The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0025-1747.htm

Micro understanding of the Perceived CSR

and job
macro: employee perception, performance

corporate social responsibility

and job performance
Chenxiao Wang Received 2 November 2022
Revised 17 April 2023
School of Economics and Management, Beijing University of Chemical Technology, 16 June 2023
Beijing, China 29 August 2023
Accepted 22 October 2023
Qingpu Zhang and Lu Lu
School of Management, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin, China, and
Fangcheng Tang
School of Economics and Management, Beijing University of Chemical Technology,
Beijing, China

Abstract
Purpose – This study was aimed at obtaining a micro understanding of corporate social responsibility (CSR)
by investigating the effect of perceived CSR on job performance. Especially, an attempt is made to explore the
mediating role of perceived organizational support and the moderating role of collectivism on the relationship
between perceived CSR and job performance.
Design/methodology/approach – This study collected questionnaire data from 219 employees of Chinese
manufacturing firms, then used hierarchical multiple regression analysis to test our theoretical model.
Findings – Our empirical results demonstrate that perceived internal and perceived external CSR are
positively associated with job performance. In addition, perceived organizational support mediates the
relationship between perceived CSR and job performance, and collectivism positively moderates the
relationship between perceived external CSR and perceived organizational support.
Practical implications – This study highlights the importance of adopting various strategies to conduct
CSR practices, enhancing perceived organizational support and leveraging employee collectivism, which
would be beneficial to improve job performance.
Originality/value – This study reveals employees’ underlying attitudes and behaviors responses to
perceived CSR, thereby deepening the micro understanding of CSR. In addition, it extends the literature on
social exchange theory by dividing perceived CSR into perceived internal and perceived external CSR and
exploring their separate effects on job performance. Moreover, the study reveals the mediating role of perceived
organizational support and the moderating role of collectivism, enriching the knowledge based on social
exchange theory.
Keywords Perceived corporate social responsibility, Social identity theory, Social exchange theory,
Perceived organizational support, Job performance
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) refers to a firm’s voluntary stewardship practices
beyond its legal and economic responsibilities to shareholders. It is a valuable organizational

This research was supported by the China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (2023M730185), the
National Natural Science Foundation of China (72302012, 72072008 and 72104017), the Fundamental
Research Funds for the Central Universities (BH2325), Funds for Basic Scientific Research in Central
Universities (buctrc201804) and Funds for First-class Discipline Construction in Beijing University of Management Decision
Chemical Technology (XK1802-5). © Emerald Publishing Limited
0025-1747
Conflict of interests: There is no conflict of interests to report. DOI 10.1108/MD-11-2022-1496
MD strategy that has attracted increasing attention from organizations and individuals (Asiaei
et al., 2022; Kim and Kim, 2021). A substantial body of research has concentrated on macro-
CSR to explore its relationships with organizational outcomes (Lee and Jung, 2016; Wang
et al., 2020a). However, in recent years, there has been a growing shift from examining macro-
CSR outcomes to examining micro-CSR outcomes. An increasing number of scholars have
attempted to obtain the micro understanding of CSR by exploring the effects of perceived
CSR on employee outcomes (Kim and Kim, 2021; Pasricha et al., 2023; Gullifor et al., 2023).
Previous studies on micro-CSR outcomes have focused mainly on the link between perceived
CSR and various employee behaviors, such as voluntary pro-environmental behavior (Raza
et al., 2021), innovative behavior (Pasricha et al., 2023), and organizational citizenship behavior
(Li and Chen, 2023). However, job performance, a crucial achievement-related behavior that
generates value for firms (L
opez-Cabarcos et al., 2022), has not been examined as an outcome of
perceived CSR. A continuous focus on the employee perception of CSR in practice is vital
(Gullifor et al., 2023). A growing trend among employees is to consider not only the well-being
afforded by firms to organizational members (internal CSR) but also how firms are helping to
address society’s biggest challenges (external CSR) (Edelman, 2021). As internal stakeholders,
employees instinctively differentiate between internal CSR activities (those directed toward
themselves) and external CSR activities (those directed toward external stakeholders)
(De Roeck and Maon, 2018; Chatzopoulou et al., 2022). Employee perceptions of internal and
external CSR may have different effects on their job performance, warranting further
exploration. Social identity theory has been widely used to examine how the employee
perception of CSR affects their behaviors (Chatzopoulou et al., 2022), thus may be used to
explore the effects of perceived internal and perceived external CSR on job performance.
Employee attitudes such as organizational trust, organizational justice, and organizational
identification have been found to mediate the relationship between employees’ perceived CSR
and their behaviors (George et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2020b; Zhao et al., 2022). However, the
mediating role of perceived organizational support, a typical employee attitude (Wang et al.,
2020b), in the relationship between perceived CSR and job performance has been overlooked.
In addition, individual factors may moderate the mediating mechanisms that trigger
employees’ attitudinal and behavioral responses to perceived CSR (De Roeck and Maon,
2018). Among these individual factors, collectivism has been found to significantly influence the
relationship between employees and their organizations (Van Knippenberg et al., 2015; Xie et al.,
2022). However, few studies have explored the moderating role of collectivism on the
relationship between perceived CSR and job performance (via perceived organizational
support). Social exchange theory has been widely used in the CSR research to explain the
employee–organization relationship (Mohammed et al., 2022). It may also provide potential to
explain the mediating role of perceived organizational support and the moderating role of
collectivism on the relationship between perceived CSR and job performance. Therefore, this
study draws on social identity theory and social exchange theory to gain the micro
understanding of CSR by answering the following three questions:
Q1. How does perceived CSR (perceived internal and perceived external CSR) influence
job performance?
Q2. How does perceived organizational support mediate the relationship between
perceived CSR and job performance?
Q3. How does collectivism moderate the indirect effects (via perceived organizational
support) of perceived CSR on job performance?
Perceived internal CSR has been found to increase employees’ productivity and generate
positive work behaviors (De Roeck and Maon, 2018; Bhatti et al., 2022), thereby improving job
performance. Similarly, employees with higher perceived external CSR have better
organizational commitment and work engagement, thus also enhancing job performance Perceived CSR
(Hur et al., 2018; Paruzel et al., 2021). In addition, perceived internal and perceived external and job
CSR help employees to feel respected and take pride in their firms (Chen et al., 2023; De Roeck
and Maon, 2018), improving their perceived organizational support. Perceived organizational
performance
support, in turn, leads to enhance employee performance by generating positive behaviors
(Huang et al., 2021). Therefore, perceived organizational support may mediate the
relationship between perceived CSR and job performance. Additionally, collectivism could
promote employee attachment to the organization and support organizational interests (Hur
et al., 2018; Zhao et al., 2019), thereby enhancing the effects of perceived CSR on job
performance. Thus, collectivism may positively moderate the indirect effect of perceived CSR
on job performance (via perceived organizational support).
To empirically test our theoretical model, we collected questionnaire data from 219
employees in Chinese manufacturing firms over three stages, then applied hierarchical
multiple regression analysis. Our study makes several theoretical contributions. First, it
enriches the micro understanding of CSR by exploring the underlying psychological
mechanisms related to employee attitudes and behaviors. Second, it offers new insights into
the literature on social exchange theory by revealing the influence of perceived internal and
perceived external CSR on job performance, extending the research on the outcomes of
perceived CSR. Third, by introducing attitude-related variables, it opens the “black box” in the
relationship between perceived CSR and job performance. Thus, by revealing the mediating
role of perceived organizational support and the moderating role of collectivism, this study
deepens the micro understanding of CSR and enriches the literature on social exchange theory.

2. Literature review
According to the studies of Wang et al. (2020b) and Zhao et al. (2022), the employee perception
of CSR can generate a series of underlying attitudes and behaviors. Previous studies have
explored the effects of perceived CSR on employee attitudes or behaviors separately. For
instance, George et al. (2021) revealed the relationship between perceived CSR and affective
commitment, while Latif et al. (2022) explored the effect of perceived CSR on employee
pro-environmental behavior. Recently, an increasing number of studies have combined
employee attitudes and behaviors to explore the outcomes of micro-CSR. For instance, Liu
et al. (2021) investigated the effect of perceived CSR on employee voice behavior and
introduced felt obligation and positive emotions as mediators of this relationship. Afridi et al.
(2020) explored the link between perceived CSR and innovative work behavior and
introduced attitude-related factors (authenticity and employee volunteerism) as moderators.
Pasricha et al. (2023) explored the relationship between perceived CSR and employee
innovative behavior and introduced organizational pride as a mediator of this relationship.
These studies raise interesting questions about the employee attitudes that may be
underpinning the relationship between perceived CSR and employee behavior, which could
deepen the micro understanding of CSR (Gullifor et al., 2023; Zhao et al., 2022).
Social identity theory and social exchange theory are the two most commonly adopted
frameworks in micro-CSR research and have been widely used to explore employees’
attitudinal and behavioral responses to perceived CSR (Gullifor et al., 2023; Hur et al., 2022).
Social identity theory is the main theory employed to explain the effect of perceived CSR on
employee behaviors (Chatzopoulou et al., 2022). For instance, Li and Chen (2023) revealed how
perceived CSR execution influences organizational citizenship behavior. Raza et al. (2021)
demonstrated the positive relationship between employee perception of CSR and their
voluntary pro-environmental behavior. However, the effect of perceived CSR on the most
crucial achievement-related behavior, job performance, remains underexamined. In addition,
studies are increasingly focusing on the effects of different types of perceived CSR on
employee attitudes and behaviors. For instance, Zhao et al. (2019) revealed the positive effects
MD of the employee perception of economic CSR, philanthropic CSR, and strategic CSR on
organizational identification. Kim and Kim (2021) demonstrated the positive influence of
perceived management and customer support for CSR on work engagement. Mohammed
et al. (2022) revealed the positive relationship between employee perceptions of ethical and
philanthropic CSR and their creativity behavior. Perceived CSR can also be distinguished
according to whether it is directed toward employees (i.e. perceived internal CSR) or external
stakeholders (i.e. perceived external CSR) (Wang et al., 2020b; Zhao et al., 2022). However,
studies on the separate effects of perceived internal and perceived external CSR on job
performance are insufficient, leaving a deficiency that must be remedied.
Social exchange theory has emerged as an important perspective in the micro-CSR research
to understand how social exchanges shape the relationship between employees and their
organizations (Mohammed et al., 2022; Zhao et al., 2022). According to social exchange theory,
attitude-related factors may mediate the relationship between perceived CSR and employee
behaviors (Pasricha et al., 2023). In their meta-analysis, Zhao et al. (2022) demonstrated the
mediating role of organizational trust, organizational justice, and organizational identification
in the relationship between perceived CSR and employee behaviors, in line with social
exchange theory. However, the mediating effect of perceived organizational support, a typical
employee attitude, on the relationship between perceived CSR and job performance has
previously been overlooked. Meanwhile, individual factors related to social exchange theory
could moderate the mediating mechanisms that trigger employees’ attitudinal and behavioral
responses to perceived CSR (De Roeck and Maon, 2018; Zhao et al., 2022). Previous research
has revealed the positive moderating effect of collectivistic orientation based on social
exchange theory (Yang, 2020), but few studies have used social exchange theory to examine
how collectivism moderates the employee–organization relationship. Therefore, this study
adopts collectivism as a moderator to obtain the micro understanding of CSR.
In summary, the existing literature has explored micro-CSR outcomes by combining
employee attitudes and behaviors. However, the underlying psychological mechanisms of
explaining the effects of micro-CSR on employee behavior via employee attitude remain
under-investigated (Gullifor et al., 2023; Zhao et al., 2022). Therefore, this study aims to deepen
the micro understanding of CSR. Specifically, it seeks to explore the relationship between
perceived CSR and job performance according to social identity theory. It then investigates
the mediating role of perceived organizational support and the moderating role of
collectivism based on social exchange theory.
The research model is presented in Figure 1.

Perceived internal CSR

H1 (+)

H5 (+) H3 (+)

Collectivism Perceived organizational support Job performance

H6 (+) H4 (+)

H2 (+)

Figure 1. Perceived external CSR

Research model
Source(s): Figure by authors
3. Theory and hypothesis Perceived CSR
3.1 Social identity theory and job
Social identity theory focuses on an individual’s comprehension and consciousness of their
membership of a social group to which they belong, contending that individual’s identity is
performance
partly defined by their social groups (Gullifor et al., 2023). Social identity theory provides an
avenue for clarifying employees’ reactions to perceived CSR (Chatzopoulou et al., 2022), which
can then explain the relationship between the employee perception of CSR and their
behaviors (e.g. Job performance). Employee perception of CSR includes perceived internal and
perceived external CSR (Wang et al., 2020b; Zhao et al., 2022). Based on social identity theory,
this study aims to explore the effects of perceived internal and perceived external CSR on job
performance.

3.2 Social exchange theory

Social exchange theory posits that individuals develop positive reactions as an exchange
strategy to repay firms for the support they receive (Chatzopoulou et al., 2022). This theory
has the potential to illustrate the mediating mechanism of employee attitudes in the
relationship between perceived CSR and employee behaviors. Employees are more likely to
react positively to perceived CSR and generate positive behaviors by sensing the
organization’s support (Kim and Kim, 2021). Therefore, perceived organizational support,
a typical variable related to social exchange theory, may mediate the relationship between
perceived CSR and job performance. In addition, social exchange theory has been widely
adopted to examine attitudes in relational societies such as China (Shore et al., 2009; Duan
et al., 2022). Collectivism is one of China’s most widely researched cultural characteristics
(Zhu et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2022), which can also be used to distinguish between individuals
in the same cultural context. Thus, as an individual variable, collectivism may moderate the
relationship between perceived CSR and job performance (via perceived organizational
support), in line with social exchange theory.

3.3 Perceived CSR and job performance

Perceived internal CSR refers to the employee perception of the CSR activities directed toward
themselves (Farooq et al., 2017; De Roeck and Maon, 2018). Perceived internal CSR is
positively associated with job performance. Job performance refers to the aggregated value of
an employee’s behaviors in contributing to organizational goals (Rich et al., 2010).
The positive relationship between perceived internal CSR and job performance may be
attributable to two factors. First, employees who perceive high internal CSR may feel more
confident in progressing their careers, possibly leading to increased productivity (Hur et al.,
2018; Song and Tao, 2022). Second, perceived internal CSR may make employees feel that
they are respected and treated fairly by their firms, which can encourage positive behaviors
(Bhatti et al., 2022). Thus, employees with perceived internal CSR are more likely to improve
their job performance. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H1. Perceived internal CSR is positively related to job performance.
Perceived external CSR refers to the employee perception of CSR activities directed toward
external stakeholders (e.g. the community, the environment, and consumers) (Farooq et al.,
2017; De Roeck and Maon, 2018). Perceived external CSR is also positively related to job
performance. External CSR activities aim to benefit external stakeholders, which can enhance
employee commitment and improve their affection of and identification with the organization
(Farooq et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2022). As a result, employees with higher perceived external
CSR are more likely to take pride in their firms and generate better job performance to
maintain its social reputation (Hur et al., 2018). In addition, a high perceived external CSR
MD positively affects work engagement (Paruzel et al., 2021), promoting employees to stay
positive when working, leading to improved job performance. Therefore, the following
hypothesis is proposed:
H2. Perceived external CSR is positively related to job performance.

3.4 The mediating effect of perceived organizational support

Perceived organizational support refers to employees’ perceptions of how the organization
values their contribution and supports them as respected organizational members (Baranik
et al., 2010; Glavas and Kelley, 2014). Perceived internal CSR is positively related to perceived
organizational support. First, employees with higher perceived internal CSR usually work in
a fair and unconstrained environment, enhancing their growth potential and helping them
feel respected by the firm improve (Chatzopoulou et al., 2022). Thus, employees’ perceptions
of organizational support will. Second, internal CSR activities are aimed at improving
employee well-being (Farooq et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2022), in turn promoting employees to
perceive more support from their organization (Chen et al., 2023). Thus, there is a positive
relationship between perceived internal CSR and perceived organizational support. Perceived
external CSR is also positively related to perceived organizational support. Employees with
higher perceived external CSR are more likely to perceive external prestige and pride,
increasing their perceived organizational support (Jones, 2010; De Roeck and Maon, 2018).
Additionally, employees with perceived external CSR would easily perceive evaluations of
self-focused justice, increasing perceived organizational support (Gullifor et al., 2023; Zahoor
et al., 2022).
Perceived organizational support is positively associated with job performance. First,
firms that provide greater organizational support consider employees’ goals and values,
which can foster employees generate positive work behaviors (Huang et al., 2021), improving
job performance. Second, perceived organizational support can increase employees’ job
satisfaction by caring about employees’ well-being and opinions (To and Huang, 2022). While
job satisfaction is a crucial factor to help employees achieve better job performance (Alwali
and Alwali, 2022). Therefore, perceived organizational support can improve job performance.
In summary, perceived internal and perceived external CSR are both positively associated
with perceived organizational support, in turn boosting job performance. Thus, perceived
organizational support mediates the relationship between perceived CSR and job
performance. Therefore, the following hypotheses are proposed:
H3. Perceived organizational support mediates the relationship between perceived
internal CSR and job performance.
H4. Perceived organizational support mediates the relationship between perceived
external CSR and job performance.

3.5 The moderating effect of collectivism

Collectivism refers to the degree to which individuals perceive themselves as interdependent
with others in their social group (Nayir and Herzig, 2012; Zhao et al., 2019). Collectivism
emphasizes that individuals prioritize the maximization of collective interests over
individuals (Nguyen et al., 2022), which may moderate the relationship between perceived
CSR and perceived organizational support, being analyzed in the following.
First, employees with higher collectivism stress organizational harmony and generate
positive attitudes toward their firm’s practical activities (Yan et al., 2023).
In this context, employees with higher perceived internal CSR will sense a greater respect
from their firms, thus strengthening the relationship between perceived internal CSR and
perceived organizational support. Second, collectivism fosters employees to develop stronger Perceived CSR
attachments to their organizations (Zhao et al., 2019). Thus, in this context, employees who and job
perceive a higher level of internal CSR are more likely to devote themselves to their work,
strengthening the relationship between perceived internal CSR and perceived organizational
performance
support. Therefore, this study proposes the following hypothesis:
H5. Collectivism positively moderates the relationship between perceived internal CSR
and perceived organizational support in such a way that collectivism enhances the
positive effect of perceived internal CSR on job performance.
Collectivism also moderates the relationship between perceived external CSR and perceived
organizational support. Collectivism encourages employees to prioritize healthy
relationships and think about others (Zhao et al., 2019). In this context, employees are
more likely to identify with and take pride in their firms’ external CSR practices. Additionally,
collectivism requires employees to prioritize the organization’s interests (Hur et al., 2018; Zhao
et al., 2019). In this context, employees will perceive external CSR as part of the firm’s strategy
and have a high level of overall justice, thereby increasing the effect of perceived external CSR
on perceived organizational support. In line with these arguments, this study proposes the
following hypothesis:
H6. Collectivism positively moderates the relationship between perceived external CSR
and perceived organizational support in such a way that collectivism enhances the
positive effect of perceived external CSR on job performance.

4. Method
4.1 Data collection
Questionnaire surveys are a widely used method for collecting data in quantitative studies,
and they are increasingly popular in micro-CSR research, particularly when gathering
employee responses (Pasricha et al., 2023; Mohammed et al., 2022). Investigating Chinese
employees’ responses to CSR perception is highly valuable (Zhao et al., 2019). Therefore, this
study employs an empirical research method based on a questionnaire survey to explore the
micro understanding of CSR. We selected employees in Chinese manufacturing firms for two
reasons. First, manufacturing firms consume significant amounts of resources (Rehman et al.,
2021), and CSR is crucial to their long-term success (Zhou et al., 2020). Second, Chinese culture
is known for its high level of collectivism (Liu et al., 2016), and an increasing number of
Chinese manufacturing firms are placing greater value on CSR activities. Based on a previous
study (De Roeck and Farooq, 2018), this study selected employees in manufacturing firms as
respondents and included only participants whose firms publicly promote CSR activities on
their websites. To attract participation, we guaranteed the anonymity of both the
respondents and their firms.
To avoid potential common method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003), we collected data in three
stages with three months intervals between each stage. In the first stage, we randomly
selected 971 employees from various functional departments in manufacturing firms in
Heilongjiang, Shandong, Yunnan, and Guangdong provinces listed in the China Business
Directory. Of the 673 employees willing to participate in the survey, we received 312 valid
responses on this stage’s explanatory variables (perceived internal and perceived external
CSR) and control variables. Three months later, we approached the same employees with a
valid response from the first stage of data collection, resulting in 253 usable questionnaires on
perceived organizational support, collectivism, and control variables in the second stage.
The third stage was three months after the second stage of data collection, and in the third
stage, we requested immediate supervisors in employees’ departments to evaluate their job
MD performance. The final sample consisted of 219 complete questionnaires after merging the
data collected in the three stages, resulting in a response rate of 22.55%. Descriptive statistics
of the final sample are presented in Table 1.

4.2 Study measures

This study developed an initial English version questionnaire based on prior research.
The questionnaire consisted of all items of constructs in our model, rated on a five-point
Likert-type scale. We followed the translation and back-translation procedure by requesting
three professional translators who specialize in perceived CSR and job performance to
translate our questionnaire to ensure the accuracy and validity of the translation (Brislin,
1970). After that, we formed the Chinese version questionnaire. We then conducted two-round
pretests and made minor refinements to some measurement items according to the feedback
we received. The final questionnaire items are presented in the Appendix.
Adopted from Erdogan and Enders (2007) and Williams and Anderson (1991), a seven-
item scale was used to assess job performance (e.g. “This employee adequately completes
assigned duties”). Perceived internal CSR was evaluated with the five-item scale developed by
Turker (2009) (e.g. “My company supports employees who want to acquire additional
education”). The scale of perceived external CSR was adapted from Farooq et al. (2017) and
Turker (2009) and was measured by ten items (e.g. “My company makes investment to create
a better life for future generations”). The eight-item scale for measuring perceived
organizational support was adapted from Baranik et al. (2010) and Eisenberger et al. (1997)
(e.g. “My organization strongly considers my goals and values”). The measurement of
collectivism used five items adopted from Chew and Hong (1996) and Nayir and Herzig (2012)
(e.g. “I would sacrifice my individual needs for the sake of the group”).
For control variables, previous studies have demonstrated that gender, age, education,
and tenure can influence employee reactions to CSR (Glavas and Kelley, 2014; Shen and
Zhang, 2019). These above-mentioned demographic variables and occupational fields may
also affect job performance. For instance, Blickle et al. (2011) proposed that gender and age
affect job performance, Ng and Feldman (2009) indicated that education is related to job
performance, and Ng and Feldman (2013) proposed that tenure may influence job
performance. Therefore, this study selected gender, age, education, and tenure as control
variables.

Variable Items Frequency Percentage

Gender Female 87 39.73%

Male 132 60.27%
Age Less than 30 years 49 22.37%
30–39 years 73 33.33%
40–49 years 66 30.14%
More than 50 years 31 14.16%
Education High school or lower degree 28 12.79%
Bachelor degree 106 48.40%
Master or higher degree 85 38.81%
Manager tenure Less than 1 year 28 12.79%
1–3 years 59 26.94%
3–5 years 73 33.33%
Table 1. 5–10 years 43 19.63%
Descriptive statistics of More than 10 years 16 7.31%
samples (N 5 219) Source(s): Table by authors
5. Results Perceived CSR
5.1 Regression analysis and job
To ensure the reliability and validity of the constructs, this study conducted confirmatory
factor analysis before the regression analysis, and estimated the measurement model
performance
(Qureshi and Compeau, 2009). The results revealed that all 35 items formed five distinct
factors (job performance, seven items; perceived internal CSR, five items; perceived external
CSR, ten items; perceived organizational support, eight items; collectivism, five items).
The confirmatory factor analysis model also demonstrated acceptable model fit (χ 2/df 5 1.21,
RMSEA 5 0.03, CFI 5 0.97, IFI 5 0.97, TLI 5 0.97, SRMR 5 0.05, p ＜ 0.01) (Gan et al., 2023;
Bagozzi and Yi, 2012; Hu and Bentler, 1999).
As shown in Table 2, the Cronbach’s alpha values of all constructs were above 0.7,
indicating good reliability in this study (Wang et al., 2022; Pasricha et al., 2023). Then, we
tested the validity of the study. The factor loadings ranged from 0.67 to 0.85 and are
presented in Table 2. This study computed the average variance extracted and composite
reliability of the constructs using the above factor loadings. The values of average variance

Construct Items Factor loading Cronbach’s alpha AVE CR

Job Performance (JP) JP1 0.79 0.92 0.62 0.92

JP2 0.76
JP3 0.80
JP4 0.77
JP5 0.81
JP6 0.81
JP7 0.77
Perceived internal CSR (PICSR) PICSR1 0.85 0.89 0.62 0.89
PICSR2 0.78
PICSR3 0.75
PICSR4 0.77
PICSR5 0.77
Perceived external CSR (PECSR) PECSR1 0.81 0.94 0.60 0.94
PECSR2 0.77
PECSR3 0.77
PECSR4 0.72
PECSR5 0.78
PECSR6 0.77
PECSR7 0.72
PECSR8 0.78
PECSR9 0.78
PECSR10 0.81
Perceived organizational support (POS) POS1 0.75 0.89 0.50 0.89
POS2 0.68
POS3 0.67
POS4 0.71
POS5 0.69
POS6 0.69
POS7 0.70
POS8 0.74
Collectivism (CO) CO1 0.76 0.84 0.51 0.84
CO2 0.67
CO3 0.70
CO4 0.72 Table 2.
CO5 0.71 Factor loadings from
Source(s): Table by authors reliabilities
MD extracted and composite reliability were above 0.50 and 0.62, respectively, indicating good
convergent validity. The correlation matrix of the main variables is presented in Table 3,
which reveals that all square roots of the main variables of the average variance extracted
(from 0.71 to 0.79) were larger than the correlation coefficients (maximum value 0.37).
Therefore, the discriminate validity was good (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). This study also
adopted Harman’s single-factor test to examine common method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003).
The first factor accounted for only 25.75% of the total variance, which is less than the 50%
threshold, indicating that common method bias was not a problem in this study (Wang
et al., 2022).
This study used three-step hierarchical multiple regression analysis to test the mediating
role of perceived organizational support (Aiken et al., 1991; Cohen et al., 2014). Table 4
presents the results. The first step examined the relationship between perceived CSR and job
performance, and the results are presented in Models 1 and 2. The regression equation of both
models was significant (Model 1: F 5 3.78, p < 0.01; Model 2: F 5 5.46, p < 0.001). The findings
revealed that perceived internal and perceived external CSR positively affects job
performance (bPICSR 5 0.29, pPICSR < 0.001; bPECSR 5 0.25, pPICSR < 0.001), supporting H1
and H2. Models 1 and 2 is the base model, and we entered perceived organizational support
into the separate mediation models in the second step (Models 3 and 4). The results revealed
that perceived internal and perceived external CSR were positively related to perceived
organizational support (bICSR 5 0.16, pICSR < 0.01; bECSR 5 0.22, pECSR < 0.001). Among the
control variables, the coefficients of gender and tenure in Model 3 were significant
(bgender 5
0.12, pgender < 0.05; btenure 5 0.05, ptenure < 0.1). In Model 4, only the coefficients of
gender were significant (b 5
0.09, p < 0.1). In the third step, we regressed the relationship
between perceived CSR, perceived organizational support, and job performance (see Models 5
and 6). The results indicated that perceived internal CSR and perceived organizational
support positively influence job performance (bICSR 5 0.23, pICSR < 0.01; bPOS 5 0.35, pPOS
< 0.001), and perceived external CSR and perceived organizational support were also
positively related to job performance (bPECSR 5 0.19, pPECSR < 0.01; bPOS 5 0.29, pPOS < 0.001).
Therefore, perceived organizational support partially mediated the relationship between
perceived CSR (perceived internal and perceived external CSR) and job performance,
supporting H3 and H4.

JP PICSR PECSR POS CO Gender Age education Tenure

JP 0.79
PICSR 0.25*** 0.79
PECSR 0.32*** 0.08 0.77
POS 0.33*** 0.17* 0.34*** 0.71
CO 0.19**
0.08
0.09 0.08 0.71
Gender
0.11 0.03
0.07
0.15*
0.15* –
Age 0.03 0.00 0.05
0.00 0.08 0.07 –
Education
0.03
0.03 0.04
0.05 0.02 0.09 0.11y –
Tenure 0.07
0.02 0.08 0.13y
0.07
0.08 0.37***
0.07 –
Mean 3.91 3.16 2.84 3.51 3.32 1.60 2.36 2.26 2.82
Standard 0.49 0.44 0.61 0.41 0.38 0.49 0.98 0.67 1.11
deviation
Note(s): 1. yp < 0.1, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001(2-tailed test)
2. Entry on the diagonal with italic is the square roots of average variances extracted
Table 3. 3. JP: job performance, PICSR: perceived internal CSR, PECSR: perceived external CSR, POS: perceived
Correlation matrix of organizational support, CO: collectivism
main variables Source(s): Table by authors
 JP POS JP
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6
Coefficient Coefficient Coefficient Coefficient Coefficient Coefficient
(standard error) (standard error) (standard error) (standard error) (standard error) (standard error)

Intercept 3.09*** (0.30) 3.31*** (0.23) 3.11*** (0.24) 3.02*** (0.18) 2.01*** (0.38) 2.42*** (0.33) (0.33)
PICSR 0.29*** (0.07) 0.16** (0.06) 0.23** (0.07)
PECSR 0.25*** (0.05) 0.22*** (0.04) 0.19** (0.05)
POS 0.35*** (0.08) 0.29*** (0.08)
Gender
0.11 (0.07)
0.08 (0.07)
0.12* (0.06)
0.09y (0.05)
0.07 (0.07)
0.05 (0.06)
Age 0.01 (0.04) 0.01 (0.04)
0.02 (0.03)
0.02 (0.03) 0.01 (0.04) 0.01 (0.04)
Education
0.00 (0.05)
0.02 (0.05)
0.01 (0.04)
0.02 (0.04)
0.00 (0.05)
0.02 (0.05)
Tenure 0.03 (0.03) 0.02 (0.03) 0.05y (0.03) 0.04 (0.03) 0.01 (0.03) 0.00 (0.03)
F value 3.78** 5.46*** 3.12* 7.30*** 6.57*** 6.91***
2
R 0.08 0.11 0.07 0.15 0.16 0.16
Adjust R2 0.06 0.09 0.05 0.13 0.13 0.14
Note(s): 1. yp < 0.1, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001 (2-tailed test)
2. JP: Job Performance, PICSR: Perceived internal CSR, PECSR: Perceived external CSR, POS: Perceived organizational support, CO: Collectivism
Source(s): Table by authors
performance
and job
Perceived CSR

effects (N 5 219)
Results of regression
Table 4.

analyses on mediating
MD To examine the moderating effect of collectivism, we followed the procedure suggested by
Aiken et al. (1991) and Cohen et al. (2014) and generated interaction terms through mean
centering explanatory variables to reduce nonessential collinearity (Kistruck et al., 2013).
The results are presented in Table 5. First, we tested the moderating effect of collectivism on
the relationship between perceived internal CSR and perceived organizational support (see
Model 7). The result revealed that the coefficient of PICSR 3 CO interaction term was not
significant (b 5 0.09, p > 0.05), indicating that H5 was not supported. Next, we entered the
interaction of PECSR 3 CO into the regression equation. The result is presented in Model 8,
which demonstrates that the coefficient of PECSR 3 CO (b 5 0.32, p < 0.01) was significant.
There was significantly more incremental variance (ΔR2 5 0.04) than in Model 4. Therefore,
we found that collectivism positively moderates the relationship between perceived external
CSR and perceived organizational support. For the control variables, only the coefficient of
tenure was significant (b 5 0.06, p < 0.05). Following the suggestions of Meyer et al. (2017),
this study plotted the marginal effect of perceived external CSR on perceived organizational
support at different levels of collectivism (see Figure 2). Figure 2 illustrates that when the
value of collectivism (CO) increased from 2.94 to 4 (accounting for 98.63% of the total sample
size), the effect of perceived external CSR on perceived organizational support became
significantly stronger. In other words, collectivism intensified the positive relationship
between perceived external CSR and perceived organizational support, thus supporting H6.

5.2 Supplementary analysis

To check the robustness of our results, we conducted two supplementary analyses. First,
according to the previous study of Wang et al. (2020a), we applied full models to further test
the hypotheses by entering the independent variables, moderator, and all interaction terms
based on Model 9 in Table 5. The results are shown in Model 10. The coefficient of the
interaction term (PICSR 3 CO; b 5 0.01, p > 0.05) was insignificant, thus H5 was not
supported. However, the coefficient of the PECSR 3 CO interaction term was positive and
significant (b 5 0.30, p < 0.05), further supporting H6. These results were consistent with
those shown in Models 7 and 8. Second, based on the suggestion of Song et al. (2005), we
divided the sample into COhigh (above the mean value) and COlow (below the mean value) and
conducted a regression analysis between perceived external CSR and perceived
organizational support. According to the results, the slope was steeper under higher levels
of collectivism in the relationship between perceived external CSR and perceived
organizational support (COhigh: b 5 0.44, p < 0.001 vs COlow: b 5 0.13, p < 0.05), which
further supported H6. The results of these two supplementary analyses were consistent with
the initial test results, indicating a high level of model robustness in our study.

6. Discussion
6.1 Main findings
Based on a sample of 219 employees in Chinese manufacturing firms, our study revealed
three findings. First, our findings demonstrate the positive effect of perceived internal and
perceived external CSR on job performance. Existing studies have introduced behavior-
related factors as perceived CSR outcomes, such as voluntary pro-environmental behavior
(Raza et al., 2021) and innovative work behavior (Afridi et al., 2020). This study divides
perceived CSR into perceived internal and perceived external CSR, validating and enriching
the relationships between perceived CSR and employee behavior. Second, our findings
demonstrate the mediating role of perceived organizational support in the relationship
between perceived CSR and job performance, extending the previous research that focuses
only on the moderating role of perceived organizational support in macro-CSR outcomes
 Model 3 Model 4 Model 7 Model 8 Model 9 Model 10
Coefficient Coefficient Coefficient Coefficient Coefficient Coefficient
Independent variable: POS (standard error) (standard error) (standard error) (standard error) (standard error) (standard error)

Intercept 3.11*** (0.24) 3.02*** (0.18) 3.61*** (0.15) 3.61*** (0.14) 2.62*** (0.25) 3.61*** (0.14)
PICSR 0.16** (0.06) 0.14* (0.07) 0.14* (0.06) 0.11y (0.07)
PECSR 0.22*** (0.04) 0.24*** (0.04) 0.21*** (0.04) 0.23*** (0.04)
CO 0.07 (0.07) 0.11 (0.07) 0.10 (0.07)
PICSR 3 CO 0.09 (0.18) 0.01 (0.16)
PECSR 3 CO 0.32** (0.12) 0.30* (0.12)
*
Gender
0.12 (0.06)
0.09y (0.05)
0.11y (0.06)
0.08 (0.05)
0.10y (0.05)
0.08 (0.05)
Age
0.02 (0.03)
0.02 (0.03)
0.02 (0.03)
0.04 (0.03)
0.02 (0.03)
0.03 (0.03)
Education
0.01 (0.04)
0.02 (0.04)
0.01 (0.04)
0.03 (0.04)
0.02 (0.04)
0.02 (0.04)
Tenure 0.05y (0.03) 0.04 (0.03) 0.05y (0.03) 0.06* (0.03) 0.04 (0.03) 0.06* (0.03)
* ***
F value 3.12 7.30 2.39 6.94 7.11*** 5.88***
2
R 0.07 0.15 0.07 0.19 0.17 0.20
Adjust R2 0.05 0.13 0.04 0.16 0.14 0.17
ΔR2 0.01 0.04** 0.04*
Note(s): 1. yp < 0.1, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001 (2-tailed test)
2. JP: Job performance, PICSR: Perceived internal CSR, PECSR: Perceived external CSR, POS: Perceived organizational support, CO: Collectivism
Source(s): Table by authors
performance
and job
Perceived CSR

effects (N 5 219)
Results from the
Table 5.

moderating
MD

Figure 2.
Moderating effect of
collectivism (CO) on the
relationship between
perceived external CSR
(PECSR) and perceived
organizational
support (POS)

(Kusi et al., 2021). By introducing perceived organizational support as a mediator, our

findings enrich the existing body of knowledge on micro-CSR outcomes. Third, our findings
show that collectivism positively moderates the effect of perceived external CSR on perceived
organizational support. This finding aligns with the study of Zhao et al. (2019), who found
that collectivism enhances the effect of perceived CSR on employee outcomes.
However, contrary to our expectations, our findings found no evidence that collectivism
moderates the relationship between perceived internal CSR and perceived organizational
support. One possible explanation is that internal CSR activities reflect the firm taking
responsibility for improving the well-being of its employees (Farooq et al., 2017; Wang et al.,
2022). In this situation, employees would consider themselves part of the firm collective, thus
may not be sensitive to collectivism (Hameed et al., 2016). Therefore, collectivism may not
readily influence the effect of perceived internal CSR on perceived organizational support.

6.2 Theoretical contributions

Our findings make three theoretical contributions. First, our study deepens the micro
understanding of CSR by revealing the underlying psychological mechanisms related to
employees’ attitudes and behaviors. Previous studies have focused on the separate effects of
perceived CSR on employee attitudes and behaviors such as affective commitment (George
et al., 2021) and employee pro-environmental behavior (Latif et al., 2022). An increasing
number of studies have combined employees’ attitudes and behaviors to explore the
outcomes of perceived CSR (Afridi et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2021; Pasricha et al., 2023), proposing
interesting questions about the micro understanding of CSR. This study integrates the social
identity theory and the social exchange theory to reveal the mechanisms between perceived
CSR and employee behavior mediated by employees’ attitudes, responding to the recent calls
from researchers such as Gullifor et al. (2023), Wang et al. (2020b), and Zhao et al. (2022).
Second, this study enriches the literature on social identity theory by dividing perceived
CSR into perceived internal and perceived external CSR and revealing their direct effects on
job performance. Previous studies have validated social identity theory for explaining how
perceived CSR influences employee behaviors such as organizational citizenship behavior
and voluntary pro-environmental behavior (Li and Chen, 2023; Raza et al., 2021). However, as
a crucial achievement-related behavior, job performance may also be influenced by perceived
CSR, which needed further exploration. In addition, although existing studies have explored Perceived CSR
the relationships between different types of perceived CSR and employee attitudes and and job
behaviors (Mohammed et al., 2022; Kim and Kim, 2021), new insights were needed to shed
light on the influence of perceived internal and perceived external CSR on job performance.
performance
Therefore, this study contributes to the literature on social identity theory and broadens the
understanding of the outcomes of perceived CSR.
Third, this study extends the knowledge on social exchange theory by opening the “black
box” in the relationship between perceived CSR and job performance. Our study responds to
recent calls for micro-CSR studies by introducing attitude-related variables into the
relationship between perceived CSR and employee behavior (De Roeck and Farooq, 2018;
Bhatti et al., 2022). By revealing the mediating role of perceived organizational support, this
study contributes to the attitude-related variables that should be considered to explain
micro-CSR outcomes. In addition, this study adopts social exchange theory to introduce
collectivism to the micro-CSR literature, enriching and verifying Yang’s (2020) research.
Therefore, by innovatively exploring the mediating role of perceived organizational support
and the moderating role of collectivism in the relationship between perceived CSR and
employee outcomes, this study makes an essential contribution to the literature on social
exchange theory and strengthens the micro understanding of CSR.

6.3 Practical implications

Our study has several practical implications. First, firms are highly encouraged to engage in
CSR practices that benefit both their internal stakeholder (i.e. employees) and external
stakeholders (e.g. the community, the environment, and consumers). Ensuring that
employees witness these CSR practices is crucial because this can improve job
performance. To enhance the employee perception of internal CSR activities, firms should
focus on meeting the various needs of their employees and improving their well-being. For
instance, firms could establish an internal intranet through which to communicate with their
employees, helping to accurately identify their employees’ needs (De Roeck and Farooq,
2018). Additionally, to enhance employee perception of their external CSR activities, firms
should emphasize the significance of their external CSR activities to their employees through
emails, the corporate website, and the intranet. In doing so, firms can boost employees’ job
performance and ultimately benefit themselves.
Second, firms should recognize the importance of perceived organizational support as a
channel for transforming perceived internal and perceived external CSR into better job
performance. Firms could provide targeted organizational support by offering favorable job
conditions, treating employees fairly, and communicating with them frequently. This would
increase employees’ perceived organizational support, in turn boosting the transformation of
perceived internal CSR into job performance. In addition, firms are encouraged to create
support networks to improve employees’ perceived organizational support (Huang et al.,
2021). For instance, firms could develop external relationships to provide professional
development opportunities for employees. This would improve employees’ perceived
external prestige, in turn boosting the transformation of perceived external CSR into job
performance.
Third, firms are encouraged to fully leverage collectivism to strengthen the positive effect
of perceived external CSR on job performance. Firms are encouraged to utilize the collectivist
perspectives of employees to develop a collective culture that caters to employees’ interests.
For instance, firms could prioritize job applicants who have a strong sense of collectivism at
the recruitment stage and create an organizational environment that emphasizes collective
interests (Nguyen et al., 2022). In addition, human resource managers could use various
means to boost collectivism among employees by emphasizing the collective identity and
MD group spirit (Van Knippenberg et al., 2015), especially for employees lacking collectivism. In
this vein, employees are more likely to have higher collectivism, thus amplifying the positive
relationship between perceived external CSR and job performance.

7. Conclusion, limitations, and future research

7.1 Conclusion
This study developed a theoretical model to explore the micro understanding of CSR. In this
theoretical model, perceived CSR (perceived internal and perceived external CSR) is positively
related to job performance; perceived organizational support mediates the relationship
between perceived CSR and job performance; and collectivism moderates the relationship
between perceived external CSR and perceived organizational support. To test the research
model, we collected data from 219 employees in Chinese manufacturing firms using a
questionnaire based on items from existing studies, then analyzed the data using hierarchical
multiple regression analysis.
The empirical results show that perceived internal and perceived external CSR are
positively related to job performance, supporting H1 and H2, respectively, and broadening
the literature on the outcomes of perceived CSR. In addition, our findings demonstrate that
perceived organizational support mediates the relationship between perceived internal and
perceived external CSR and job performance, supporting H3 and H4, respectively, and
providing deep insights into the underlying psychological mechanisms of employee attitudes
and behaviors. Moreover, our findings reveal the moderating role of collectivism on the
relationship between perceived external CSR and job performance, supporting H6. However,
collectivism did not moderate the relationship between perceived internal CSR and perceived
organizational support; thus, H5 was not supported.

7.2 Limitations and future research

Despite the contributions of this study, some limitations should be acknowledged. First, the
data were retrieved from self-reported questionnaires, which are widely used in quantitative
studies (Wang et al., 2022; Pasricha et al., 2023). Future studies could consider using
alternative objective measures to further analyze job performance, thereby overcoming self-
report bias. Second, this study focused on the outcomes of micro-CSR from the perspective of
social identity theory. However, other perspectives of theories, such as cue consistency theory
and self-determination theory, may also be beneficial in explaining the micro understanding
of CSR (Hur et al., 2018; De Roeck and Farooq, 2018). Moreover, this study only investigated
the moderating role of collectivism in the indirect relationship between perceived CSR and job
performance. Future research could explore the moderating role of organizational factors
such as CSR–organization fit, which may generate more interesting findings.

References
Afridi, S.A., Afsar, B., Shahjehan, A., Rehman, Z.U., Haider, M. and Ullah, M. (2020), “Retracted:
perceived corporate social responsibility and innovative work behavior: the role of employee
volunteerism and authenticity”, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental
Management, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 1865-1877, doi: 10.1002/csr.1932.
Aiken, L.S., West, S.G. and Reno, R.R. (1991), Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting
Interactions, Sage, London.
Alwali, J. and Alwali, W. (2022), “The relationship between emotional intelligence, transformational
leadership, and performance: a test of the mediating role of job satisfaction”, Leadership and
Organization Development Journal, Vol. 43 No. 6, pp. 928-952, doi: 10.1108/lodj-10-2021-0486.
Asiaei, K., Bontis, N., Barani, O., Moghaddam, M. and Sidhu, J. (2022), “The role of sustainability Perceived CSR
control systems in translating CSR into performance in Iran”, Management Decision, Vol. 60
No. 5, pp. 1438-1468, doi: 10.1108/md-11-2020-1510. and job
Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (2012), “Specification, evaluation, and interpretation of structural equation
performance
models”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 8-34, doi: 10.1007/
s11747-011-0278-x.
Baranik, L.E., Roling, E.A. and Eby, L.T. (2010), “Why does mentoring work? The role of perceived
organizational support”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 76 No. 3, pp. 366-373, doi: 10.1016/
j.jvb.2009.07.004.
Bhatti, S.H., Iqbal, K., Santoro, G. and Rizzato, F. (2022), “The impact of corporate social responsibility
directed toward employees on contextual performance in the banking sector: a serial model of
perceived organizational support and affective organizational commitment”, Corporate Social
Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 1980-1994, doi: 10.1002/
csr.2295.
Blickle, G., Fr€ohlich, J.K., Ehlert, S., Pirner, K., Dietl, E., Hanes, T.J. and Ferris, G.R. (2011),
“Socioanalytic theory and work behavior: roles of work values and political skill in job
performance and promotability assessment”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 78 No. 1,
pp. 136-148, doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2010.05.010.
Brislin, R.W. (1970), “Back-translation for cross-cultural research”, Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 185-216, doi: 10.1177/135910457000100301.
Chatzopoulou, E.C., Manolopoulos, D. and Agapitou, V. (2022), “Corporate social responsibility and
employee outcomes: interrelations of external and internal orientations with job satisfaction and
organizational commitment”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 179 No. 3, pp. 795-817, doi: 10.
1007/s10551-021-04872-7.
Chen, X., Hansen, E. and Cai, J. (2023), “Synthesizing and comparing the different effects between
internal and external corporate social responsibility perceptions and organizational citizenship
behavior: a need theory perspective”, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental
Management, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 1601-1614, doi: 10.1002/csr.2438.
Chew and Hong, K. (1996), Beyond Individualism-Collectivism: Additional Constructs to Consider,
University of Oregon, Eugene, WA.
Cohen, P., West, S.G. and Aiken, L.S. (2014), Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the
Behavioral Sciences, Psychology Press, Hove.
De Roeck, K. and Farooq, O. (2018), “Corporate social responsibility and ethical leadership:
investigating their interactive effect on employees’ socially responsible behaviors”, Journal of
Business Ethics, Vol. 151 No. 4, pp. 923-939, doi: 10.1007/s10551-017-3656-6.
De Roeck, K. and Maon, F. (2018), “Building the theoretical puzzle of employees’ reactions to corporate
social responsibility: an integrative conceptual framework and research agenda”, Journal of
Business Ethics, Vol. 149 No. 3, pp. 609-625, doi: 10.1007/s10551-016-3081-2.
Duan, J., Yao, D., Xu, Y. and Yu, L. (2022), “Theory of self-cultivation based on Confucianism:
a supplement to social exchange theory”, Chinese Management Studies, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 62-77,
doi: 10.1108/cms-02-2020-0050.
Edelman (2021), “2021 edelman trust barometer: global report”, available at: https://www.edelman.
com/sites/g/files/aatuss191/files/2021-03/2021%20Edelman%20Trust%20Barometer.pdf
(accessed 3 June 2023).
Eisenberger, R., Cummings, J., Armeli, S. and Lynch, P. (1997), “Perceived organizational support,
discretionary treatment, and job satisfaction”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 82 No. 5,
pp. 812-820, doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.82.5.812.
Erdogan, B. and Enders, J. (2007), “Support from the top: supervisors’ perceived organizational support
as a moderator of leader-member exchange to satisfaction and performance relationships”, Journal
of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 2, pp. 321-330, doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.2.321.
MD Farooq, O., Rupp, D.E. and Farooq, M. (2017), “The multiple pathways through which internal and
external corporate social responsibility influence organizational identification and multifoci
outcomes: the moderating role of cultural and social orientations”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 60 No. 3, pp. 954-985, doi: 10.5465/amj.2014.0849.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50,
doi: 10.2307/3151312.
Gan, C., Cheng, C.Y., Chai, Y. and Yang, L. (2023), “Ethical leadership and employee unethical
behavior: a dual-processing model”, Management Decision, Vol. 61 No. 6, pp. 1501-1516, doi: 10.
1108/md-05-2022-0694.
George, N.A., Aboobaker, N. and Edward, M. (2021), “Corporate social responsibility, organizational
trust and commitment: a moderated mediation mode”, Personnel Review, Vol. 50 No. 4,
pp. 1093-1111, doi: 10.1108/pr-03-2020-0144.
Glavas, A. and Kelley, K. (2014), “The effects of perceived corporate social responsibility on employee
attitudes”, Business Ethics Quarterly, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 165-202, doi: 10.5840/beq20143206.
Gullifor, D.P., Petrenko, O.V., Chandler, J.A., Quade, M.J. and Rouba, Y. (2023), “Employee reactions to
perceived CSR: the influence of the ethical environment on OCB engagement and individual
performance”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 161, 113835, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.113835.
Hameed, I., Riaz, Z., Arain, G.A. and Farooq, O. (2016), “How do internal and external CSR affect
employees’ organizational identification? A perspective from the group engagement model”,
Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 7, pp. 1-13, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00788.
Hu, L.-t. and Bentler, P.M. (1999), “Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
conventional criteria versus new alternatives”, Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary
Journal, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 1-55, doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118.
Huang, I.C., Du, P.L., Wu, L.F., Achyldurdyyeva, J., Wu, L.C. and Lin, C.S. (2021), “Leader–member
exchange, employee turnover intention and presenteeism: the mediating role of perceived
organizational support”, Leadership and Organization Development Journal, Vol. 42 No. 2,
pp. 249-264, doi: 10.1108/lodj-03-2020-0094.
Hur, W.M., Moon, T.W. and Ko, S.H. (2018), “How employees’ perceptions of CSR increase employee
creativity: mediating mechanisms of compassion at work and intrinsic motivation”, Journal of
Business Ethics, Vol. 153 No. 3, pp. 629-644, doi: 10.1007/s10551-016-3321-5.
Hur, W.M., Rhee, S.Y., Lee, E.J. and Park, H. (2022), “Corporate social responsibility perceptions and
sustainable safety behaviors among frontline employees: the mediating roles of organization-
based self-esteem and work engagement”, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental
Management, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 60-70, doi: 10.1002/csr.2173.
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, Vol. 83 No. 4, pp. 857-878,
doi: 10.1348/096317909x477495.
Kim, M. and Kim, J. (2021), “Corporate social responsibility, employee engagement, well-being and the
task performance of frontline employees”, Management Decision, Vol. 59 No. 8, pp. 2040-2056,
doi: 10.1108/md-03-2020-0268.
Kistruck, G.M., Qureshi, I. and Beamish, P.W. (2013), “Geographic and product diversification in charitable
organizations”, Journal of Management, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 496-530, doi: 10.1177/0149206311398135.
Kusi, M., Zhao, F. and Sukamani, D. (2021), “Impact of perceived organizational support and green
transformational leadership on sustainable organizational performance: a SEM approach”, Business
Process Management Journal, Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 1373-1390, doi: 10.1108/bpmj-09-2020-0419.
Latif, B., Ong, T.S., Meero, A., Abdul Rahman, A.A. and Ali, M. (2022), “Employee-perceived corporate social
responsibility (CSR) and employee pro-environmental behavior (PEB): the moderating role of CSR
skepticism and CSR authenticity”, Sustainability, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 1-19, doi: 10.3390/su14031380.
Lee, S. and Jung, H. (2016), “The effects of corporate social responsibility on profitability: the Perceived CSR
moderating roles of differentiation and outside investment”, Management Decision, Vol. 54
No. 6, pp. 1383-1406, doi: 10.1108/md-07-2015-0268. and job
Li, Y. and Chen, C.H. (2023), “The impact of employee-perceived CSR on organizational citizenship
performance
behavior-evidence from China”, Asia Pacific Management Review, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 487-500,
doi: 10.1016/j.apmrv.2023.02.003.
Liu, Z., Min, Q., Zhai, Q. and Smyth, R. (2016), “Self-disclosure in Chinese micro-blogging: a social
exchange theory perspective”, Information and Management, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 53-63, doi: 10.
1016/j.im.2015.08.006.
Liu, Y., Liu, S., Zhang, Q. and Hu, L. (2021), “Does perceived corporate social responsibility motivate
hotel employees to voice? The role of felt obligation and positive emotions”, Journal of
Hospitality and Tourism Management, Vol. 48, pp. 182-190, doi: 10.1016/j.jhtm.2021.06.006.
L
opez-Cabarcos, M.A.,
V
azquez-Rodr
ıguez, P. and QuinoA-Pineiro, L.M. (2022), “An approach to
employees’ job performance through work environmental variables and leadership behaviours”,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 140, pp. 361-369, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.11.006.
Meyer, K.E., Van Witteloostuijn, A. and Beugelsdijk, S. (2017), “What’s in ap? Reassessing best
practices for conducting and reporting hypothesis-testing research”, Journal of International
Business Studies, Vol. 48 No. 5, pp. 535-551, doi: 10.1057/s41267-017-0078-8.
Mohammed, A.A., Ferraris, A. and Troise, C. (2022), “CSR practices and creativity during COVID-19
pandemic in the emerging market: investigating the mediating effect of affective commitment”,
Management Decision, Vol. 60 No. 10, pp. 2669-2693, doi: 10.1108/md-08-2021-1021.
Nayir, D.Z. and Herzig, C. (2012), “Value orientations as determinants of preference for external
and anonymous whistleblowing”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 107 No. 2, pp. 197-213,
doi: 10.1007/s10551-011-1033-4.
Ng, T.W. and Feldman, D.C. (2009), “How broadly does education contribute to job performance?”,
Personnel Psychology, Vol. 62 No. 1, pp. 89-134, doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2008.01130.x.
Ng, T.W. and Feldman, D.C. (2013), “Does longer job tenure help or hinder job performance?”, Journal
of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 83 No. 3, pp. 305-314, doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2013.06.012.
Nguyen, T.M., Siri, N.S. and Malik, A. (2022), “Multilevel influences on individual knowledge sharing
behaviours: the moderating effects of knowledge sharing opportunity and collectivism”, Journal
of Knowledge Management, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 70-87, doi: 10.1108/jkm-01-2021-0009.
Paruzel, A., Klug, H.J. and Maier, G.W. (2021), “The relationship between perceived corporate social
responsibility and employee-related outcomes: a meta-analysis”, Frontiers in Psychology,
Vol. 12, 607108, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.607108.
Pasricha, P., Nivedhitha, K.S. and Raghuvanshi, J. (2023), “The perceived CSR-innovative behavior
conundrum: towards unlocking the socio-emotional black box”, Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 161, 113809, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.113809.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.-Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903, doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879.
Qureshi, I. and Compeau, D. (2009), “Assessing between-group differences in information systems
research: a comparison of covariance-and component-based SEM”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 33 No. 1,
pp. 197-214, doi: 10.2307/20650285.
Raza, A., Farrukh, M., Iqbal, M.K., Farhan, M. and Wu, Y. (2021), “Corporate social responsibility and
employees’ voluntary pro- environmental behavior: the role of organizational pride and
employee engagement”, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management,
Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 1104-1116, doi: 10.1002/csr.2109.
Rehman, S.U., Kraus, S., Shah, S.A., Khanin, D. and Mahto, R.V. (2021), “Analyzing the relationship
between green innovation and environmental performance in large manufacturing firms”,
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 163, 120481, doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120481.
MD Rich, B.L., Lepine, J.A. and Crawford, E.R. (2010), “Job engagement: antecedents and effects on job
performance”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 53 No. 3, pp. 617-635, doi: 10.5465/amj.
2010.51468988.
Shen, J. and Zhang, H. (2019), “Socially responsible human resource management and employee
support for external CSR: roles of organizational CSR climate and perceived CSR directed
toward employees”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 156 No. 3, pp. 875-888, doi: 10.1007/s10551-
017-3544-0.
Shore, L.M., Coyle-Shapiro, J.A., Chen, X.-P. and Tetrick, L.E. (2009), “Social exchange in work settings:
content, process, and mixed models”, Management and Organization Review, Vol. 5 No. 3,
pp. 289-302, doi: 10.1111/j.1740-8784.2009.00158.x.
Song, B. and Tao, W. (2022), “Unpack the relational and behavioral outcomes of internal CSR:
highlighting dialogic communication and managerial facilitation”, Public Relations Review,
Vol. 48 No. 1, 102153, doi: 10.1016/j.pubrev.2022.102153.
Song, M., Droge, C., Hanvanich, S. and Calantone, R. (2005), “Marketing and technology resource
complementarity: an analysis of their interaction effect in two environmental contexts”,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 259-276, doi: 10.1002/smj.450.
To, W.M. and Huang, G. (2022), “Effects of equity, perceived organizational support and job
satisfaction on organizational commitment in Macao’s gaming industry”, Management
Decision, Vol. 60 No. 9, pp. 2433-2454, doi: 10.1108/md-11-2021-1447.
Turker, D. (2009), “Measuring corporate social responsibility: a scale development study”, Journal of
Business Ethics, Vol. 85 No. 4, pp. 411-427, doi: 10.1007/s10551-008-9780-6.
Van Knippenberg, D., Van Prooijen, J.W. and Sleebos, E. (2015), “Beyond social exchange:
collectivism’s moderating role in the relationship between perceived organizational support
and organizational citizenship behaviour”, European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 152-160, doi: 10.1080/1359432x.2013.858699.
Wang, C., Zhang, Q. and Zhang, W. (2020a), “Corporate social responsibility, green supply chain
management and firm performance: the moderating role of big-data analytics capability”, Research
in Transportation Business and Management, Vol. 37, 100557, doi: 10.1016/j.rtbm.2020.100557.
Wang, Y., Xu, S. and Wang, Y. (2020b), “The consequences of employees’ perceived corporate social
responsibility: a meta-analysis”, Business Ethics: A European Review, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 471-496,
doi: 10.1111/beer.12273.
Wang, C., Qureshi, I., Guo, F. and Zhang, Q. (2022), “Corporate social responsibility and disruptive
innovation: the moderating effects of environmental turbulence”, Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 139, pp. 1435-1450, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.10.046.
Williams, L.J. and Anderson, S.E. (1991), “Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as
predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors”, Journal of Management, Vol. 17
No. 3, pp. 601-617, doi: 10.1177/014920639101700305.
Xie, J., Yan, M., Liang, Y. and Huang, Q. (2022), “Why and when negative workplace gossip inhibits
organizational citizenship behavior”, Management Communication Quarterly, Vol. 36 No. 4,
pp. 710-735, doi: 10.1177/08933189221095602.
Yan, Y., Zhang, J., Akhtar, M.N. and Liang, S. (2023), “Positive leadership and employee engagement:
the roles of state positive affect and individualism-collectivism”, Current Psychology, Vol. 42
No. 11, pp. 9109-9118, doi: 10.1007/s12144-021-02192-7.
Yang, J.S. (2020), “Differential moderating effects of collectivistic and power distance orientations
on the effectiveness of work motivators”, Management Decision, Vol. 58 No. 4, pp. 644-665,
doi: 10.1108/md-10-2018-1119.
Zahoor, N., Donbesuur, F., Christofi, M. and Miri, D. (2022), “Technological innovation and employee
psychological well-being: the moderating role of employee learning orientation and
perceived organizational support”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 179,
121610, doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121610.
Zhang, G., Cheng, M. and Zhang, J. (2022), “A cross-cultural comparison of peer-to-peer Perceived CSR
accommodation experience: a mixed text mining approach”, International Journal of
Hospitality Management, Vol. 106, 103296, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2022.103296. and job
Zhao, L., Lee, J. and Moon, S. (2019), “Employee response to CSR in China: the moderating effect of
performance
collectivism”, Personnel Review, Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 839-863, doi: 10.1108/pr-05-2017-0146.
Zhao, X., Wu, C., Chen, C.C. and Zhou, Z. (2022), “The influence of corporate social responsibility on
incumbent employees: a meta-analytic investigation of the mediating and moderating
mechanisms”, Journal of Management, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 114-146, doi: 10.1177/
0149206320946108.
Zhou, H., Wang, Q. and Zhao, X. (2020), “Corporate social responsibility and innovation: a comparative
study”, Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 120 No. 5, pp. 863-882, doi: 10.1108/imds-
09-2019-0493.
Zhu, Y., Lynette Wang, V., Wang, Y.J. and Wei, J.J. (2022), “How to craft humorous advertisements
across diverse cultures? Multi-country insights from Brazilian, Chinese and American
consumers”, International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 46 No. 3, pp. 716-730, doi: 10.
1111/ijcs.12720.

(The Appendix follows overleaf)

MD Appendix

Construct/Items (1 5 strongly disagree; 5 5 strongly agree)

Job performance (Erdogan and Enders, 2007, Williams and Anderson, 1991)
JP1 This employee adequately completes assigned duties
JP2 This employee fulfills responsibilities specified in job description
JP3 This employee performs tasks that are expected of him/her
JP4 This employee meets formal performance requirements of the job
JP5 This employee engages in activities that will directly affect his/her performance evaluation
JP6 This employee neglects aspects of the job he/she is obligated to perform
JP7 This employee fails to perform essential duties
Perceived internal CSR (Turker 2009)
ICSR1 My company supports employees who want to acquire additional education
ICSR2 My company policies encourage the employees to develop their skills and careers
ICSR3 The management of my company is primarily concerned with employees’ needs and wants
ICSR4 My company implements flexible policies to provide a good work and life balance for its employees
ICSR5 In my company, the managerial decisions related with the employees are usually fair
Perceived external CSR (Farooq et al., 2017, Turker, 2009)
ECSR1 My company contributes to campaigns and projects that promote the wellbeing of the society
ECSR2 My company implements special programs to minimize its negative impact on the natural environment
ECSR3 My company participates in activities which aim to protect and improve the quality of the natural
environment
ECSR4 My company targets sustainable growth which considers future generations
ECSR5 My company makes investment to create a better life for future generations
ECSR6 My company encourages its employees to participate involuntarily activities
ECSR7 My company supports nongovernmental organizations working in problematic areas
ECSR8 My company respects consumer rights beyond the legal requirements
ECSR9 My company provides full and accurate information about its products, services, or business models to
its customers
ECSR10 For my company, customer satisfaction is highly important
Perceived organizational support (Baranik et al., 2010, Eisenberger et al., 1997)
POS1 My organization cares about my opinions
POS2 My organization really cares about my well-being
POS3 My organization strongly considers my goals and values
POS4 Help is available from my organization when I have a problem
POS5 My organization would forgive an honest mistake on my part
POS6 If given the opportunity, my organization would take advantage of me
POS7 My organization shows very little concern for me
POS8 My organization is willing to help me ill need a special favor
Collectivism (Chew and Hong, 1996, Nayir and Herzig, 2012)
CO1 I would sacrifice my individual needs for the sake of the group
CO2 I would sacrifice my well-being for benefit of my group
CO3 I would stay in a group if I were needed even if I were not happy with the group
Table A1. CO4 I work better in a group than alone
Questionnaire items of CO5 I would do all I can to build up the status of the group to which I belong even if it entails the loss of my own
the study prestige
About the authors Perceived CSR
Chenxiao Wang (Ph.D, Beijing University of Chemical Technology) is Lecturer at School of Economics
and Management, Beijing University of Chemical Technology in China. Her current research interests and job
are innovation management and corporate social responsibility. Her recent studies are published in the performance
Journal of Business Research, the European Journal of Innovation Management and Research in
Transportation Business and Management.
Qingpu Zhang (Ph.D, Harbin Institute of Technology) is Professor at School of Management, Harbin
Institute of Technology (HIT) in China. His current research interests are innovation management and
knowledge management. His recent studies are published in the International Journal of Information
Management, the Journal of Creative Behavior, Creativity and Innovation Management, the Journal of
Knowledge Management and Management Decision.
Lu Lu (Ph.D., Harbin Institute of Technology) is Ph.D. Candidate at School of Management, Harbin
Institute of Technology (HIT) in China. Her current research interests are innovation management and
knowledge management. Her recent studies are published in Wireless Communications and Mobile
Computing, the European Journal of Innovation Management, the Journal of Business and Industrial
Marketing.
Fangcheng Tang (PhD, Beijing University of Chemical Technology) is Professor at School of
Economics and Management, Beijing University of Chemical Technology in China. His current research
interests are innovation ecosystem and green development strategy. His recent studies are published in
the Journal of Product Innovation Management, R & D Management, Frontiers in Psychology, Expert
Systems with Applications and the Journal of Management and Organization. Fangcheng Tang is the
corresponding author and can be contacted at: tangfc@mail.buct.edu.cn

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com