Satisfaction Implications in the Case of the Tourism Industry. Int. J. Qual. Serv. Sci. 2021, 13, 618–636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Pinto, L. A Qualitative Analysis of Corporate Social Responsibility in Saudi Arabia’s Service Sector-Practices and Company Performance. Sustainability 2023, 15, 9284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Reklitis, P.; Fotiadis, A.; Trivellas, P. Emotional Exhaustion and Perceived Corporate Social Responsibility: A Case Study of a Port Logistics Organization. In Strategic Innovative Marketing; Sakas, D.P., Nasiopoulos, D.K., Eds.; Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 17–24. ISBN 978-3-030-16098-2. [Google Scholar]
  101. Reklitis, P.; Fotiadis, A.; Trivellas, P. Perceived Corporate Social Responsibility and Job Satisfaction in a Port Logistics Organization. In Strategic Innovative Marketing; Sakas, D.P., Nasiopoulos, D.K., Eds.; Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 9–16. ISBN 978-3-030-16098-2. [Google Scholar]
  102. Chen, Y.-R.R.; Hung-Baesecke, C.-J.F. Examining the Internal Aspect of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): Leader Behavior and Employee CSR Participation. Commun. Res. Rep. 2014, 31, 210–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Sun, L.; Yu, T.R. The Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on Employee Performance and Cost. Rev. Account. Financ. 2015, 14, 262–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Pasricha, P.; Nivedhitha, K.S.; Raghuvanshi, J. The Perceived CSR-Innovative Behavior Conundrum: Towards Unlocking the Socio-Emotional Black Box. J. Bus. Res. 2023, 161, 113809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Abdelmotaleb, M.; Mohamed Metwally, A.B.E.; Saha, S.K. Exploring the Impact of Being Perceived as a Socially Responsible Organization on Employee Creativity. Manag. Decis. 2018, 56, 2325–2340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Ng, T.W.H.; Yam, K.C.; Aguinis, H. Employee Perceptions of Corporate Social Responsibility: Effects on Pride, Embeddedness, and Turnover. Pers. Psychol. 2019, 72, 107–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  107. Nazir, O.; Islam, J.U. Effect of CSR Activities on Meaningfulness, Compassion, and Employee Engagement: A Sense-Making Theoretical Approach. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2020, 90, 102630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Lamm, E.; Tosti-Kharas, J.; King, C.E. Empowering Employee Sustainability: Perceived Organizational Support Toward the Environment. J. Bus. Ethics 2015, 128, 207–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Fletcher, L.; Schofield, K. Facilitating Meaningfulness in the Workplace: A Field Intervention Study. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2021, 32, 2975–3003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Young, H.R.; Glerum, D.R.; Wang, W.; Joseph, D.L. Who Are the Most Engaged at Work? A Meta-Analysis of Personality and Employee Engagement. J. Organ. Behav. 2018, 39, 1330–1346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Riketta, M. Attitudinal Organizational Commitment and Job Performance: A Meta-Analysis. J. Organ. Behav. 2002, 23, 257–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Zhao, L.; Lee, J.; Moon, S. Employee Response to CSR in China: The Moderating Effect of Collectivism. Pers. Rev. 2019, 48, 839–863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Senasu, K.; Virakul, B. The Effects of Perceived CSR and Implemented CSR on Job-Related Outcomes: An HR Perspective. J. East West Bus. 2015, 21, 41–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Van Knippenberg, D. Work Motivation and Performance: A Social Identity Perspective. Appl. Psychol. 2000, 49, 357–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. De Roeck, K.; Maon, F. Building the Theoretical Puzzle of Employees’ Reactions to Corporate Social Responsibility: An Integrative Conceptual Framework and Research Agenda. J. Bus. Ethics 2018, 149, 609–625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Blazejewski, S.; Dittmer, F.; Graef, A.; Herbes, C. Pro-Environmental Intrapreneurship: The Role of Life-Work Identity Spill-over Effects. Acad. Manag. Proc. 2014, 2014, 13656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Muster, V.; Schrader, U. Green Work-Life Balance: A New Perspective for Green HRM. Ger. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2011, 25, 140–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Ashforth, B.E.; Mael, F. Social Identity Theory and the Organization. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1989, 14, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Paruzel, A.; Danel, M.; Maier, G.W. Scrutinizing Social Identity Theory in Corporate Social Responsibility: An Experimental Investigation. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 580620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. 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] [Green Version]
  121. Ciocirlan, C.E. Environmental Workplace Behaviors: Definition Matters. Organ. Environ. 2017, 30, 51–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Glavas, A. Corporate Social Responsibility and Employee Engagement: Enabling Employees to Employ More of Their Whole Selves at Work. Front. Psychol. 2016, 7, 796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  123. Ahmad, M.; Raziq, M.M.; Rehman, W.U.; Allen, M.M.C. High-Performance Work Practices and Organizational Performance in Pakistan. Int. J. Manpow. 2019, 41, 318–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Forsgren, A.; Haskell, L. The Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on Intrinsic and Extrinsic Employee Motivation: A Mixed-Method Study of Sodexo; Umeå School of Business and Economics: Umeå, Sweden, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  125. Azeem, M.M.; Abrar, M.; Bashir, M.; Zubair, A. Impact of Organizational Justice and Psychological Empowerment on Perceived Organizational Performance: The Mediating Role of Organizational Citizenship Behaviour. Am. J. Ind. Bus. Manag. 2015, 05, 272–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  126. Fong, K.H.; Snape, E. Empowering Leadership, Psychological Empowerment and Employee Outcomes: Testing a Multi-Level Mediating Model: Leadership and Empowerment. Br. J. Manag. 2015, 26, 126–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Ugwu, F.O.; Onyishi, I.E.; Rodríguez-Sánchez, A.M. Linking Organizational Trust with Employee Engagement: The Role of Psychological Empowerment. Pers. Rev. 2014, 43, 377–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Wallace, J.C.; Johnson, P.D.; Mathe, K.; Paul, J. Structural and Psychological Empowerment Climates, Performance, and the Moderating Role of Shared Felt Accountability: A Managerial Perspective. J. Appl. Psychol. 2011, 96, 840–850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Chiang, C.-F.; Hsieh, T.-S. The Impacts of Perceived Organizational Support and Psychological Empowerment on Job Performance: The Mediating Effects of Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2012, 31, 180–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Liden, R.C.; Wayne, S.J.; Sparrowe, R.T. An Examination of the Mediating Role of Psychological Empowerment on the Relations between the Job, Interpersonal Relationships, and Work Outcomes. J. Appl. Psychol. 2000, 85, 407–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  131. Dust, S.B.; Resick, C.J.; Mawritz, M.B. Transformational Leadership, Psychological Empowerment, and the Moderating Role of Mechanistic-Organic Contexts: Transformational Leadership and Empowerment. J. Organiz. Behav. 2014, 35, 413–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Bartram, T.; Casimir, G. The Relationship between Leadership and Follower In-role Performance and Satisfaction with the Leader: The Mediating Effects of Empowerment and Trust in the Leader. Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J. 2007, 28, 4–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Meyerson, S.L.; Kline, T.J.B. Psychological and Environmental Empowerment: Antecedents and Consequences. Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J. 2008, 29, 444–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Siachou, E.; Gkorezis, P. Do Empowered Employees Absorb Knowledge?: An Empirical Investigation of the Effects of Psychological Empowerment Dimensions on Absorptive Capacity. Manag. Res. Rev. 2014, 37, 130–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Çetin, F.; Aşkun, D. The Effect of Occupational Self-Efficacy on Work Performance through Intrinsic Work Motivation. Manag. Res. Rev. 2018, 41, 186–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Bartram, T.; Cooper, B.; Cooke, F.L.; Wang, J. High-Performance Work Systems and Job Performance: The Mediating Role of Social Identity, Social Climate and Empowerment in Chinese Banks. Pers. Rev. 2021, 50, 285–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Ayoub, D.; Al-Akhras, D.; Na’anah, G.; Al-Madadha, A. The Relationship Between Psychological Empowerment and Creative Performance of Employees: Mediating Effect of Job Satisfaction in International Non-Governmental Organizations. Eur. Sci. J. 2018, 14, 217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Sun, X. Psychological Empowerment on Job Performance—Mediating Effect of Job Satisfaction. Psychology 2016, 7, 584–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  139. Riketta, M. The Causal Relation between Job Attitudes and Performance: A Meta-Analysis of Panel Studies. J. Appl. Psychol. 2008, 93, 472–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Lichtenstein, D.R.; Drumwright, M.E.; Braig, B.M. The Effect of Corporate Social Responsibility on Customer Donations to Corporate-Supported Nonprofits. J. Mark. 2004, 68, 16–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Maignan, I.; Ferrell, O.C. Antecedents and Benefits of Corporate Citizenship: An Investigation of French Businesses. J. Bus. Res. 2001, 51, 37–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Montgomery, C.; Stone, G. Revisiting Consumer Environmental Responsibility: A Five Nation Cross-Cultural Analysis and Comparison of Consumer Ecological Opinions and Behaviors. Int. J. Manag. Mark. Res. 2009, 2, 35–58. [Google Scholar]
  143. Williams, L.J.; Anderson, S.E. Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment as Predictors of Organizational Citizenship and In-Role Behaviors. J. Manag. 1991, 17, 601–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Ringle, C.; Wende, S.; Becker, J. SmartPLS 3 [Software]; SmartPLS: Bönningstedt, Germany, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  145. Ringle, C.M.; Wende, S.; Will, A.S. 2.0 (M3) Beta; University of Hamburg: Hamburg, Germany, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  146. Fornell, C.; Cha, J. Partial Least Squares. In Advanced Methods of Marketing Research; Basil Blackwell: Cambridge, UK, 1994; pp. 52–78. [Google Scholar]
  147. Barclay, D.; Higgins, C.; Thompson, R. The Partial Least Squares (PLS) Approach to Causal Modeling: Personal Computer Adoption and Use as an Illustration. Technol. Stud. 1995, 2, 285–323. [Google Scholar]
  148. 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]
  149. Henseler, J.; Ringle, C.M.; Sinkovics, R.R. The Use of Partial Least Squares Path Modeling in International Marketing. In Advances in International Marketing; Sinkovics, R.R., Ghauri, P.N., Eds.; Emerald Group Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2009; Volume 20, pp. 277–319. ISBN 978-1-84855-468-9. [Google Scholar]
  150. Chin, W.W. The Partial Least Squares Approach for Structural Equation Modeling. In Modern Methods for Business Research; Methodology for business and management; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 1998; pp. 295–336. ISBN 978-0-8058-2677-7. [Google Scholar]
  151. 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] [Green Version]
  152. Caligiuri, P.; Mencin, A.; Jiang, K. Win-Win-Win: The Influence of Company-Sponsored Volunteerism Programs on Employees, NGOs, and Business Units. Pers. Psychol. 2013, 66, 825–860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Farid, T.; Iqbal, S.; Ma, J.; Castro-González, S.; Khattak, A.; Khan, M.K. Employees’ Perceptions of CSR, Work Engagement, and Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Mediating Effects of Organizational Justice. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 1731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  154. Gao, Y.; Zhang, D.; Huo, Y. Corporate Social Responsibility and Work Engagement: Testing a Moderated Mediation Model. J. Bus. Psychol. 2018, 33, 661–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Grant, A.M.; Dutton, J.E.; Rosso, B.D. Giving Commitment: Employee Support Programs and The Prosocial Sensemaking Process. Acad. Manag. J. 2008, 51, 898–918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Valentine, S.; Godkin, L. Banking Employees’ Perceptions of Corporate Social Responsibility, Value-Fit Commitment, and Turnover Intentions: Ethics as Social Glue and Attachment. Empl. Responsib. Rights J. 2017, 29, 51–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. McShane, L.; Cunningham, P. To Thine Own Self Be True? Employees’ Judgments of the Authenticity of Their Organization’s Corporate Social Responsibility Program. J. Bus. Ethics 2012, 108, 81–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Collier, J.; Esteban, R. Corporate Social Responsibility and Employee Commitment. Bus. Ethics 2007, 16, 19–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. De Roeck, K.; El Akremi, A.; Swaen, V. Consistency Matters! How and When Does Corporate Social Responsibility Affect Employees’ Organizational Identification?: How and When Does CSR Affect Identification? J. Manag. Stud. 2016, 53, 1141–1168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Lee, S.-Y.; Seo, Y. Corporate Social Responsibility Motive Attribution by Service Employees in the Parcel Logistics Industry as a Moderator between CSR Perception and Organizational Effectiveness. Sustainability 2017, 9, 355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  161. Tsachouridi, I.; Nikandrou, I. Organizational Virtuousness and Spontaneity: A Social Identity View. Pers. Rev. 2016, 45, 1302–1322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Aguinis, H.; Glavas, A. On Corporate Social Responsibility, Sensemaking, and the Search for Meaningfulness through Work. J. Manag. 2019, 45, 1057–1086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. 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] [Green Version]
  164. Cunha, S.; Proença, T.; Ferreira, M.R. Employees Perceptions about Corporate Social Responsibility—Understanding CSR and Job Engagement through Meaningfulness, Bottom-Up Approach and Calling Orientation. Sustainability 2022, 14, 14606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Thornton, M.A.; Rupp, D.E. The Joint Effects of Justice Climate, Group Moral Identity, and Corporate Social Responsibility on the Prosocial and Deviant Behaviors of Groups. J. Bus. Ethics 2016, 137, 677–697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. Dahlgaard-Park, S.M. Core Values—The Entrance to Human Satisfaction and Commitment. Total Qual. Manag. Bus. Excell. 2012, 23, 125–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Dhanesh, G.S. CSR as Organization–Employee Relationship Management Strategy: A Case Study of Socially Responsible Information Technology Companies in India. Manag. Commun. Q. 2014, 28, 130–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Farooq, O.; Payaud, M.; Merunka, D.; Valette-Florence, P. The Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on Organizational Commitment: Exploring Multiple Mediation Mechanisms. J. Bus. Ethics 2014, 125, 563–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  169. Hameed, I.; Riaz, Z.; Arain, G.A.; Farooq, O. How Do Internal and External CSR Affect Employees’ Organizational Identification? A Perspective from the Group Engagement Model. Front. Psychol. 2016, 7, 788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  170. Degago, E. A Study on Impact of Psychological Empowerment on Employee Performance in Small and Medium Scale Enterprise Sectors. Eur. J. Bus. Manag. 2014, 6, 60–71. [Google Scholar]
  171. Bose, I. Employee Empowerment and Employee Performance: An Empirical Study on Selected Banks in UAE. J. Appl. Manag. Invest. 2018, 7, 71–82. [Google Scholar]
  172. Fernandez, S.; Moldogaziev, T. Employee Empowerment, Employee Attitudes, and Performance: Testing a Causal Model. Public Admin. Rev. 2013, 73, 490–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  173. Kundu, S.C.; Kumar, S.; Gahlawat, N. Empowering Leadership and Job Performance: Mediating Role of Psychological Empowerment. Manag. Res. Rev. 2019, 42, 605–624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  174. Meyerson, G.; Dewettinck, B. Effect of Empowerment on Employees Performance. Adv. Res. Econ. Manag. Sci. 2012, 2, 40–46. [Google Scholar]
  175. Akgunduz, Y.; Bardakoglu, O. The Impacts of Perceived Organizational Prestige and Organization Identification on Turnover Intention: The Mediating Effect of Psychological Empowerment. Curr. Issues Tour. 2017, 20, 1510–1526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  176. Suifan, T.S.; Diab, H.; Alhyari, S.; Sweis, R.J. Does Ethical Leadership Reduce Turnover Intention? The Mediating Effects of Psychological Empowerment and Organizational Identification. J. Hum. Behav. Soc. Environ. 2020, 30, 410–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  177. Riketta, M. Organizational Identification: A Meta-Analysis. J. Vocat. Behav. 2005, 66, 358–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  178. Walumbwa, F.O.; Mayer, D.M.; Wang, P.; Wang, H.; Workman, K.; Christensen, A.L. Linking Ethical Leadership to Employee Performance: The Roles of Leader–Member Exchange, Self-Efficacy, and Organizational Identification. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 2011, 115, 204–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  179. Judge, T.A.; Thoresen, C.J.; Bono, J.E.; Patton, G.K. The Job Satisfaction–Job Performance Relationship: A Qualitative and Quantitative Review. Psychol. Bull. 2001, 127, 376–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  180. Rigopoulou, I.; Theodosiou, M.; Katsikea, E.; Perdikis, N. Information Control, Role Perceptions, and Work Outcomes of Boundary-Spanning Frontline Managers. J. Bus. Res. 2012, 65, 626–633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  181. Zimmerman, R.D.; Darnold, T.C. The Impact of Job Performance on Employee Turnover Intentions and the Voluntary Turnover Process: A Meta-analysis and Path Model. Pers. Rev. 2009, 38, 142–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  182. Jones, D.A.; Willness, C.R.; Madey, S. Why Are Job Seekers Attracted by Corporate Social Performance? Experimental and Field Tests of Three Signal-Based Mechanisms. Acad. Manag. J. 2014, 57, 383–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  183. George, N.A.; Aboobaker, N.; Edward, M. Corporate Social Responsibility and Organizational Commitment: Effects of CSR Attitude, Organizational Trust and Identification. Soc. Bus. Rev. 2020, 15, 255–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  184. Zhao, X.; Wu, C.; Chen, C.C.; Zhou, Z. The Influence of Corporate Social Responsibility on Incumbent Employees: A Meta-Analytic Investigation of the Mediating and Moderating Mechanisms. J. Manag. 2022, 48, 114–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  185. Chatzopoulou, E.-C.; Manolopoulos, D.; Agapitou, V. Corporate Social Responsibility and Employee Outcomes: Interrelations of External and Internal Orientations with Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment. J. Bus. Ethics 2022, 179, 795–817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  186. Rego, A.; Leal, S.; Cunha, M.P.; Faria, J.; Pinho, C. How the Perceptions of Five Dimensions of Corporate Citizenship and Their Inter-Inconsistencies Predict Affective Commitment. J. Bus. Ethics 2010, 94, 107–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  187. Mihai Yiannaki, S. CSR’s Role within Banking in the Post Financial Crisis. Adapt. Options Glob. Netw. Chang. Dev. Prof. Pract. 2010, 4, 22–24. [Google Scholar]
  188. Takeuchi, H.; Shibata, T. Japan, Moving toward a More Advanced Knowledge Economy: Volume 2. Advanced Knowledge-Creating Companies; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2006; ISBN 978-0-8213-6674-5. [Google Scholar]
  189. Gatti, L.; Pizzetti, M.; Seele, P. Green Lies and Their Effect on Intention to Invest. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 127, 228–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  190. Northhedge, R. Recession Is Excuse for Companies to Ignore Community Conscience. The Independent, 14 June 2009. [Google Scholar]
Sustainability 15 11946 g001
Figure 1. Conceptual model.
Figure 1. Conceptual model.
Sustainability 15 11946 g001
Sustainability 15 11946 g002
Figure 2. Results of path analysis. Dotted lines designate non-significant paths, Standardized estimated values significant at * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. n.s. (nonsignificant).
Figure 2. Results of path analysis. Dotted lines designate non-significant paths, Standardized estimated values significant at * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. n.s. (nonsignificant).
Sustainability 15 11946 g002
Table 1. Sample composition.
Table 1. Sample composition.
GenderMale47.2%
Female52.8%
Age18–240%
25–3417.8%
35–4440.6%
45–5437.6%
55–644.0%
Educational levelSecondary education20.8%
Bachelor’s degree68.3%
Master’s degree10.9%
Doctoral degree0%
Work experience<1 year1.0%
1–5 years2.5%
6–10 years15.8%
11–20 years39.6%
>20 years 41.1%
Monthly income<EUR 8000%
EUR 801–EUR 120017.8%
EUR 1201–EUR 160016.3%
EUR 1601–EUR 200020.3%
EUR 2001–EUR 300038.1%
>EUR 30007.4%
Table 2. Measurement Scales.
Table 2. Measurement Scales.
VariableScaleExample Items
Perceived CSRSynthesis of existing scales: Lichtenstein et al. [140]; Maignan and Ferrell [141]; Montgomery and Stone [142]
Empirically validated by Lee, Park and Lee [57]		“My company helps solve social problems” (philanthropic); “My company emphasizes the importance of its social responsibilities to its employees” (ethical); “My company tries to offer environmentally friendly products” (environmental)
Psychological empowermentSpreitzer [76,79]“The work that I do is very important to me” (meaning); “I have mastered the skills necessary for my job” (competence); “I have significant autonomy in determining how I do my job” (self-determination); “I have significant influence over what happens in my department” (impact)
Job performanceWilliams and Anderson [143]“I can competently complete assigned work”; “I can perform the duties of my job description”; “I never neglect my job responsibilities”
Table 3. Results of reliability and convergent and discriminant validity analysis of all scales.
Table 3. Results of reliability and convergent and discriminant validity analysis of all scales.
MeanstdCACRAVE12345
CSR activities4.681.1260.9670.9480.9060.952
(1) CSR philanthropic5.760.9650.8450.7250.6470.6060.805
(2) CSR Ethical4.971.2950.9210.8940.7000.5300.5170.837
(3) CSR environmental5.200.7710.9050.8820.5460.3830.4600.4110.739
(4) Empowerment5.880.6710.9430.9200.8060.2310.1970.1240.4540.898
(5) Job performance4.681.1260.9670.9480.9060.952
CA: Cronbach’s alpha, CR: Composite reliability, AVE: Average variance extracted.
Table 4. Results of PSL analysis of the full structural model (path coefficients).
Table 4. Results of PSL analysis of the full structural model (path coefficients).
Path EstimatesSig.Hypothesis
CSR_PHIL → J_PERF−0.1150.1631aNot supported
CSR_ETHIC → J_PERF−0.0190.8361bNot supported
CSR_ENVIR → J_PERF0.0840.2111cNot supported
CSR_PHIL → EMPOWER0.1750.0062aSupported
CSR_ETHIC → EMPOWER0.2200.0032bSupported
CSR_ENVIR → EMPOWER0.1800.0122cSupported
EMPOWER → J_PERF0.5360.0003Supported
CSR_PHIL: Philanthropic CSR activities, CSR_ETHIC: Ethical CSR activities, CSR_ENVIR: Environmental CSR activities, EMPOWER: Psychological Empowerment, J_PERF: Job performance.
Table 5. Results of the PLS analysis (indirect effects).
Table 5. Results of the PLS analysis (indirect effects).
Original Sample (O)Sig.
CSR_PHIL → EMPOWER → J_PERF0.0940.005Indirect effectSupported
CSR_ETHIC → EMPOWER → J_PERF0.1180.005Indirect effectSupported
CSR_ENVIR → EMPOWER → J_PERF0.0960.013Indirect effectSupported
CSR_PHIL: Philanthropic CSR activities, CSR_ETHIC: Ethical CSR activities, CSR_ENVIR: Environmental CSR activities, EMPOWER: Psychological Empowerment, J_PERF: Job performance.
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

Dekoulou, P.; Anastasopoulou, A.; Trivellas, P. Employee Performance Implications of CSR for Organizational Resilience in the Banking Industry: The Mediation Role of Psychological Empowerment. Sustainability 2023, 15, 11946. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151511946

AMA Style

Dekoulou P, Anastasopoulou A, Trivellas P. Employee Performance Implications of CSR for Organizational Resilience in the Banking Industry: The Mediation Role of Psychological Empowerment. Sustainability. 2023; 15(15):11946. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151511946

Chicago/Turabian Style

Dekoulou, Paraskevi (Evi), Anna Anastasopoulou, and Panagiotis Trivellas. 2023. "Employee Performance Implications of CSR for Organizational Resilience in the Banking Industry: The Mediation Role of Psychological Empowerment" Sustainability 15, no. 15: 11946. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151511946

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