Factors of Internal Corporate Social Responsibility and its Effect on Organizational Commitment

This article was downloaded by: [University of Nebraska, Lincoln]
On: 03 September 2015, At: 06:34

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: 5 Howick Place, London, SW1P 1WG
The International Journal of Human

Resource Management
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rijh20
Factors of internal corporate social

responsibility and the effect on
organizational commitment
a a b
Linda Mory , Bernd W. Wirtz & Vincent Göttel
a
Chair for Information and Communication Management, German
University of Administrative Sciences, Speyer, Germany
b
German Research Institute for Public Administration, Speyer,
Germany
Published online: 27 Aug 2015.
Click for updates
To cite this article: Linda Mory, Bernd W. Wirtz & Vincent Göttel (2015): Factors of internal
corporate social responsibility and the effect on organizational commitment, The International
Journal of Human Resource Management, DOI: 10.1080/09585192.2015.1072103
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2015.1072103
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 06:34 03 September 2015
The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 2015
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2015.1072103
Factors of internal corporate social responsibility and the effect on

organizational commitment
Linda Morya,1, Bernd W. Wirtza* and Vincent Göttelb,2
a
Chair for Information and Communication Management, German University of Administrative
Sciences, Speyer, Germany; bGerman Research Institute for Public Administration, Speyer,
Germany
Internal corporate social responsibility (CSR) has become an essential part of
organizations’ social responsibility. Yet, to date, CSR’s internal dimension has been
widely neglected in the literature. This paper empirically explores the concept of
internal CSR and its relationship to employees’ affective and normative organizational
commitment. For conceptualizing internal CSR, seven factors are theoretically derived
based on social exchange theory. The research model is initially tested through a pre-
test consisting of 386 respondents from a German company active in the renewable
energy sector. The main survey is carried out in an international pharmaceutical
company, resulting in 2081 employee responses. The results reveal that the relevant
factors constituting internal CSR are present and that the latter has a strong effect on
employees’ affective organizational commitment and a comparatively low effect
on normative organizational commitment. Furthermore, a mediating role of affective
on normative organizational commitment is detected.
Keywords: corporate social responsibility; employees; internal stakeholders; social
exchange theory; structural equation modelling
Introduction
Today, developing and implementing overall corporate social responsibility (CSR)-
initiatives which consider the public good, society and environment instead of only
organizations’ economic survival are strategically indispensable (Du, Bhattacharya, &
Sen, 2011). Beyond that, internal corporate social responsibility (internal CSR) has
become an essential part of an organization’s social responsibility and, therefore, also an
essential concern for the organization’s management as well as organizational science.
This change in employment and working requirements as well as the desired adjusted
corporate governance can again be understood as arising from a seminal shift ‘[ . . . ] from
nationally based manufacturing economies to a technology-enabled and services-heavy
global market [ . . . ]’ (Bidwell, Briscoe, Fernandez-Mateo, & Sterling, 2013, p. 12) since
current employees’ work in organizations is much different from what it has been like in
earlier times (Bidwell et al., 2013).
In this line of thought, according to the European Commission (2001, 2011), the current
DIN-ISO26000 Standard (2011) as well as scientific literature (e.g. Vlachos, Theotokis, &
Panagopoulos, 2010; Zhang, 2010), a distinction can be made between an external and an
internal dimension of organizational social responsibility. So far, corporate practice and
scientific research have largely focused on the external dimension. This has also been
confirmed by the literature review of Al-bdour, Nasruddin, and Lin (2010), who state that the
focus of the CSR construct has always been closely linked to the external dimension of CSR,
*Corresponding author. Email: ls-wirtz@uni-speyer.de
q 2015 Taylor & Francis

2 L. Mory et al.
with less attention being given to the internal one. With regards to the external dimension,
the stakeholder group on which most investigations focus is the one of consumers: ‘[ . . . ]
systematic research regarding the effects of CSR on other stakeholder groups, besides
consumers, remains sparse’ (Vlachos et al., 2010, p. 1207). Yet, regarding internal CSR,
Turker (2009a) states that: ‘A growing number of studies have investigated the various
dimensions of CSR in the literature. However, relatively few studies have considered its
impacts on employees’ (p. 189). This is also in line with Cornelius, Todres, Janjuha-Jivraj,
Woods, and Wallace (2008), who argue that the focus of scholarly attention is largely on the
social impact of companies on the communities they serve, while less emphasis is given to
internal social responsibility. Given this lack of scientific exploration, internal CSR is still a
very heterogeneous concept of which most researchers have only a vague idea. Accordingly,
a comprehensive definition, conceptualization and operationalization are missing.

Therefore, while we intend to conceptualize and operationalize the construct of
internal CSR as the main original contribution of our study in the following parts of the
paper, we define internal CSR as socially responsible behaviour by a company towards its
employees. This behaviour is mainly expressed through employee-oriented CSR activities
such as fostering employment stability, a positive working environment, skills
development, diversity, work-life balance, empowerment and tangible employee
involvement. This definition conforms to the European Commission (2001), Castka,
Balzarova, Bamber, and Sharp (2004) and Vives (2006). As an additional contribution of
our study, we empirically investigate internal CSR’s impact on employees and their
organizational commitment, which, as stated before, has very high scientific relevance.
In order to reach the presented research goals, we initially provide a literature review of
relevant empirical research in the following section. Subsequently, the paper continues with
a theoretical derivation of the research model, the corresponding hypotheses generation and
their empirical test in the body of the paper. The data-set for this analysis consists of
questionnaire responses from employees of two companies, generating sample sizes of 386
and 2081. In this way, our research in line with actual practice not only benefits science
through these companies’ empirical data but also the companies themselves since it
is evident that practitioners cooperating with universities and external researchers have
better chances to become innovating pioneers in their respective industry than the ones
disclaiming such connections (Cassiman, 2009). In the final section of the paper a
discussion of the findings is conducted and the related implications are highlighted.
Literature review
Recent arguments in the CSR literature suggest that companies should engage in both
dimensions of CSR since a company’s related commitment is only credible if social
measures are not limited to the external dimension, but applied in equal measure internally
(Basu & Palazzo, 2008). In this regard, researchers further note that employees are an
important asset for a company (Fichman & Levinthal, 1991) and, therefore, in terms of
CSR should receive special attention. Thus, internal CSR factors describe social behaviour
within an organization and relate primarily to employees. Thereby, the literature’s focus
regarding internal CSR measures is directed at issues such as occupational health and
safety, human capital, structural change and demographic aspects (Castka et al., 2004;
Vives, 2006). Yet, a clear and comprehensive conceptualization and operationalization of
the construct internal CSR has not yet been provided by researchers of the field.
Nevertheless, further emphasizing its importance, empirical studies show that active
involvement in internal CSR activities on the part of the company increases employees’
The International Journal of Human Resource Management 3
organizational commitment, especially the affective component (e.g. Brammer,

Millington, & Rayton, 2007; Lee & Bruvold, 2003; Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, &
Topolnytsky, 2002). Regarding a closer observation of this connection, the literature
review paper by Aguinis and Glavas (2012) offers a good starting point, since – within
their ‘Individual Level of Analysis’ (p. 12) – the authors identify further empirical papers
confirming employee commitment (Maignan, Ferrell, & Hult 1999), but also related
variables like improved employee relations (Agle, Mitchell, & Sonnenfeld, 1999; Glavas
& Piderit, 2009), employees’ increased organizational identification (Carmeli, Gilat, &
Waldman, 2007), employees’ organizational citizenship behaviour (De Luque, Washburn,
Waldman, & House, 2008; Jones, 2010; Lin, Lyau, Tsai, Chen, & Chiu, 2010), employees’
engagement and creative involvement (Glavas & Piderit, 2009), employees’ in-role
performance (Jones, 2010), employee retention (Jones, 2010) and firm attractiveness to
prospective employees (Turban & Greening, 1997) as outcomes of CSR. However, while
in Aguinis and Glavas’ (2012) overview the authors differentiate between the mentioned
employee-related internal and further external outcomes, they present these outcomes in
response to CSR as a whole, i.e. they do not explicitly distinguish between the internal and
external CSR dimensions themselves.
Nonetheless, there are a few insightful studies that empirically examine the internal
dimension of CSR, aspects of internal CSR or related variables as well as their relationship
with employees’ organizational commitment, including those of Meyer et al. (2002),
Lee and Bruvold (2003), Brammer et al. (2007), Al-bdour et al. (2010), and ALshbiel and
AL-Awawdeh (2011).
In this regard, while Meyer et al. (2002) do indeed not name internal CSR itself as a
concept, their meta-analysis still includes related influential factors of employees’
organizational commitment. In more detail, their results yield organizational support and
justice as well as transformational leadership perceived by employees as strongly
correlating with affective commitment. In the same vein, Lee and Bruvold (2003)
investigate ‘perceived investment in employee development’ (p. 981) based on social
exchange theory. Thereby, they observe potential effects of these perceptions on both
affective and continuance commitment, yet can only confirm the former one.
Brammer et al. (2007), in turn, relate more specifically to CSR in presenting a model,
based on social identity theory, which specifies significant effects of external CSR and
two aspects of internal CSR, namely procedural justice and employee training, on
organizational commitment. Yet, since their study also only focuses on the affective
component of organizational commitment and solely on two single aspects of internal
CSR, it does not give a comprehensive insight into the elements of the internal dimension
of CSR and its impact on employees.
In comparison, Al-bdour et al. (2010) are more precise in their study, focusing on the
internal dimension of CSR by using several factors (health and safety, human rights,
training and education, work-life balance and workplace diversity) to capture the construct
before subsequently evaluating its effect on all three components of organizational
commitment. The results of the model, drawing on social exchange theory, show that all
internal CSR factors are significantly and positively related to employees’ affective and
normative organizational commitment, but not to continuance commitment. Yet, in light
of the various limitations of the study, the authors themselves call for a more precise
conceptualization and operationalization of the internal CSR concept.
Nevertheless, the mentioned study has been picked up by ALshbiel and AL-Awawdeh
(2011), who divide internal CSR into three dimensions that are mostly in line with the
factors proposed by Al-bdour et al. (2010). Unfortunately, ALshbiel and AL-Awawdeh
4 L. Mory et al.
(2011) study lacks an appropriate sample size, a proper theoretical underpinning and a
clear understanding and definition of internal CSR.
In concluding, all of the mentioned studies call for further and more in depth research
on internal CSR. In this regard, the application of a more complex empirical procedure,
like structural equation modelling, seems to be beneficial for the development of the
research agenda. While there are indeed further studies that empirically examine the
connection between overall CSR and organizational commitment (e.g. Lo, Egri, &
Ralston, 2008; Rego, Leal, Cunha, Faria, & Pinho, 2010; Somers, 2001), these studies
likewise only highlight the relationship between CSR and organizational commitment;
they do also not provide any insight into what actually constitutes internal CSR or develop
a proper conceptualization of this significant dimension of CSR. Accordingly, having
identified existing research as well as this research gap and potential, we focus on
conceptualizing and operationalizing internal CSR in the following and additionally verify
its impact on both affective and normative organizational commitment.
Theoretical background and hypotheses

To date, there is a lack of theoretical reasoning for linking an organization’s performance
on social issues with employees’ work attitudes (Al-bdour et al., 2010; Peterson, 2004).
Inter alia, this study attempts to fill this gap by adopting social exchange theory in order to
explain the effect of internal CSR practices on the organizational commitment of
employees. Yet, before being able to do so, the still heterogeneously understood concept
of internal CSR has to be clarified and thus conceptualized. For this purpose and the
involved derivation of relevant factors, social exchange theory likewise offers suitable
reference points. In this regard, it is surprising that although social exchange theory has
emerged as the dominant theory in the literature that focuses on employer–employee
relationships (Takeuchi, Wang, Marinova, & Yao, 2009), so far, only a limited number of
studies have applied the theory for looking at internal CSR. To counter this situation, the
connections between social exchange theory, the conceptualization of internal CSR and its
relationship with employees’ organizational commitment as well as the related hypotheses
development are introduced in the following sections.
Social exchange theory and internal CSR

While the exact foci of social exchange studies have varied strongly across time (e.g. Blau,
1964; Homans, 1961; March & Simon, 1958), the following common theme is inherent in
all of them. Relationships in a social context are characterized by continuous exchange
processes in which individuals trade resources while always striving for a balance in the
give-and-take of these processes (Shetzer, 1993; Takeuchi et al., 2009). The resources of
such social exchange have been characterized by authors, such as Foa and Foa (1980), who
state that a social exchange process is characterized by resources that can be viewed as the
content and outcome of the process. The authors divide these resources into six types,
namely love, services, goods, money, information and status.
Transferred to the organizational context, the resource ‘love’ can be understood as the
attention the company pays towards its employees, but also includes the comfort, support,
security and stability the company provides. ‘Services’ contain all those activities by the
organization that relate to a service offered to the employee by the company. The resource
‘goods’ can be seen as products, objects and materials provided by the company. ‘Money’
generally includes all symbolic gifts of exchange as well as financial resources.
The resource ‘information’ is understood as education, advice and instruction by the
company, while ‘status’ is viewed in terms of prestige, respect and also recognition given
to employees.
The mentioned resources fit very well with the context of internal CSR, since – as defined
in the paper’s beginning – we perceive the latter as an organizational practice which
represents how organizations engage in a socially responsible way towards their employees.
Accordingly, we conceptualize the construct for this study based on social exchange theory
and the related introduced resource categorization. In more detail, in line with the above
theoretical reasoning about social exchange resources in an organizational context, we
connect the resource ‘love’ to companies’ assurance of employment stability, ‘services’ to the
promotion of employees’ skills development, workface diversity and work-life balance,
‘goods’ to a working environment which ensures health and safety at work, ‘money’ to
companies’ tangible employee involvement through shares as well as ‘information’ and

‘status’ to employees’ empowerment in the decision-making process. We illustrate the
according conceptualization for the resulting single factors more in-depth in the following.
Employment stability. The factor employment stability reflects the extent to which the
company provides and secures stable jobs for its employees. With regards to social
exchange theory, employment stability can be assigned to the resource broadly termed
‘love’, as the company provides comfort, support, security and stability to the employee by
offering them secure jobs. The relevance of this factor in the CSR context has earlier been
analyzed by Lin and Wei (2006) who state: ‘Employment security has been one of the
most widely discussed issues due to violent competition in the global economy during the
past decade’ (p. 98). In this regard, the authors also link the factor of employment stability
to social exchange processes as discussed within the theoretical background of social
exchange theory: ‘Employees provide services in exchange for the transactional
obligations of [ . . . ] job security [ . . . ]’ (p. 98).
Working environment. The factor working environment refers to the issues of health
and safety at work. When providing a good and safe working environment, drawing upon
social exchange theory, the company mainly uses ‘goods’ as resources for obtaining a
healthy working environment for employees. This conforms to Al-bdour et al. (2010)
study, in which it is stated that ‘internal CSR practices refer to CSR practices which are
directly related with the physical and psychological working environment of employees
[ . . . ]. It is expressed in concern for the health and well-being of employees [ . . . ]’ (p. 263).
Again, Lin and Wei (2006) link this factor, which they term ‘safe working conditions’, to
the process of social exchange.
Skills development. Skills development is defined as the extent to which the individual
skills of the employees are promoted through the organization. Applied to the resources of
social exchange theory, the development of employees’ skills through, for example,
training and further education is a classic service provision by the company. Thus, within
Foa and Foa (1980) framework of social exchange theory, it falls under the resource
‘services’. In addition, the relevance of this factor in terms of internal CSR has further
been stressed within the documents of the European Commission (2001, 2011) as well as
the DIN-ISO26000 standard (2011). From a scientific perspective, the studies of Brammer
et al. (2007) and Al-bdour et al. (2010) have empirically analyzed the factor in terms of the
internal dimension of CSR.
Workface diversity. Another important aspect of internal CSR is the issue of diversity.
In the CSR context workface diversity is understood as the extent to which gender equality is
promoted in the organization as well as the prevention of social discrimination against
minorities and marginalized groups. Comparable to the factor skills development, applied to
the resources of social exchange theory, the provision of a diverse workplace can likewise be
6 L. Mory et al.
seen as a classic service provision by the company and therefore also falls under the resource
‘services’ within the related framework of social exchange theory (Foa & Foa, 1980). The
diversity issue has further been widely discussed in the CSR literature (e.g. Papasolomou-
Doukakis, Krambia-Kapardis, & Katsioloudes, 2005; Kok, van der Wiele, McKenna, &
Brown, 2001; Vuontisjärvi, 2006), as well as in the political (European Commission, 2001,
2011) and international sphere (DIN-ISO26000 Standard 2011).
Work-life balance. The factor work-life balance encompasses all efforts of the
organization that contribute to the fact that employees’ leisure time and family life does
not come into conflict with work and, thus, a good balance is ensured for each individual.
Providing employees with a good balance of their private life and work clearly also falls
under the resource of ‘services’, as proposed by Foa and Foa (1980). The factor’s high
relevance for the internal dimension of CSR has further been highlighted by Welford
(2008), who state:
Work-life balance is an essential part of Corporate Social Responsibility. Corporations are
increasingly recognizing that an inadequate work-life balance can have detrimental impacts
on staff performance, satisfaction and retention. When employers target good work-life
balance, they can see that reducing stress and frustration resulting from poor work-life balance
can be beneficial to both parties. (p. 3)
Tangible employee involvement. Although the political sphere has already called for
the financial involvement of employees by organizations as a demonstration of
responsibility, the scientific literature has mainly neglected this aspect of internal CSR.
The factor tangible employee involvement refers to the purely tangible or financial
involvement of the employee by the organization. Only within the last couple of years has
it been emphasized that employees with a fair share of the capital and income of the
company better identify with the employer. In terms of the theoretical underpinning with
regards to social exchange theory, a tangible involvement of an employee can be assigned
to the resource ‘money’ as characterized by Foa and Foa (1980).
Empowerment. Another important aspect of internal CSR is the issue of empowerment,
which is defined as the extent to which the employee has the opportunity in the
organization to determine his operating context in a self-actualizing way. Moreover, it
describes to what extent the employee has some sort of autonomy in the performance of
work and in the correction of tasks and goals. In this regard, Kipkebut (2010) argues:
‘Involving employees in the decision making process [ . . . ] sends a message to the
employees that they are valued and trusted’ (p. 50). Applied to the resources of social
exchange theory, on the one hand, such involvement of employees in decision-making
necessitates supplying them with sufficient advice and thus ‘information’. On the other
hand, employees have to be provided with autonomy and thus respect and recognition,
reflecting the resource of ‘status’.
All in all, the theoretical reasoning for the above factors results in the following
hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: Internal CSR is a reflective, latent construct of second order and captures
the following seven factors, namely employment stability, working
environment, skills development, workface diversity, work-life balance,
tangible employee involvement and empowerment.
Social exchange theory and organizational commitment

Adapting social exchange theory to the organizational context, a balanced exchange
process between employer and employees is more likely to lead to the formation of
long-term open social exchanges which are built on trust and preference for the
organization. In turn, this may contribute to a productive and reciprocal relationship
between an employee and the organization. Moreover, previous studies have found that
when organizations offer individuals economic and socio-emotional resources like the
ones mentioned above, they are likely to repay it with positive attitudes, e.g. an increase
in organizational commitment (Al-bdour et al., 2010; Blau, 1964). An important side
factor within this exchange process is the underlying motive. Social exchange
scholars often term this as the norm of reciprocity, which they consider a key principle
(Blau, 1964).
Concerning this matter, it is argued that employees will be more inclined to reciprocate
if the resources received from the organization are considered to be discretionary, given
voluntarily, as opposed to a result of external circumstances or pressures (Eisenberger,

Cummings, Armeli, & Lynch, 1997; Takeuchi et al., 2009). This is especially relevant for
the CSR concept, which is considered to be voluntary by definition. This consideration is
in line with previous studies (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005; Loi, Hang-yue, & Foley,
2006) that call for the use of social exchange theory to explain the reciprocal relationship
between organizational practices and employee’s attitudes and behaviours, especially
organizational commitment. Therefore, based on social exchange theory and the idea of
voluntary and discretionary exchange, a strong relationship between internal CSR and
organizational commitment can be expected.
Affective and normative organizational commitment

As already apparent from the literature review of this paper, studies have also previously
dealt with both the impact of overall CSR (cf. Aguinis & Glavas, 2012) and internal CSR-
related activities on employees’ organizational commitment (Al-bdour et al., 2010;
ALshbiel & AL-Awawdeh, 2011; Brammer et al., 2007; Lee & Bruvold, 2003; Meyer
et al., 2002). Thereby, all of the mentioned internal CSR-related studies refer to the well-
established ‘Organizational Commitment Scale’ by Allen and Meyer (1990, 1996), which
distinguishes between three commitment components (affective, normative, continuance).
Concerning this matter, initially, affective commitment is the one receiving the most
attention. In more detail, Meyer et al. (2002), Lee and Bruvold (2003), Brammer et al.
(2007) and Al-bdour et al. (2010) all can prove significant effects on this component.
Furthermore, normative commitment has also been confirmed by Al-bdour et al. (2010).
Yet, previous studies testing for continuance commitment have failed to find significant
effects (Al-bdour et al., 2010; Lee & Bruvold, 2003).
Drawing upon these previous findings regarding the linkage with internal CSR, the
endogenous variables of this study include affective organizational commitment and
normative organizational commitment, while continuance organizational commitment is
excluded from further investigation. In this regard, following Allen and Meyer (1990) for
this study, affective organizational commitment is defined as the extent of employees’
emotional bond with their employers, i.e. the organizations in which they operate, whereas
normative organizational commitment is commonly defined as the binding of employees
to the organization on the basis of norms and obligations. In addition, the literature also
suggests the former to influence the latter, thereby confirming affective commitment as a
mediating variable between internal CSR-related variables and normative commitment:
‘[ . . . ] we reasoned that employees who want to remain in the organization because of their
positive experiences might also feel some sense of obligation to do so’ (Meyer & Smith,
2000, p. 324; cf. Meyer et al., 2002). Therefore, also in the present study, a mediation role
8 L. Mory et al.
of affective commitment is proposed. Altogether, the above considerations lead to the

following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 2: Internal CSR has a significant positive effect on affective organizational
commitment of employees.
Hypothesis 3: Internal CSR has a significant positive effect on normative
organizational commitment of employees.
Hypothesis 4: Affective organizational commitment has an effect on normative
organizational commitment and therefore constitutes as mediation.
In Figure 1 the developed framework is presented. The figure shows how perceived
employee directed CSR-activities, or rather internal CSR, is conceptualized, i.e. which
factors constitute the construct and how it theoretically impacts employees’ affective
organizational commitment and normative organizational commitment.
Data and method

Due to the complex structure of the research model, an equally complex research method
needs to be applied in order to gain sufficient results. Within economic and social research
structural equation models have proven to be a suitable method for analyzing complex
model structures with mostly latent variables (Bollen, 1989; Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson,
& Tatham, 2006; Kline, 2005; Steenkamp & Baumgartner, 2000). Therefore, for the
specificity of the presented research model structural equation modelling has been used.
Structural equation modelling can be divided into covariance- and variance-based
structural analysis. Each has certain advantages and disadvantages. Before using either
one they need to be tested carefully (Chin & Newsted, 1999). While variance-based
methods aim at the reproduction of the actual data structure (Fornell, 1987) and in
particular serve the purpose of forecasting, covariance-based structural analysis’ main
objective is the explanation of the empirical data structures.
Within this study, which has a mainly confirmatory, hypothesis-testing character,
covariance-based structural analysis is most suited. The covariance-based approach places
high demands on the distribution of the variables and the sample size. However, both
Employment stability
H1
Working environment
Affective organizational
H1
commitment
Skills development
H1 H2
Internal CSR H4
Workface diversity H1
(Employee directed)
H1 H3
Work-Life balance
Normative organizational
H1 commitment
Tangible employee
Involvement H1
Empowerment
Figure 1. Conceptual model.

requirements are met for this study. The structural model and the measurement model are
estimated using maximum likelihood estimation in AMOS 20.0.
Data collection and sample

To ensure the validity and reliability of the results of the study, the development of the
survey instrument has been oriented towards the approach proposed by DeVellis (2003).
Thus, a multi-stage procedure was followed, one that combines knowledge of the relevant
literature with the actual practice in an iterative process. The process of developing the
survey instrument was divided into a two-stage structure, consisting of a qualitative part,
which mainly drew on expert interviews, and a quantitative part, which included two
Anderson/Gerbing tests and two pre-tests.

The fieldwork included 28 explorative interviews with experts from science and
practice. More precisely, interviews were held with 11 experts from practice, including
companies such as SAP and Bayer, and 17 experts from the scientific field. The interviews
were held from May 2011 until April 2012 and were seen as an ongoing process. The
expert interviews helped to refine the relevant factors, formulate questions and to develop
the survey instrument (cf. Anderson & Gerbing, 1991). The qualitative data collection was
concluded by a research workshop. Within this research workshop the results of the expert
interviews were discussed and the preliminary research model was presented.
The qualitative part of the development of the survey instrument started with two
Anderson/Gerbing tests. The first Anderson/Gerbing test was conducted in March 2012
and consisted of nine respondents who were recruited from a variety of professional
groups. According to the findings of the evaluation and discussion of the first Anderson/
Gerbing test, 10 indicators had to be reconsidered. This led to the reformulation of nine
indicators as well as deletion of one indicator. The second Anderson/Gerbing test was a
result of the first test and was conducted right after the first test in March 2012. The test
was conducted with 27 participants and confirmed the chosen indicators as a reliable and
valid measurement tool.
The final step in the development of the survey instrument was to conduct so-called
pre-tests. These were an essential part, as they reflect the survey instrument in a realistic
form. For the validation of the partially self-developed new scales, three large-scale pre-
tests were conducted. The first pre-test took place in the period from 24 April 2012 to 13
May 2012. Overall, the first pre-test generated 40 fully completed questionnaires and was
evaluated using exploratory factor analysis. After the findings were integrated into the
survey instrument, a second pre-test was carried out. This pre-test was conducted in a
corporate context with a German company that builds renewable power supply facilities.
Of 1373 employees, 386 employees participated in the online questionnaire, giving a
response rate of 28.1%. The central results of the second pre-test led to a reformulation of
several indicators. Additionally a full factor termed participation was eliminated, as it
turned out that the factor is too similar in content to the factor empowerment and therefore
its inclusion would have violated discriminant validity. Moreover, on the advice of
employees that filled out the questionnaire it was decided to add a free-field function,
where the participating employee gets another chance to express thoughts regarding the
survey and the research context. In a later step, the main survey research model of this
study was also cross-validated with the help of this data-set. The results showed that the
research model could not be rejected.
Finally, the main survey was carried out from 12 June 2012 to 6 July 2012 in an
international operating pharmaceutical company with its headquarters located in
10 L. Mory et al.
Germany. To this end, all of the company’s employees in Germany were invited by email
to participate in the survey. The total number of invited employees was 10,309. To further
increase the response rate a reminder was sent out to all employees on 26 June 2012, 2
weeks after the initial invitation. All in all, 2081 employees answered the questionnaire,
giving a response rate of 20.19%.
While it is essential for partial surveys to proof for representativeness through
extensive tests, full surveys already account for representativeness provided that all the
elements of the research object have been surveyed without systematic failures. This was a
given in this study, as it was ensured beforehand that all employees have a company
assigned email address and are equipped with access to a computer with an Internet
connection. Moreover, all employees of the company selected for the main survey were
contacted by email without a delivery failure notice being returned. Furthermore, specific
biases tests were conducted to ensure the avoidance of systematic failure, as will be
explained in more detail in the following.
However, also for full surveys so-called evidence-representation proofs can be listed.
These serve to demonstrate the validity of the analysis and are based on the data of the
population and that of the random sample. For this analysis, general data was collected in
the main survey. This data contained details on sex, age and tenure as well as the location
where the employees were working and whether they have management responsibility.
In order to map the entire population, the company provided all data regarding the general
information and personal characteristics of the employees, except for information about
the location of each employee. Overall, there are only slight variations between the final
sample and the population, within acceptable limits. The characteristics of the sample and
the population are displayed in Table 1.
Assessing potential sampling and method biases

Concerns about retrospective data collection arise with any survey. Therefore, it is
necessary to examine whether the data collected is a representative sample and the data is of
sufficient validity. For this reason, the collected data needs to be examined for systematic
Table 1. Characteristics of the sample and the population.

Characteristics Population (N ¼ 10,309) Sample (N ¼ 2078)
Sex Male 50.59% 48.08%
Female 49.41% 51.92%
Age To 19 years 2.75% 0.58%
20 –29 years 15.15% 11.45%
30 –39 years 24.75% 24.74%
40 –49 years 35.17% 39.22%
50 –65 years 22.18% 24.01%
Tenure Up to 2 years 17.30% 7.36%
2 –5 years 16.72% 13.09%
6 –10 years 21.94% 21.22%
10 years and more 44.04% 58.33%
Location Ingelheim No available information 57.55%
Dortmund 2.41%
Biberach 39.75%
Hannover 0.29%
Management responsibility Yes 20.18% 23.87%
No 79.82% 76.13%
biases (Groves, 2004). First, for this purpose, the squared Mahalanobis distances
were calculated using a SPSS script to identify completed questionnaires were not
particularly useful or were serious systematic outliers (Hair et al., 2006; Kline, 2005). The
results showed abnormalities for 3 of the 2081 sample moments. Therefore, these three
questionnaires had to be eliminated from the sample, which lead to a final sample of 2078.
As a second measure, the data-set was tested for non-response bias. The non-response
bias describes a data distortion caused due to lack of information about the population of
non-responding test persons (Ruxton, 2006). In order to obtain an assessment of whether
there are significant differences between respondents and non-respondents, a parametric
(t-test) and a non-parametric method (Mann –Whitney U-test) was used. Both the results
of the Mann – Whitney U-test and the t-test showed an only slight significant group
difference, which allows the assessment that no relevant non-response bias is present.
To avoid consistency bias the survey contained multiple indicators for each construct,
distributed throughout each section. Moreover, control questions were introduced at
various points of the survey. In order to elude possible response style-biases, like ‘yes
saying’, indicators that were heterogeneous in content were added to the questionnaire.
Moreover, the questions concerning the exogenous and endogenous variables, i.e. the
antecedents and outcomes, were placed at various points in the survey. These procedures
reduce the risk that respondents’ answers to one set of questions would determine answers
to later questions (Capron & Mitchell, 2009).
Furthermore, several steps have been taken to address common method biases.
To check whether common methods influenced the results, the unmeasured latent variable
approach by Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, and Podsakoff (2003) was used. Therewith, a
single unmeasured latent factor with the observed measures as indicators was added to
a measurement model containing all measured items and their corresponding latent
constructs (Capron & Mitchell, 2009). With this approach trait effects are separated from
method effects and random effects. As the analysis found no systematic variance among the
items, it can be stated that using the questionnaire for the variables did not seriously bias the
results. In addition to the unmeasured latent variable approach, a Harman one-factor test
was conducted. Within this analysis the factor analysis extracted the identified number of
factors as used in the study, with the first factor accounting for 36.314% of the variance. Due
to the fact that no single dominating factor emerged, common method variance was unlikely
to be a serious problem in the present study (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986).
Variables and measures

The construct measurement was operationalized on the basis of established and validated
scales in order to achieve a valid and reliable measurement instrument. When possible,
the scales were related to the CSR context or derived from the relevant CSR research.
However, a number of indicators of different measurement scales were inappropriate for
the content of this study, so that a range of indicators of multiple scales was necessary.
Because no existing scale was available for one factor, namely the tangible employee
involvement, a scale was developed on the basis of the mentioned expert interviews and
was tested within the pre-tests of this study. The appendix gives an overview about the
adopted measurement indicators and their origins.
Exogenous variables
A starting point for the operationalization of the factor employment stability comes mainly
from the studies of Lin and Wei (2006), Liu, Guthrie, Flood, and MacCurtain (2009) and
12 L. Mory et al.
Tsui, Pearce, Porter, and Tripoli (1997). For the present study, two of the indicators of the
measurement scale were adapted from Lin and Wei (2006) and three indicators were
adapted from Liu et al. (2009). Another indicator was derived from the study of Tsui et al.
(1997) who used a measurement scale for measuring ‘human resource practices indicating
employer’s investment in employee’. Moreover, after conducting the expert interviews
another self-developed indicator was included in the questionnaire. Overall, after
conducting the two Anderson/Gerbing tests and the pre-tests seven indicators could be
included in the main survey questionnaire.
For the operationalization of the factor working environment this study mainly uses the
specifications of Al-bdour et al. (2010) and Turker (2009b) as well as the explanations of
the DIN-ISO26000 (2011). Thus, two indicators of the scale entitled ‘health and safety and
human rights’ of Al-bdour et al. (2010) and one indicator of Turker’s (2009b) ‘CSR scale’
were used for the operationalization of this factor. Other approaches for the
operationalization were supplied by the study of Mishra and Suar (2010), who developed
a common measurement scale for measuring ‘CSR to employees’. An essential basis for
the operationalization of the factor in the current context, however, was provided by the
observations of the DIN-ISO26000 (2011). On the basis of the explanations given by the
DIN-ISO26000 (2011) in the context of ‘health and safety’ three indicators were
developed and tested in the pre-tests. These self-developed indicators were also verified
through the expert interviews. All in all six indicators were included in the main survey
questionnaire.
For the factor skills development, the literature provides a sufficient number of
validated measurement scales, which were thus adopted for this study. The measurement
scale of Lee and Bruvold (2003) entitled ‘perceived investment in employee
development’ was the most valuable. This measurement scale yielded three indicators
that could be used for the present study. Two further indicators were supplied by the
measurement scale of Al-bdour et al. (2010). Al-bdour et al.’s (2010) scale – called
‘training and education’ – builds on the scale of Lee and Bruvold (2003) as well as the
scale of Tsui et al. (1997). To complete the measurement scale for the present study
another indicator, from Brammer et al. (2007), was adopted and one self-developed
indicator was included. The self-developed indicator was based on the context of the
DIN-ISO26000 (2011) and especially the statements on the field of ‘human development
and training in the workplace’. Overall, seven reflective indicators were included in the
main questionnaire.
For the factor workface diversity a measurement instrument was developed based on
the indicators of Turker (2009b), Mishra and Suar (2010) and Rettab, Brik, and Mellahi
(2009). Thus, one indicator of the measurement scale of Turker (2009b) and four
indicators of the measurement scale of Mishra and Suar (2010) were used. Another
indicator was derived from the scale of Rettab et al. (2009). Moreover, other studies with
similar measurement scales provided further insights for the creation of the measurement
scale of this study. This includes especially the measurement scale by Lo et al. (2008) and
the measurement scale of Al-bdour et al. (2010), entitled ‘workplace diversity’. Additional
insights for the operationalization of the factor workface diversity was derived from
McKay et al.’s (2007) measurement scale for measuring ‘diversity climate perceptions’.
All in all, six indicators were included in the main survey.
For the operationalization of the factor work-life balance a variety of approaches and
established measurement scales exist. Two indicators were derived from the measurement
scale ‘work life balance’ from Al-bdour et al. (2010). Furthermore, one indicator each
was deduced from the measurement scales of Turker (2009a), Mishra and Suar (2010),
Rettab et al. (2009), Wang and Walumbwa (2007) and from the Handbook of Marketing
Scales by Bearden, Netemeyer, and Haws (2011), namely from the scale by Netemeyer,
Boles, and Mcmurrian (1996) on ‘work-family conflict’. Based on several other
approaches, like those of Chaudhuri (2009) (‘job intensity’) and Huang, Lawler, and Lei
(2007) (‘perception of quality of work life’), one summarizing indicator was added to the
main survey questionnaire as a self-developed indicator. Therefore, in the context of the
scale construction, a reflective scale with eight indicators was derived.
As mentioned, for the factor tangible employee involvement no existing and validated
measurement instrument was found that suited the context of this study. In the absence of
an established measurement scale a self-developed measurement instrument had to be
developed, based on conceptual work of the relevant CSR literature and interviews with
experts as well as detailed discussions within the company where the main survey was
conducted. The developed indicators capture the extent to which the organization
financially shares the success of the organization in ample measure. The factor of tangible
employee involvement was measured using seven indicators.
For the operationalization of the factor empowerment the well-established
‘empowerment scale’, i.e. the measuring scale called ‘self-determination’ by Spreitzer
(1995), was utilized. From this scale three indicators could be adapted for this study.
A further three indicators were taken from the measurement scale regarding the
‘opportunity to participate in the establishment of own tasks and objectives’ by Haase
(1997). Another indicator was provided by the ‘empowerment (employee)’ measurement
scale of Hartline and Ferrell (1996), which was derived from the Marketing Scales
Handbook of Bruner, James, and Hensel (2001) in which the authors took their approach to
the operationalization of the construct from Cook, Hepworth, Wall, and Wall (1981).
Other approaches for the operationalizing came from McMurray, Scott, and Pace (2004),
Ah Lee, Nam, Park, and Lee (2006), Ugboro (2006), Hunt, Chonko, and Van Wood
(1985), Matthews, Diaz, and Cole (2003) and Karatepe, Yavas, and Babakus (2007),
who in turn fall back on the ‘empowerment scale’ of Hayes (1994). These approaches
inspired a general and summarizing indicator for the measurement scale of the factor
empowerment of the present study. With additional consideration based on the expert
interviews, eight reflective indicators of this factor were added to the main survey
questionnaire.
Endogenous variables
The endogenous variables consist of the two factors affective organizational commitment
and normative organizational commitment, which are both part of the well-established
‘organizational commitment scale’ by Allen and Meyer (1990). However, in recent years
especially, the measurement scales of Allen and Meyer (1990) have been widely
criticized. For example, Jaros (2007) has conducted a critical analysis of the organizational
commitment framework proposed by Allen and Meyer. Therein, he took a closer look at
the validity of the subscales used to measure the three components of commitment
and sought an alternative operationalization: ‘It identifies the critical issues that need to
be addressed to enhance the accuracy and usefulness of Meyer and Allen’s model.
It incorporates corresponding solutions and proposes an enhanced model for the
measurement of organizational commitment’ (p. 7). The critical discussions on the
established ‘organizational commitment scale’ of Allen and Meyer (1990) have been
taken into account here and the two endogenous variables of this study operationalized
accordingly.
14 L. Mory et al.
Taking into account the critical debate on the measurement of affective organizational
commitment, different measurement scales were used for the operationalization of the
factor in the context of this study. However, the base for the operationalization still came
from the original measurement scale of Allen and Meyer (1990). Some of the indicators of
Allen and Meyer (1990) scale are formulated inversely. Based on the scope and length
of the questionnaire of the present study, and after discussion with the companies
participating in the pre-test and the main survey, the reverse formulation was eliminated
from the entire questionnaire. Overall, six indicators from the measurement scale of Allen
and Meyer (1990) were included in the questionnaire of the study. Four of the indicators
were formulated inversely in their original form and were thus reformulated for the present
study. Another indicator was drawn from the alternative operationalization of Jaros
(2007). He argues in his ‘revised commitment scale’: ‘I am very happy being a member
of this organization’. This item is a ‘revision’ of ACS item #1 and should replace it.
The remainder of the scale would consist of the original ACS items # 2– #7 [ . . . ], as they
already comport with the recommended item structure’ (p. 23). A final indicator came
from Brammer et al. (2007), which in turn used Balfour and Wechsler’s (1996)
measurement scale. In total, eight indicators were included in the questionnaire to measure
the factor affective organizational commitment.
For the operationalization of the endogenous variable called normative organizational
commitment a slight modification to the original scale by Allen and Meyer (1990) had to
be made. This was due to the findings of the Anderson/Gerbing tests, which revealed
problems with discriminant validity, as well as the expert interviews. Thus, the
recommendations of Jaros (2007) were taken into account. Jaros (2007) distinguishes
between an ‘indebted obligation dimension’ and a ‘moral imperative dimension’ for the
factor normative organizational commitment: ‘It is recommended that the following newly
written items, which reflect the indebted obligation and moral imperative dimensions,
replace the original NCS items [ . . . ]’ (p. 23). Overall, three indicators of the ‘indebted
obligation dimension’ and two from the ‘moral imperative dimension’ were used for the
operationalization of the factor. In addition, one indicator of Allen and Meyer (1990)
‘normative commitment scale’ was included in the questionnaire. All in all, with inclusion
of two self-developed indicators, the questionnaire contained eight indicators for the
measurement of the factor normative organizational commitment.
Analysis and results

In the following, the empirical results of the multidimensional construct internal CSR will
be discussed. Before looking at the results of the structural model, the measurement model
is described in more detail. The relevant factors and the interdependencies partly elude
direct measurement, and thus a direct answer. Rather, they must be made amenable to
measurement through a construct operationalization, which has been described in the
previous section. In a next step the measurement instruments that have been developed
within the operationalization need to be analyzed with respect to their reliability and their
validity.
All factors in the research model were specified reflective (for the distinction between
reflective and formative indicators see Bollen & Lennox, 1991; Edwards & Bagozzi,
2000), and hence special validity and reliability tests are necessary to assess the quality of
the measurement. On the factor level Cronbachs a, the item-to-total correlation and the
explained variance and factor scores are of importance. Whereas on the overall model
level the criteria GFI ^, AGFI ^, TLI, CFI and ultimately the RMSEA and SRMR are
most significant (Hair et al., 2006). Since the construct internal CSR as a multidimensional
construct is a special case of an operationalization, additional measures are necessary to
verify discriminant and convergent validity. Suitable evaluation criteria in this context
are the exploratory factor analysis, the Fornell/Larcker criterion and the x 2 difference test
(Fornell & Larcker, 1981; Kline, 2005; Hair et al., 2006).
Results for the measurement model

Internal CSR, as the main construct of the study, was conceptualized as a second-order
construct with the dimensions employment stability, working environment, skills
development, workface diversity, work-life balance, tangible employee involvement and
empowerment. In the analysis of the measurement models all factors were able to fulfil the
critical criteria of the first generation. Table 2 reports the details of the measurement model
results for the exogenous variables.
Like the exogenous variables, the endogenous variables also showed sufficient values
regarding the criteria of the first generation. All factor loadings fulfilled the criteria of the
first generation. Table 3 summarizes the details of the measurement model results for the
endogenous variables.
To further verify the structure of the construct internal CSR, several analyses were
conducted in order to prove the multidimensionality of the construct. First, an exploratory
factor analysis was undertaken. This analysis, using principal axis factoring analysis with
oblimin rotation and Kaiser normalization, showed that seven factors with an eigenvalue
greater than one were extracted, and all the remaining 34 indicators could be assigned to
each extracted factors. For the further validation a first-order confirmatory factor analysis
and a second-order confirmatory factor analysis was carried out (see Figures 2 and 3).
Overall, the results show a good fit – for both the first-order confirmatory factor
analysis and the second-order confirmatory factor analysis. The values for the CFI and TLI
are significantly higher than what is required in the literature. The CFI and the TLI is in
line with the critical value of $ 0.90 as constituted in the relevant literature. The same
applies to the particularly meaningful RMSEA, which falls well below the specified
critical upper limit of 0.08. The other global quality criteria show good values and comply
with all applicable critical values as constituted in the relevant literature.
For further specification of the multidimensional construct, the Fornell/Larcker
criterion was tested for, particularly to ensure the discriminant validity of each factor.
For this, the average variances recorded were compared with the respective squared
correlations of the factors. The results showed that none of the squared correlations exceed
the average recorded variances and thus one can speak of adequate discriminant validity.
Table 4 shows the results of the Fornell/Larcker criterion.
The same applies to the results of the x 2 difference test, which clearly supports
the seven-factor model. Moreover, it prefers the seven-factor solution on a 0.0001%
significance level before the one-factor model solution. The results of the analysis of the
multidimensional construct internal CSR are shown in Table 5.
Results for the structural model

After verification of the measurement models, in particular regarding the structure of the
perceived employee directed CSR-activities, i.e. the internal CSR of an organization, the
last step of the analysis examines the relationships in the overall model. Figure 4 reports
the structural model with the corresponding path coefficients and fit statistics. All in all,
the fit statistics indicate that the model captures the sample data well.
Table 2. Scale reliability of the exogenous variables.

16
ITK- Factor Cronb. Factors

Factor Indicators corr. load. a Expl. var. extr.
Employment stability Even in difficult financial times, the company is doing everything to ensure the jobs of the 0.795 0.847
employees remain stable and secure and that there will be no compulsory redundancy
Employment with the company is almost guaranteed 0.709 0.745
The company is committed to the goal of long-term employment security/stability for all 0.770 0.819 0.906 67.147 % 1
employees
If the company was facing economic problems, employee downsizing and lay offs would be 0.755 0.800
the last option used
Overall, the company provides employees with very high employment stability 0.821 0.880
Working environment Our organization’s policies always provide a safe and healthy working environment for the 0.687 0.736
employees
So that employees feel comfortable in their working environment, the company always 0.732 0.798
follows the latest health standards (such as ergonomic key pads)
To ensure a good working environment, the company always maintains the standards of 0.759 0.840
occupational safety and is even developing them further 0.872 60.748 % 1
The company always analyses and monitors the health and safety risks that are associated with 0.775 0.854
its activities, in order to create an excellent working environment
To ensure a good working environment, the company strives at all times to remove 0.614 0.650
psychosocial hazards from the workplace that contribute to stress and disease
L. Mory et al.
Skills development The company trains and supports employees on skills that prepare them for future jobs and 0.819 0.862
career development to an above-average degree
Through career counselling and assistance with career planning the company supports 0.755 0.788
employees in a targeted way
The company supports employees by always providing them with enough time to learn new 0.697 0.726
skills
The company supports and promotes lifelong learning and further development of the 0.843 0.887 0.923 67.247 % 1
employees intensely
The company uses a blend of many different learning tools and methods for the further 0.735 0.771
development of the employees (with regards to internal and/or external further development)
Overall, the company encourages all employees at every stage of their professional experience 0.831 0.873
by providing access to vocational training and education
(Continued)
Table 2 – continued
ITK- Factor Cronb. Factors
Factor Indicators corr. load. a Expl. var. extr.
Workface diversity In the company, there is a very good action plan that supports equal opportunities 0.668 0.684
In terms of equal opportunities, in the company there are specialized staff development 0.872 0.962
programs for women and minorities 0.897 76.488 % 1
The company stands for good policies to support women and minorities in order to increase 0.864 0.949
equality of opportunity
Work-life balance With regards to a good balance between work and private life, the company offers all parents 0.622 0.676
attractive programs (e.g. child care facilities)
To ensure a good balance between work and private life, the company offers its employees 0.676 0.742
flexible working time options
To promote a good balance between work and private life, the company has introduced 0.741 0.816
guidelines that clearly regulate the balance between work and private life 0.860 56.462 % 1
The company helps all employees to coordinate their private and professional life in the best 0.786 0.874
possible way, so that a healthy balance between work and private life is created
To promote a good balance between work and private life, the company has introduced 0.575 0.622
policies that forbid employees from being forced to work overtime
Tangible employee If it goes well financially, the company materially shares the organization’s success with the 0.750 0.798
involvement employees
If it was a successful business year, the employees of the company have very good 0.807 0.863
opportunities for profit sharing 0.897 66.601 % 1
In relation to corporate success, the company materially involves the employees sufficiently 0.874 0.947
In the company, the employees are materially involved in the organization’s success in an 0.813 0.872
appropriate manner through annual payments
The company stands for partly rewarding employees through performance-related bonuses 0.521 0.540
Empowerment The company empowers the employees to determine their own ways of working independently 0.823 0.855
within the agreed boundaries
In the company, the employees are empowered to independently correct the tasks and goals 0.761 0.786
placed upon them 0.937 75.740 % 1
The company encourages employees to engage in autonomous and independent thinking and 0.819 0.849
The International Journal of Human Resource Management
action
The company provides the employees with numerous opportunities for independent work 0.895 0.937
Overall, the employees of the company have high personal and independent responsibility in 0.875 0.915
their tasks
17
18
Table 3. Scale reliability of the endogenous variables.

ITK- Factor Cronb. Expl. Factors
Factor Indicators corr. load. a var. extr.
Affective organizational I think that I could not easily become as attached to another organization 0.729 0.750
commitment as I am to the company
I feel like ‘part of the family’ of the company 0.818 0.846
The company has a great deal of personal meaning for me. 0.832 0.865 0.938 72.588% 1
I feel a strong sense of belonging to the company 0.895 0.935
I am very happy being a member of this organization 0.743 0.771
Overall, I feel ‘emotionally attached’ to the company 0.889 0.927
Normative organizational The company deserves my loyalty and faithfulness because of its good 0.586 0.618
commitment treatment towards me
L. Mory et al.
One of the major reasons I continue to work for this organization is that 0.784 0.852
I believe that loyalty is important and therefore I feel a sense of moral
obligation to remain with the company 0.881 66.182% 1
I feel it is ‘morally correct’ to dedicate myself to the company and in 0.773 0.834
a sense also to commit myself
After all that the company has done for me. I feel very obliged to remain 0.838 0.919
in this organization
1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5
0.549***
Employment stability Working environment
3.1
7.2
3.2
7.3
3.3
0.852*** 0.580***
7.4 Empowerment Skills development
3.4
7.7
3.5
7.8
3.7
6.1
6.3 4.1
0.947*** Tangible employee 0.269***

6.4 Workface diversity 0.956*** 4.3
involvement
6.5 4.4
Work-Life balance
6.6
0.807***
5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5
χ² = 3011.386 CFI = 0.954 AGFI^ = 0.969 RMSEA = 0.049 n = 2,078

df = 506 TLI = 0.949 GFI^ = 0.974 SRMR = 0.0543 p ≤ 0.001 (***)
Figure 2. First-order confirmatory factor analysis.
First, considering the global fit indices of the pattern quality of the model, it can be
noted that the overall model, taking into account the considerable complexity, shows a
sufficient fit. All the criteria, namely the CFI, TLI, AGFI ^, GFI ^ and RMSEA as well as
the SRMR are significantly above or below the required critical values. With a value of
0.941 for the CFI and 0.938 for the TLI, both criteria fulfil the critical value of $ 0.90 as
established in the literature. The AGFI ^, with a value of 0.954, and the GFI ^, with a
value of 0.959, both meet and exceed the strong value of $ 0.90 for both the GFI ^ and
the AGFI ^ as required in the literature. Regarding the complexity of the research model,
the values of the RMSEA and SRMR play a decisive role, as both values are considered
important indicators for the model fit of complex models with a high sample (n . 250).
The RMSEA has a value of 0.049 and the SRMR a value of 0.0656. Therefore, both values
are below the strong critical value of # 0.05 or 0.08 (Hu & Bentler, 1999).
Looking at the path coefficients, all path relationships are highly significant at the
0.001% level. However, the single path relationships show heterogeneous importance of
the factors for the construct internal CSR. Only one factor exceeds the path coefficient of
0.8 and two are below the value of 0.5. Looking at the data it can be stated that the most
important factor for the construct of internal CSR is the factor skills development with a
total of 0.815. The least important factors are tangible employee involvement (0.546) and
workface diversity (0.568), though they still have a very high path coefficient compared
with other studies. Altogether, the hitherto introduced results lead us to the confirmation of
hypothesis 1 for this study.
20 L. Mory et al.
1.3
1.4
0.822***
1.5 Employment stability
1.6
1.7
2.1 0.696***
2.2
0.836***
2.3 Working environment
2.4
2.5 0.758***
3.1
3.2
3.3
Skills development
3.4
0.809***
3.5
3.7
4.1
0.956*** Internal CSR
4.3 Workface diversity 0.565***
(Employee directed)
4.4
5.1
5.2
0.801***
0.805***
5.3 Work-Life balance
5.4
5.5
6.1
0.553***
6.3
0.947*** Tangible employee
6.4
involvement
6.5
6.6 0.708***
7.2
7.3
0.852***
7.4 Empowerment
7.7
7.8
χ² = 3209.984 CFI = 0.951 AGFI^ = 0.962 RMSEA = 0.050 n = 2,078

df = 520 TLI = 0.947 GFI^ = 0.967 SRMR = 0.0586 p ≤ 0.001 (***)
Figure 3. Second-order confirmatory factor analysis.
Table 4. Fornell/Larcker criterion.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Employment stability (1) 0.659
Working environment (2) 0.301 0.577
Skill development (3) 0.328 0.379 0.671
Workface diversity (4) 0.106 0.181 0.267 0.783
Work-life balance (5) 0.277 0.376 0.393 0.275 0.561
Tangible employee involvement (6) 0.168 0.172 0.158 0.072 0.206 0.66
Empowerment (7) 0.272 0.261 0.336 0.094 0.326 0.213 0.752
Table 5. x 2 difference test.
x2 df a
Seven-factor solution 3011.386 506 0.0001
One-factor solution 3729.200 527 0.0001
Nested model comparison 717.814 21 0.0001
Furthermore, also regarding hypotheses 2 –4, all three path relationships are highly
significant at the 0.001% level. In this regard, while internal CSR shows the highest
influence on affective organizational commitment with a value of 0.605, the effect on
normative organizational commitment with a total of 0.197 takes second place. Notably,
affective organizational commitment also partly mediates the relationship between

Internal CSR and normative organizational commitment with a value of 0.595. Thus,
hypotheses 2– 4 can be empirically confirmed in this study.
The estimates further show that the exogenous model variables contribute significantly
to explaining the variance in the endogenous variables. Here, a R 2 of 0.366 for the
endogenous variable affective organizational commitment and a R 2 of 0.535 for the
endogenous variable normative organizational commitment is calculated (see Figure 4).
Discussion, conclusions and limitations

The growing imperative for business organizations to pursue socially responsible
strategies has raised questions about the impact of such strategies on the behaviour of
internal stakeholders (Brammer et al., 2007). In order to help management to approach this
issue, a full understanding of the concept is necessary. However, so far studies focusing on
0.710***
Working environment
R2 = 0.366
0.754***
Affective organizational
Skills development commitment
0.815***
0.605***
Workface diversity 0.568*** Internal CSR 0.595***

(Employee directed )
0.197***
0.790***
Work-Life balance Normative organizational
commitment
0.546***
Tangible employee R2 = 0.535

involvement
0.706***
Empowerment
χ² = 5257.458 CFI = 0.941 AGFI^ = 0.954 RMSEA = 0.049 n = 2,078

df = 892 TLI = 0.938 GFI^ = 0.959 SRMR = 0.0656 p ≤ 0.001 (***)
Figure 4. Structural model.

22 L. Mory et al.
the topic of internal CSR are rare and the ones that do exist are very narrow in their results
and statements, focusing on single aspects of internal CSR while missing out on
comprehensively conceptualizing it. For management to use the concept within
organizational strategy implementation it is highly important to have a full understanding
of the subject itself. Obtaining such an understanding constituted the starting point of this
investigation. Therefore, this research can be seen as one of the first confirmatory research
papers to provide valuable insights for both management and science. Especially for
management, the innovativeness of this research lies within the empirical validation of the
conceptualization of the internal CSR concept. A full understanding is necessary in order
for internal CSR to become a management concept and a useful and/or practical
management tool.
An important point of this study is the insight it provided into the relevant factors of
internal CSR and the contribution it makes to the concept on employees’ affective and
normative organizational commitment. The relationship between employee perceptions of
internal CSR and affective and normative organizational commitment is investigated
within a model that draws on social exchange theory and the relevant scientific literature as
well as official documents and international standards. In summary, the results have
significant implications for the implementation of CSR strategies within companies and
can thus be used for improving the effective management of internal CSR towards
employees. In this regard, the positive relationship between employee perceptions of
internal CSR and organizational commitment in general emphasizes the payoff that may
flow from related corporate investments.
In more detail, first, in this study it is proven that internal CSR is a relevant concept for
enhancing an employee’s affective organizational commitment, whilst having lower
effects on normative commitment. Drawing upon this finding, it can be concluded that
internal CSR is a rather emotional topic for employees which, if addressed thoroughly by
the employer, can assure the latter its employees’ ‘desire’ (Meyer et al., 2002) to work in
the company’s best interest. While this seems to be a more valuable kind of commitment
than the one based on norms and obligations, affective commitment’s importance is
further stressed through the mediation role it plays in the relationship between internal
CSR and normative commitment. Accordingly, given the affective component’s notable
role in our study, practitioners can be advised to approach internal CSR especially
regarding activities which address employee feelings and emotions.
Concerning this matter, while our model’s standardized coefficients emphasize the
contribution of each aspect, they imply that the contribution of skills development and
work-life balance have special meaning for the concept of internal CSR. This initially
emphasizes the importance that companies should place on the communication of CSR
activities that relate to improving the balance of work tasks and personal life as well as
the opportunities for further education and promotion within the company. While these
factors are obviously related to employees’ emotional or affective needs, so are the ones
showing further high coefficients, namely working environment, employment stability and
empowerment. Accordingly, companies should also pay particular attention to these
factors.
Yet, while workface diversity surprisingly seems to be less important for the internal
CSR concept according to its path coefficient, tangible employee involvement takes last
place. This latter result, however, may be explained when thinking of the factor’s
involvement with economic resources, thus rather rational aspects and the above
consideration that emotional factors may be more important for employees when it comes
to internal CSR.
Nevertheless, all of the derived factors show significant positive relationships. These
results also accord with the green paper of the European Commission (2001) in which it is
argued that relevant measures of internal CSR include ‘concern for employability as well
as job security’, which corresponds to the factor employment stability of this study;
‘health and safety at work’, which is represented through the factor working environment
in this study; ‘lifelong learning’, which is called skills development in this study; ‘greater
work force diversity, equal pay and career prospects for women’, which corresponds to
the factor workface diversity; ‘better balance between work, family, and leisure’, which is
the factor work-life balance in this study; ‘profit-sharing and share owner schemes’,
which corresponds to the factor tangible employee involvement; and finally
‘empowerment of employees’, which is called empowerment in this study (European
Commission, 2001, p. 9).

Accordingly, also based on the results of the fit assessment of the model, the model
captures reality very well. The developed scales prove to be reliable and valid. Therefore,
they can serve as a basis for future research in the field of CSR and organizational
management. To the same extent, the theoretical reference framework of the model has
proven to be suitable for describing the relationship between internal CSR and
organizational commitment.
When reflecting on all this, our approach is in line with conducting proper, scientific
research related to management practice, covering the following, desired criteria: ‘[ . . . ]
relevance, rigour, and broad interest’ (Cachon, 2009). While our paper’s relevance can be
acknowledged through the so far already mentioned suggestions from academia and
practice that especially CSR’s internal dimension will increasingly become a major aspect
to consider in organizations’ management, we prove rigour in thoroughly applying a
complex empirical, causal-analytical method – structural equation modelling – by
confirming a hypotheses system derived from comprehensible theoretical discussion.
Most importantly, the study is able to stir broad interest since first it deals with a
question important for various scientific researchers in the fields of management,
organizational behaviour, business ethics and human relations. Second, it also provides
answers for companies in various industries, public administration and whatever
organization wanting to know about the constituents of internal CSR and its relationship
with organizational commitment.
In sum, the results of this research contribute to the scientific literature on the internal
dimension of CSR by providing insights into how experts view the relevant aspects, i.e.
factors, of internal CSR and how these are empirically tested within a structural model
using company employee level data. Employee directed internal CSR activities, however,
are not the only dimension of internal CSR. An important direction for future research is
the examination of the organizational level of internal CSR. This refers to factors such as
perceived procedural justice and organizational engagement – often called external CSR
in the literature – as discussed and analyzed by Brammer et al. (2007). Other important
factors to examine include organizational transparency as well as the ethical values and
policies as communicated and implemented within the company (e.g. Al-bdour et al.,
2010). Another future research agenda could address the antecedents or moderating
variables of internal CSR, such as the credibility of CSR and the importance of CSR as
valued by the employees.
This study represents an effort to explore a theoretical and empirical perspective of the
concept of internal CSR and its effect on employees’ organizational commitment.
Notwithstanding the robustness of the results of the research model and the lack of obvious
symptoms of biases, there are still some limitations of this study that can be identified and
24 L. Mory et al.
should be borne in mind for future research. First, the generalizability of the results is
limited to an observation of a particular point within time. In this context, it would be of
interest to conduct longitudinal studies of the factors of internal CSR and their effect on
organizational commitment in order to determine if the relationship of internal CSR
practices and organizational commitment can be sustained. Second, the results may not be
generalizable to different industry settings given that the study’s focus and data is limited
to a particular company type and industry.
Despite the highlighted limitations, we believe that the results of this study have
multiple implications for managers involved in the complex task of creating and
implementing CSR strategies, especially HR managers that are involved in the strategic
development of socially responsible behaviours towards employees and who need to
acquire the relevant knowledge to design the right approaches. In particular, the insights
into which factors actually make up the internal CSR concept and what relevance they
have within the concept itself may provide guidance on what to emphasize for future
internal CSR development perspectives. Given the continuing gain in importance of social
behaviour towards employees, as emphasized by politics as well as the stakeholder group
itself, and the unfolding activities undertaken by other companies, the need to fully
understand the concept of internal CSR will only increase in importance in the future years
to come.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes
1. Email: linda.mory@sap.com
2. Email: goettel@foev-speyer.de
References
Agle, B. R., Mitchell, R. K., & Sonnenfeld, J. A. (1999). Who matters to CEOs? An investigation of
stakeholder attributes and salience, corporate performance, and CEO values. Academy of
Management Journal, 42, 507– 525. doi:10.2307/256973
Aguinis, H., & Glavas, A. (2012). What we know and don’t know about corporate social
responsibility: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 38, 932–968.
doi:10.1177/0149206311436079
Ah Lee, Y.-K., Nam, J.-H., Park, D.-H., & Lee, K. A. (2006). What factors influence customer-
oriented prosocial behavior of customer-contact employees? Journal of Services Marketing, 20,
251– 264. doi:10.1108/08876040610674599
Al-bdour, A. A., Nasruddin, E., & Lin, S. K. (2010). The relationship between internal corporate
social responsibility and organizational commitment within the banking sector in Jordan.
International Journal of Human and Social Sciences, 5, 932– 951.
Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and
normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63(1), 1 – 18.
doi:10.1111/j.2044-8325.1990.tb00506.x
Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1996). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the
organization: An examination of construct validity. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 49,
252– 276. doi:10.1006/jvbe.1996.0043
ALshbiel, S. O., & AL-Awawdeh, W. M. (2011). Internal social responsibility and its impact on job
commitment: Empirical study on Jordanian Cement Manufacturing Co. International Journal of
Business and Management, 6, 94 – 102. doi:10.5539/ijbm.v6n12p94
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1991). Predicting the performance of measures in a confirmatory
factor analysis with a pretest assessment of their substantive validities. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 76, 732– 740. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.76.5.732
Balfour, D. L., & Wechsler, B. (1996). Organizational commitment: Antecedents and outcomes in
public organizations. Public Productivity and Management Review, 19, 256– 277. doi:10.2307/
3380574
Basu, K., & Palazzo, G. (2008). Corporate social responsibility: A process model of sensemaking.
Academy of Management Review, 33, 122– 136. doi:10.5465/AMR.2008.27745504
Bearden, W. O., Netemeyer, R. G., & Haws, K. L. (2011). Handbook of marketing scales. Multi-item
measures for marketing and consumer behavior research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Bidwell, M., Briscoe, F., Fernandez-Mateo, I., & Sterling, A. (2013). The employment relationship
and inequality: How and why changes in employment practices are reshaping rewards in
organizations. The Academy of Management Annals, 7, 61 – 121. doi:10.1080/19416520.2013.
761403
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.
Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. Toronto: Wiley Interscience.
Bollen, K. A., & Lennox, R. (1991). Conventional wisdom on measurement: A structural equation
perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 305– 314. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.110.2.305
Brammer, S., Millington, A., & Rayton, B. (2007). The contribution of corporate social
responsibility to organizational commitment. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 18, 1701– 1719. doi:10.1080/09585190701570866
Bruner, II., G. C., James, K. E., & Hensel, P. J. (2001). Marketing scales handbook. A compilation of
multi-item measures. (Vol. III). Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association.
Cachon, G. P. (2009). From the editor – A vision for management science. Management Science,
55(1), 1 –3. doi:10.1287/mnsc.1080.0984
Capron, L., & Mitchell, W. (2009). Selection capability: How capability gaps and internal social
frictions affect internal and external strategic renewal. Organization Science, 20, 294–312.
doi:10.1287/orsc.1070.0328
Carmeli, A., Gilat, G., & Waldman, D. A. (2007). The role of perceived organizational performance
in organizational identification, adjustment and job performance. Journal of Management
Studies, 44, 972– 992. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2007.00691.x
Cassiman, B. (2009). The benefits of science collaborations: How to spark R&D innovation. IESE
Insights, 2, 36 – 43. doi:10.15581/002.ART-1536
Castka, P., Balzarova, M. A., Bamber, C. J., & Sharp, J. M. (2004). How can SMEs effectively
implement the CSR agenda? A UK case study perspective. Corporate social responsibility and
environmental management, 11, 140– 149. doi:10.1002/csr.62
Chaudhuri, K. (2009). An empirical quest for linkages between HPWS and employee behaviors –
A perspective from the non managerial employees in Japanese organizations. Proceedings of
World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, 41, 621– 635.
Chin, W. W., & Newsted, P. R. (1999). Structural equation modeling analysis with small samples
using partial least squares. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Statistical strategies for small sample research
(pp. 307– 342). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cook, J. D., Hepworth, S. J., Wall, T. D., & Wall, P. B. (1981). The Experience of Work. New York,
NY: Academic Press.
Cornelius, N., Todres, M., Janjuha-Jivraj, S., Woods, A., & Wallace, J. (2008). Corporate
social responsibility and the social enterprise. Journal of Business Ethics, 81, 355–370.
doi:10.1007/s10551-007-9500-7
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review.
Journal of Management, 31, 874– 900. doi:10.1177/0149206305279602
De Luque, M. S., Washburn, N. T., Waldman, D. A., & House, R. J. (2008). Unrequited profit: How
stakeholder and economic values relate to subordinates’ perceptions of leadership and firm
performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53, 626– 654. doi:10.2189/asqu.53.4.626
DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA.
DIN-ISO26000. (2011). Guidance on social responsibility. Retrieved January 14, 2012, from
https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:26000:ed-1:v1:en
Du, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2011). Corporate social responsibility and competitive
advantage: Overcoming the trust barrier. Management Science, 57, 1528– 1545. doi:10.1287/
mnsc.1110.1403
Edwards, J. R., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2000). On the nature and direction of relationships between
constructs and measures. Psychological Methods, 5, 155– 174. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.5.2.155
26 L. Mory et al.
Eisenberger, R., Cummings, J., Armeli, S., & Lynch, P. (1997). Perceived organizational support,
discretionary treatment, and job satisfaction. Jorunal of Applied Psychology, 82, 812–820.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.82.5.812
European Commission. (2001). Green Paper. Promoting a European framework for corporate
social responsibility. Brussels: European Commission.
European Commission. (2011). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament,
the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions.
A renewed EU strategy 2011– 14 for corporate social responsibility.
Fichman, M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1991). Honeymoons and the liability of adolescence: A new
perspective on duration dependence in social and organizational relationships. Academy of
Management Review, 16, 442– 468.
Foa, E. B., & Foa, U. G. (1980). Ressource theory: Interpersonal behavior as exchange.
In K. J. Gergen, M. S. Greenberg, & R. H. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory
and research (pp. 77 – 94). New York, NY: Springer.

Fornell, C. (1987). A second generation of multivariate analysis: Classification of methods and
implications for marketing research. In M. J. Houston (Ed.), Review of Marketing
(pp. 407– 450). Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39 – 50. doi:10.2307/
3151312
Glavas, A., & Piderit, S. (2009). How does doing good matter? Effects of corporate citizenship on
employees. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 51 – 70. doi:10.9774/GLEAF.4700.2009.wi.00007
Groves, R. M. (2004). Survey errors and survey costs. Hoboken: Wiley Interscience.
Haase, D. (1997). Organisationsstruktur und Mitarbeiterbindung: Eine empirische Analyse in
Kreditinstituten. Cologne: Deutscher Institutsverlag.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data
analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hartline, M. D., & Ferrell, O. C. (1996). The management of customer-contact service employees:
An empirical investigation. Journal of Marketing, 60, 52 –70. doi:10.2307/1251901
Hayes, B. E. (1994). How to measure empowerment. Quality Progress, February, 41 – 46.
Homans, G. C. (1961). Social behavior. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace, and World.
Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1 –55.
doi:10.1080/10705519909540118
Huang, T.-C., Lawler, J., & Lei, C.-Y. (2007). The effects of quality of work life on commitment and
turnover intention. Social Behavior and Personality, 35, 735– 750. doi:10.2224/sbp.2007.35.6.
735
Hunt, S. D., Chonko, L. B., & Van Wood, R. (1985). Organizational commitment and marketing.
Journal of Marketing, 49, 112–126. doi:10.2307/1251181
Jaros, S. (2007). Meyer and Allen model of organizational commitment: Measurement issues. The
ICFAI Journal of Organizational Behavior, 6, 7 – 25.
Jones, D. A. (2010). Does serving the community also serve the company? Using organizational
identification and social exchange theories to understand employee responses to a volunteerism
programme. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83, 857 – 878.
doi:10.1348/096317909X477495
Karatepe, O. M., Yavas, U., & Babakus, E. (2007). The effects of customer orientation and job
resources on frontline employees’ job outcomes. Services Marketing Quarterly, 29, 61 –79.
doi:10.1300/J396v29n01_04
Kipkebut, D. J. (2010). Human resource management practices and organizational commitment in
higher educational institutions: A Kenyan case. The IUP Journal of Organizational Behavior, 9,
45 – 70.
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York, NY: Taylor &
Francis.
Kok, P., van der Wiele, T., McKenna, R., & Brown, A. (2001). A corporate social responsibility
audit within a quality management framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 31, 285– 297. doi:10.
1023/A:1010767001610
Lee, C. H., & Bruvold, N. T. (2003). Creating value for employees: Investment in
employee development. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14,
981– 1000. doi:10.1080/0958519032000106173
Lin, C., Lyau, N., Tsai, Y., Chen, W., & Chiu, C. (2010). Modeling corporate citizenship and its
relationship with organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Business Ethics, 95, 357–372.
doi:10.1007/s10551-010-0364-x
Lin, C. Y.-Y., & Wei, Y.-C. (2006). The role of business ethics in merger and acquisition success:
An empirical study. Journal of Business Ethics, 69, 95 – 109. doi:10.1007/s10551-006-9070-0
Liu, W., Guthrie, J. P., Flood, P. C., & MacCurtain, S. (2009). Unions and the adoption of high
performance work systems: Does employment security play a role? Industrial & Labor
Relations Review, 63, 109– 127. doi:10.1177/001979390906300106
Lo, C. W. H., Egri, C. P., & Ralston, D. A. (2008). Commitment to corporate, social, and
environmental responsibilities: An insight into contrasting perspectives in China and the US.
Organization Management Journal, 5, 83 – 98. doi:10.1057/omj.2008.10

Loi, R., Hang-yue, N., & Foley, S. (2006). Linking employees’ justice perceptions to organizational
commitment and intention to leave: The mediating role of perceived organizational
support. Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology, 79, 101– 120. doi:10.1348/
096317905X39657
Maignan, I., Ferrell, O. C. & Hult, G. T. M. (1999). Corporate citizenship: Cultural antecedents and
business benefits. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27, 455–469. doi: 10.1177/
0092070399274005
March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organization. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.
Matthews, R. A., Diaz, W. M., & Cole, S. G. (2003). The organizational empowerment scale.
Personnel Review, 32, 297–318. doi:10.1108/00483480310467624
McKay, P. F., Avery, D. R., Tonidandel, S., Morris, M. A., Hernandez, M., & Hebl, M. R. (2007).
Racial differences in employee retention: Are diversity climate perceptions the key? Personnel
Psychology, 60, 35 – 62. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00064.x
McMurray, A. J., Scott, D. R., & Pace, W. R. (2004). The relationship between organizational
commitment and organizational climate in manufacturing. Human Resource Development
Quarterly, 15, 473– 488. doi:10.1002/hrdq.1116
Meyer, J. P., & Smith, C. A. (2000). HRM practices and organizational commitment: Test of a
mediation model. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences/Revue canadienne des sciences
de l’administration, 17, 319– 331.
Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective, continuance, and
normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and
consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 20 – 52. doi:10.1006/jvbe.2001.1842
Mishra, S., & Suar, D. (2010). Does corporate social responsibility influence firm performance of
Indian companies? Journal of Business Ethics, 95, 571– 601. doi:10.1007/s10551-010-0441-1
Netemeyer, R. G., Boles, J. S., & Mcmurrian, R. (1996). Development and validation of work-
family conflict and family-work conflict scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 400–410.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.81.4.400
Papasolomou-Doukakis, I., Krambia-Kapardis, M., & Katsioloudes, M. (2005). Corporate social
responsibility: The way forward? Maybe not!: A preliminary study in Cyprus. European
Business Review, 17, 263–279. doi:10.1108/09555340510596661
Perrini, F., Russo, A., & Tencati, A. (2007). CSR strategies of SMEs and large firms. Evidence from
Italy. Journal of Business Ethics, 74, 285– 300. doi:10.1007/s10551-006-9235-x
Peterson, D. K. (2004). The relationship between perceptions of corporate citizenship and
organizational commitment. Business & Society, 43, 296– 319. doi:10.1177/0007650304268065
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in
behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 88, 879– 903. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and
prospects. Journal of Management, 12, 531– 544.
Rego, A., Leal, S., Cunha, M. P., Faria, J., & Pinho, C. (2010). How the perceptions of five
dimensions of corporate citizenship and their inter-inconsistencies predict affective
commitment. Journal of Business Ethics, 94, 107– 127. doi:10.1007/s10551-009-0252-4
28 L. Mory et al.
Rettab, B., Brik, A. B., & Mellahi, K. (2009). A study of management perceptions of the impact of
corporate social responsibility on organisational performance in emerging economies: The case
of Dubai. Journal of Business Ethics, 89, 371– 390. doi:10.1007/s10551-008-0005-9
Ruxton, G. D. (2006). The unequal variance t-test is an underused alternative to Student’s Journal of
t-test and the Mann – Whitney U test. Behavioral Ecology, 17, 688– 690. doi:10.1093/beheco/
ark016
Shetzer, L. (1993). A social information processing model of employee participation. Organization
Science, 4, 252– 268. doi:10.1287/orsc.4.2.252
Somers, M. J. (2001). Ethical codes of conduct and organizational context: A study of the
relationship between codes of conduct, employee behavior and organizational values. Journal of
Business Ethics, 30, 185– 195. doi:10.1023/A:1006457810654
Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological, empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement
and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1442– 1465. doi:10.2307/256865
Steenkamp, J.-B., & Baumgartner, H. (2000). On the use of structural equation models for marketing
modeling. International Journal of Marketing Research, 17, 195– 202. doi:10.1016/S0167-8116

(00)00016-1
Takeuchi, R., Wang, M., Marinova, S. V., & Yao, X. (2009). Role of domain-specific facets of
perceived organizational support during expatriation and implications for performance.
Organization Science, 20, 621– 634. doi:10.1287/orsc.1080.0403
Tsui, A. S., Pearce, J. L., Porter, L. W., & Tripoli, A. M. (1997). Alternative approaches to the
employee-organization relationship: Does investment in employees pay off? Academy of
Management Journal, 40, 1089– 1121. doi:10.2307/256928
Turban, D. B., & Greening, D. W. (1997). Corporate social performance and organizational
attractiveness to prospective employees. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 658–672.
doi:10.2307/257057
Turker, D. (2009a). How corporate social responsibility influences organizational commitment.
Journal of Business Ethics, 89, 189– 204. doi:10.1007/s10551-008-9993-8
Turker, D. (2009b). Measuring corporate social responsibility: A scale development study. Journal
of Business Ethics, 85, 411– 427. doi:10.1007/s10551-008-9780-6
Ugboro, I. O. (2006). Organizational commitment, job redesign, employee empowerment and intent
to quit among survivors of restructuring and downsizing. Journal of Behavioral and Applied
Management, 7, 232– 257.
Vives, A. (2006). Social and environmental responsibility in small and medium enterprises in Latin
America. The Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 2006, 39 – 50. doi:10.9774/GLEAF.4700.2006.
sp.00006
Vlachos, P. A., Theotokis, A., & Panagopoulos, N. G. (2010). Sales force reactions to corporate
social responsibility: Attributions, outcomes, and the mediating role of organizational trust.
Industrial Marketing Management, 39, 1207– 1218. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2010.02.004
Vuontisjärvi, T. (2006). Corporate social reporting in the European context and human resource
disclosures: An analysis of Finnish companies. Journal of Business Ethics, 69, 331– 354.
Wang, P., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2007). Family – friendly programs, organizational commitment, and
work withdrawal: The moderating role of transformational leadership. Personnel Psychology,
60, 397– 427. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00078.x
Welford, R. (2008). Work life balance in Hong Kong: Survey results. http://csr-asia.com/upload/
WLB%202008%20Final.pdf, 31.10.2012.
Zhang, J. (2010). Employee orientation and performance: An exploration of the mediating role of
customer orientation. Journal of Business Ethics, 91, 111– 121. doi:10.1007/s10551-010-0570-6
Appendix
Table A1. Indicators of the exogenous variables.
Indicators Source
1.1 The company would never lay off employees at will On the basis of
Lin and Wei (2006)
1.2 The company gives the employees a feeling that their jobs are also very safe and stable in the future On the basis of
Tsui et al. (1997)
1.3 Even in difficult financial times, the company is doing everything to ensure the jobs of the employees remain Self-developed
stable and secure and that there will be no compulsory redundancy
1.4 Employment with the company is almost guaranteed On the basis of
Liu et al. (2009)
1.5 The company is committed to the goal of long-term employment security/stability for all employees On the basis of
Liu et al. (2009)
1.6 If the company was facing economic problems, employee downsizing and layoffs would be the last option used On the basis of
Liu et al. (2009)
1.7 Overall, the company provides employees with very high employment stability On the basis of
Lin and Wei (2006)
Working environment (health and safety at work)
2.1 Our organization’s policies always provide a safe and healthy working environment for the employees On the basis of
Turker (2009b)
2.2 So that employees feel comfortable in their working environment, the company always follows the latest health On the basis of
standards (such as ergonomic key pads). Al-bdour et al. (2010)
2.3 To ensure a good working environment, the company always maintains the standards of occupational safety and Self-developed on the basis of
is even developing them further DIN-ISO26000,O26000, 26000
(2011)
2.4 The company always analyses and monitors the health and safety risks that are associated with its activities, in Self-developed on the basis of
order to create an excellent working environment DIN-ISO26000,O26000, 26000

(2011)
(Continued)
29
Table A1 – continued
30
Indicators Source
2.5 To ensure a good working environment, the company strives at all times to remove psychosocial hazards from Self-developed on the basis of
the workplace that contribute to stress and disease DIN-ISO26000,O26000, 26000
(2011)
2.6 To ensure a good working environment, the company strives at all times to remove psychosocial hazards from On the basis of
the workplace that contribute to stress and disease Al-bdour et al. (2010)
Skills development
3.1 The company trains and supports employees on skills that prepare them for future jobs and career development On the basis of
to an above-average degree Lee and Bruvold (2003)
3.2 Through career counselling and assistance with career planning the company supports employees in a targeted On the basis of
way Lee and Bruvold (2003)
3.3 The company supports employees by always providing them with enough time to learn new skills On the basis of
Lee and Bruvold (2003)
3.4 The company supports and promotes lifelong learning and further development of the employees intensely On the basis of
Al-bdour et al. (2010)
3.5 The company uses a blend of many different learning tools and methods for the further development of the On the basis of
employees (with regards to internal and/or external further development) Al-bdour et al. (2010)
3.6 There are more than enough opportunities for employees to improve and develop their skills in their current job On the basis of
L. Mory et al.
or to let their skills be developed by the company Brammer et al. (2007)

3.7 Overall, the company encourages all employees at every stage of their professional experience by providing Self-developed on the basis of
access to vocational training and education DIN-ISO26000,O26000, 26000
(2011)
Workface diversity
4.1 In the company, there is a very good action plan that supports equal opportunities On the basis of
Mishra and Suar (2010)
4.2 To ensure all employees the same opportunities, in the company there are very good anti-discrimination policies On the basis of
towards issues of gender, pregnancy, marital status, disability and ethnic minorities Mishra and Suar (2010)
4.3 In terms of equal opportunities, in the company there are specialized staff development programmes for women On the basis of
and minorities Mishra and Suar (2010)
4.4 The company stands for good policies to support women and minorities in order to increase equality of On the basis of
opportunity Mishra and Suar (2010)
(Continued)
Indicators Source
4.5 In order to strengthen equality of opportunity, the company treats all employees equally, fairly and with respect, On the basis of
regardless of gender, ethnicity, etc. Rettab et al. (2009); Loi et al. (2009)
4.6 Overall, the company gives all employees of the organization (regardless of gender, ethnicity, etc.) the same On the basis of
chances and opportunities in every situation and therefore enhances equality of opportunity Turker (2009b)
Work-life balance
5.1 With regards to a good balance between work and private life, the company offers all parents attractive On the basis of
programmes (e.g. child care facilities) Al-bdour et al. (2010); Perrini, Russo,
and Tencati (2007)
5.2 To ensure a good balance between work and private life, the company offers its employees flexible working On the basis of
time options Al-bdour et al. (2010);
Perrini et al. (2007)
5.3 To promote a good balance between work and private life, the company has introduced guidelines that clearly On the basis of
regulate the balance between work and private life. Turker (2009a)
5.4 The company helps all employees to coordinate their private and professional life in the best possible way, so On the basis of
that a healthy balance between work and private life is created Rettab et al. (2009); Loi et al. (2009)
5.5 To promote a good balance between work and private life, the company has introduced policies that forbid On the basis of
employees from being forced to work overtime Mishra and Suar (2010)
5.6 The demands of the company do not interfere with the free time of the employees or their family life to any On the basis of
degree, so that a healthy balance between work and private life is guaranteed Netemeyer et al. (1996)
5.7 The company offers great flexibility with respect to the daily work start time and when to go home, so that a On the basis of
healthy balance between work and private life is guaranteed Wang and Walumbwa (2007)
5.8 Overall, the company is working hard to provide a very good balance between work and private life for the Self-developed
employees
Tangible employee involvement
6.1 If it goes well financially, the company materially shares the organization’s success with the employees Self-developed
6.2 If it was a successful business year, the employees of the company are materially engaged to the organization’s Self-developed
success in a sufficient amount

6.3 If it was a successful business year, the employees of the company have very good opportunities for profit Self-developed
sharing
6.4 In relation to corporate success, the company materially involves the employees sufficiently Self-developed
(Continued)
31
32
Indicators Source
6.5 In the company, the employees are materially involved in the organization’s success in an appropriate manner Self-developed
through annual payments
6.6 The company stands for partly rewarding employees through performance-related bonuses Self-developed
6.7 Overall, the company shares its success through involving the employees materially in some manner Self-developed
Empowerment
7.1 The company offers its employees great freedom within which they are empowered to solve their problems On the basis of
independently Haase (1997)**
7.2 The company empowers the employees to determine their own ways of working independently within the On the basis of
agreed boundaries Haase (1997)
7.3 In the company, the employees are empowered to independently correct the tasks and goals placed upon them On the basis of
Haase (1997)
7.4 The company encourages employees to engage in autonomous and independent thinking and action On the basis of
Hartline and Ferrell (1996)
7.5 The company provides employees with a very high degree of autonomy with regards to the independent On the basis of
performance of tasks Spreitzer (1995)
7.6 The employees of the company can decide independently how they perform their tasks On the basis of
Spreitzer (1995)
L. Mory et al.
7.7 The company provides the employees with numerous opportunities for independent work On the basis of
Spreitzer (1995)
7.8 Overall, the employees of the company have high personal and independent responsibility in their tasks Self-developed
Table A2. Indicators of the endogenous variables.

Affective organizational commitment
8.1 I really feel as if this organization’s problems are my own On the basis of
Allen and Meyer (1990)
8.2 I think that I could not easily become as attached to another organization as I am to the company On the basis of
8.3 I feel like ‘part of the family’ at the company On the basis of
8.4 The company has a great deal of personal meaning for me On the basis of
8.5 I feel a strong sense of belonging to the company On the basis of
8.6 I am very happy being a member of this organization On the basis of
Jaros (2007)
8.7 I am proud to say I work for the company On the basis of
Brammer et al. (2007)
8.8 Overall, I feel ‘emotionally attached’ to the company On the basis of
Normative organizational commitment
9.1 I believe that I have to thank the company for many things and therefore I am obliged to the organization On the basis of
Jaros (2007)
9.2 I think that I owe the company quite a bit because of what it has done for me On the basis of
Jaros (2007)
9.3 The company deserves my loyalty and faithfulness because of its good treatment towards me On the basis of
Jaros (2007)
9.4 I feel I would be letting my co-workers down if I wasn’t a member of this organization On the basis of
Jaros (2007)
9.5 One of the major reasons I continue to work for this organization is that I believe that loyalty is important On the basis of
and therefore I feel a sense of moral obligation to remain with the company Allen and Meyer (1990)
9.6 The company has a mission in which I believe and to which I am committed to On the basis of
Jaros (2007)
9.7 I feel it is ‘morally correct’ to dedicate myself to the company and in a sense also to commit myself On the basis of
Jaros (2007)
9.8 After all that the company has done for me, I feel very obliged to remain in this organization Self-developed
33

Factors of Internal Corporate Social Responsibility and its Effect on Organizational Commitment

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Factors of Internal Corporate Social Responsibility and its Effect on Organizational Commitment

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [University of Nebraska, Lincoln]

On: 03 September 2015, At: 06:34

The International Journal of Human

Factors of internal corporate social

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2015.1072103

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Factors of internal corporate social responsibility and the effect on

*Corresponding author. Email: ls-wirtz@uni-speyer.de

q 2015 Taylor & Francis

a comprehensive definition, conceptualization and operationalization are missing.

organizational commitment, especially the affective component (e.g. Brammer,

Theoretical background and hypotheses

Social exchange theory and internal CSR

companies’ tangible employee involvement through shares as well as ‘information’ and

Social exchange theory and organizational commitment

voluntarily, as opposed to a result of external circumstances or pressures (Eisenberger,

Affective and normative organizational commitment

of affective commitment is proposed. Altogether, the above considerations lead to the

Data and method

Figure 1. Conceptual model.

Data collection and sample

Anderson/Gerbing tests and two pre-tests.

Assessing potential sampling and method biases

Table 1. Characteristics of the sample and the population.

Variables and measures

Analysis and results

Results for the measurement model

Results for the structural model

Table 2. Scale reliability of the exogenous variables.

ITK- Factor Cronb. Factors

Table 3. Scale reliability of the endogenous variables.

0.947*** Tangible employee 0.269***

5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5

χ² = 3011.386 CFI = 0.954 AGFI^ = 0.969 RMSEA = 0.049 n = 2,078

Figure 2. First-order confirmatory factor analysis.

χ² = 3209.984 CFI = 0.951 AGFI^ = 0.962 RMSEA = 0.050 n = 2,078

Figure 3. Second-order confirmatory factor analysis.

Table 4. Fornell/Larcker criterion.

Table 5. x 2 difference test.

affective organizational commitment also partly mediates the relationship between

Discussion, conclusions and limitations

Workface diversity 0.568*** Internal CSR 0.595***

Tangible employee R2 = 0.535

χ² = 5257.458 CFI = 0.941 AGFI^ = 0.954 RMSEA = 0.049 n = 2,078

Figure 4. Structural model.

Commission, 2001, p. 9).

and research (pp. 77 – 94). New York, NY: Springer.

Organization Management Journal, 5, 83 – 98. doi:10.1057/omj.2008.10

modeling. International Journal of Marketing Research, 17, 195– 202. doi:10.1016/S0167-8116

Table A1. Indicators of the exogenous variables.

order to create an excellent working environment DIN-ISO26000,O26000, 26000

or to let their skills be developed by the company Brammer et al. (2007)

success in a sufficient amount

Table A2. Indicators of the endogenous variables.

You might also like

0.947* Tangible employee 0.269*

Workface diversity 0.568* Internal CSR 0.595*