Corporate Social Responsibility: Burden or Profit?

Corporate Social Responsibility: Burden or Profit?

The Influence of CSR on Employee-Related Outcomes

Jennifer M.J. Noble (S1774751)

Augustus 2013 Masterthese Opleiding: Arbeids- Organisatie- en Personeelspsychologie Faculteit: Gedrags- en Maatschappijwetenschappen Rijksuniversiteit Groningen Begeleider: Prof. dr. R. van Eijbergen Tweede beoordelaar: Prof. Dr. B.M. Wisse

THE INFLUENCE OF CSR ON EMPLOYEE-RELATED OUTCOMES

Abstract This study investigated the moderating qualities of employee moral identity and perceived role of ethics and social responsibility (PRESOR) in the relationship between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and a number of employee related outcomes: commitment, satisfaction, motivation and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). In this study, we gathered data about the CSR-policy of 50 organizations. Moreover, we asked 143 employees of these organizations to answer questions about their moral identity, PRESOR, commitment, satisfaction, motivation and OCB. Amongst other things, we found, as expected, that CSR feeds into employee satisfaction for those employees with a salient moral identity. We also found that PRESOR moderated the relationship between one sub-scale of CSR, that is stakeholder CSR, and employee commitment, satisfaction and OCB: the relationship was stronger for those who consider ethical behavior and social responsibility to be important. Interestingly, and not in line with our hypothesis employee-CSR was negatively related to motivation for employees that had a high PRESOR. The discussion focusses on theoretical implications and managerial ramifications. Keywords: corporate social responsibility, employee-related outcomes, moral identity, PRESOR, commitment, satisfaction, motivation, OCB

2

THE INFLUENCE OF CSR ON EMPLOYEE-RELATED OUTCOMES

Samenvatting In dit onderzoek werd er gekeken naar de modererende eigenschappen van de morele identiteit van medewerkers en hun ervaren rol van ethiek en sociale verantwoordelijkheid (PRESOR) in de relatie tussen maatschappelijk verantwoord ondernemen (MVO) en een aantal medewerker-gerelateerde uitkomsten: emotionele verbondenheid, tevredenheid, motivatie en extrarolgedrag. Tijdens dit onderzoek hebben we informatie vergaard over het MVO beleid van 50 verschillende organisaties. Daarnaast hebben we 143 medewerkers een vragenlijst voorgelegd die zich richtte op het meten van hun morele identiteit, PRESOR, emotionele verbondenheid, tevredenheid, motivatie en extrarolgedrag. Conform onze verwachting, beïnvloedde MVO tevredenheid bij medewerkers met een saillante morele identiteit. Ook vonden we dat PRESOR een modererend effect had op de positieve relatie tussen een sub schaal van MVO, namelijk aandeelhouder-MVO en de emotionele gebondenheid van medewerkers, hun tevredenheid en extrarolgedrag: de relatie was sterker voor medewerkers die veel belang hechten aan de rol van ethiek en sociale verantwoordelijkheid. Niet in lijn met onze verwachtingen was de ontdekking dat medewerker-MVO negatief gerelateerd was aan motivatie voor medewerkers met een hoge score op PRESOR. De discussie richt zich op praktische implicaties en de rol van managers. Kernwoorden: Maatschappelijk verantwoord ondernemen, tevredenheid, motivatie, emotionele gebondenheid, extrarolgedrag, morele identiteit, rol van ethiek en sociale verantwoordelijkheid

3

THE INFLUENCE OF CSR ON EMPLOYEE-RELATED OUTCOMES

Corporate Social Responsibility: Burden or Profit? The Influence of CSR on Employee-Related Outcomes Over the past couple of decades, the common belief has risen that organizations need to reciprocate to society for using ecological resources and channelling different stakeholders in order to gain profit. There are many ways in which organizations can contribute to society, and these behaviors are bundled in the term Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). In this study, the following definition for CSR will be used: 'corporate behaviors that aim to affect stakeholders positively and that go beyond its economic interest (Turker, 2009).' Coca Cola (2011) is an example of an organization that contributes to the environment by producing bottles made out of organic materials and by annually setting goals to reduce water and energy use. Dutch multinational Unilever (2012) not only focuses on the environment, but invests in employees as well. Through the Unilever Learning Academy, Unilever offers her employees many training programs and with their diversity board, the employee database is carefully monitored. This is done to create working teams that are multidisciplinary as well as diverse in gender and race. These socially applauded activities have one thing in common; they all serve a greater goal. Notwithstanding the ethical reasons organizations may have for maintaining a CSR policy, many organizations also use CSR as a business strategy to achieve different goals. CSR literature reveals significant relationships between CSR and a number of employee-related factors such as commitment, satisfaction, motivation and organizational citizenship behavior (Allen & Meyer, 1990; Podsakoff, Podsakoff & Blume, 2009). These positive effects on employees indicate a new motive for organizations for CSR friendly behavior. However, it seems unlikely that all employees are equally affected by the CSR policy of their company. Information about the moderating variables in the relationship between CSR and a number of employee-related outcomes can therefore be very valuable. Unfortunately, there seems to be a lack of research investigating these moderating effects (Aguinis & Glavas, 2012; Mueller, Hattrup, Spiess & Lin-Hi, 2012), leaving us clueless with regards to the variables influencing this relationship.

4

THE INFLUENCE OF CSR ON EMPLOYEE-RELATED OUTCOMES Based on recent theoretical insights, we expect that individual characteristics will influence the relationship between CSR and a number of employee- related outcomes (see Figure 1). In the current study we focus on moral identity (Aquino & Reed, 2002) and perceived role of ethics and social responsibility (PRESOR) (Singhapakdi, Vitell, Rallapalli & Kraft, 1996). Moral identity is a stable individual characteristic and refers to the self-conception a person has about a specific set of moral traits (Aquino & Reed, 2002), and PRESOR focuses on the innate evaluation of ethical behavior. We expect both variables to strengthen the relationship between CSR and employee commitment, satisfaction, motivation and OCB. This study contributes to the existing body of literature by testing whether previously found or suggested effects of CSR on employee attitudes and behavior can be replicated or found in a Dutch sample. In addition to that, it aims to add to the scientific database by exploring possible moderator variables that influence the relationship. Understanding moderating factors gives employers an advantage because it can indicate when CSR could have added value with regards to organizational employees. Corporate Social Responsibility The notion that organizations have a responsibility towards the community and the environment in which they operate has gradually become more prevalent over the past couple of decades. Many organizations acknowledge their overuse of ecological resources that could harm future generations and want to act in a more sustainable fashion in order to prevent ecological deterioration. There are more ways in which organizations can contribute to society; by their employee policies, their interaction with several stakeholders, philanthropic donations and by making ethical corporate decisions with regards to the environment and its inhabitants (Gavin & Maynard, 1975; Houghton, Gabel & Williams, 2009; Folger & Greenberg, 1985). Behaviors as these are seen as acts of CSR. The gained interest of the corporate world in this seemingly philanthropic phenomenon has reached the attention of many scholars, and scientific articles on this topic have been published ongoing since the 1970s (Aguinis & Glavas, 2012; Basu & Pallazo, 2008). Even though the excessive amount of literature on the topic of CSR is continuously inspiring 5

THE INFLUENCE OF CSR ON EMPLOYEE-RELATED OUTCOMES organizations to invest in a CSR policy of their own, a consensus still has to be reached as to what CSR exactly entails. Votaw (1972) stated “CSR means something, but not always the same thing, to everybody.” There appears to be an overlap in the definitions of CSR in the sense that all literature discusses some sort of action or behavior that should affect stakeholders, but researchers’ opinions about the execution of the behavior and the pertaining stakeholders differ. In the next paragraph we shall explain which definition we chose to work with. Turker (2009), who developed one of the latest, well validated measuring instruments of CSR, describes CSR as “corporate behaviors that aim to affect stakeholders positively and that go beyond its economic interest.” He defined four major aspects of CSR affecting different stakeholders, namely ethical (affecting customers), legal (government), environmental (society, natural environment and future generations) and internal employment (employees). These four groups will next be labeled customerCSR, government-CSR, stakeholder-CSR and employee-CSR. All forms of sponsorships, donations and other behaviors towards stakeholders could be put under one of those categories. The description of CSR by Turker (2009) seems to have some overlap with the findings from Brammer, Millington and Rayton’s meta-analysis (2007). When reviewing the extensive body of literature on CSR, they discovered that socially responsible behavior executed by organizations could be roughly divided into three categories; external CSR, procedural justice and employee training (or development). That is one less category than Turker’s model suggested, but one could argue that ethical and environmental categories (customer-CSR and stakeholder-CSR) can be placed under external CSR, since they both influence the organization from the outside. The legal part (government-CSR) can be linked to distributive justice since there is an increasing amount of juridical pressure with regards to hiring, firing, distribution of goods and privileges and equality of employees. Internal employment (employee-CSR) could be linked to training as well as distributive justice. In the current study, the definition of CSR as given by Turker (2009) shall be used and we shall look at the different categories that sum up to the total organizational package of CSR according to the model of Brammer et al. (2007), whose categories will be explained more elaborately in the next section. 6

THE INFLUENCE OF CSR ON EMPLOYEE-RELATED OUTCOMES External forms of CSR. This is the form of corporate social responsibility most visible to the public and generally the first thing that comes to mind when people consider the topic. Its main objective revolves around the organization giving back to the community. External CSR can be practised in various ways; by community development programs, ecological and sustainability initiatives and philanthropic donations (Houghton, Gabel & Williams, 2009). Philips (2012) annually organizes a road show from Cairo to Cape Town during which Philips representatives travel through 11 African countries, providing the local community with information on how to improve living situations in the cities as well as on the countryside. They demonstrate this by organizing football tournaments in the slums at night under LED lighting, as slums are usually too dangerous at night because of the lack of adequate lighting. Stakeholders are highly influenced by acts of CSR and also consumers are getting more critical about the ‘fairness’ of the products they purchase (Graafland & Mazereeuw- van der Duijn Schouten, 2012). Therefore external CSR can also be viewed as a way for organizations to protect their market share. The stakeholders affected by external CSR are the customers who let organizations’ external behavior influence where they spend their money. Also affected are the natural environment as well as future generations, whose fate will be defined by how the world is treated by former generations. This is in accordance with the customer- and stakeholder-CSR categories proposed by Turker (2009). Procedural justice. This refers to the extent to which employees perceive the procedures used to reach a decision as fair. It mostly concerns decisions about the allocation of goods and people. Examples are whether or not organizations provide equal opportunities for people from different race, gender and age, the perceived fairness of procedures such as adequate notice, equal policies for obeying rules for all employees, compensation decisions, allocation of the end-of-the-year bonuses, implementation decisions and suppression of bias ((Brammer et al., 2007; Murphy, Ramamoorthy, Flood & MacCurtain, 2006; Folger & Greenberg, 1985; Lind & Tyler, 1988; Folger & Konovsky, 1989; Alexander & Ruderman, 1987; Cropanzano & Folger, 1991). It is imperative for organizations to be perceived as just by their employees and the external world. Research indicates that fair treatment of employees results in reciprocal behaviors such as increased display of organizational citizenship behavior but also in reduction 7

THE INFLUENCE OF CSR ON EMPLOYEE-RELATED OUTCOMES in absenteeism, increased commitment and satisfaction (Wan, Sulaiman & Omar, 2012; Wright & Sablynski, 2008). The main stakeholders here are employees, since they are directly affected by distributive justice. Also the government, who plays a role in creating laws for organizations in order to protect employees, is an important stakeholder. In this light, distributive justice shares many of similarities with the legal and internal employment categories (government- and employee- CSR) as proposed by Turker (2009). Organizational development. Needless to say, university graduates get their first job based on their university qualifications, but they gain most of their knowledge on the job. Therefore, most employees will receive at least some sort of training in their career. However, some employers are extremely dedicated to the development of their staff. This can be done, for instance, by offering employees training to developing specific competencies in order to enhance their professional profile, all sorts of on- and off- the job training and personal coaching tracks. When organizations invest in these kinds of programmes for their employees, both employers and employees reap the benefits. Employees will become more skilled which will positively influence their productivity (positive for the organization) but it will also give them an advantage for future jobs because some or their learned skills will be transferable to other organizations. Concluding, training can be seen as a corporate investment, as well as a social responsible activity (Brammer et al., 2007). The main stakeholders that are affected are the employees (Turker, 2009). Employee related outcomes In this study, we want to find out whether organizational CSR policies are beneficial for employers as well as employees. Clearly, employers reap the benefits of CSR as it enhances their social image attracting to different stakeholders, but could it also positively affect employees? Academic literature points towards positive relationships between CSR and a number of employee-related outcomes such as commitment, satisfaction, motivation and organizational citizenship behavior (Allen & Meyer, 1990; Khalifa, 2011; Podsakoff, Whiting, Podsakoff & Blume, 2009; Anderson & Oliver, 1987). This relationship in turn, may result in even greater benefits for employers, as committed, motivated, satisfied 8

THE INFLUENCE OF CSR ON EMPLOYEE-RELATED OUTCOMES and OCB- executing employees have been linked to many organizational advantages such as enhanced employee productivity, innovation and efficiency (Ryan & Deci, 2006; Spreitzer, 1995) and even proved to perform better at work (Dalal, Baysinger, Brummel & LeBreton, 2012). Affective Commitment The leading theory regarding commitment is the one proposed by Allen and Meyer (1990), who describe commitment as a construct that consists of three concepts: affective attachment, perceived costs and obligations (Meyer & Allen, 1987). The three concepts are called affective, continuance and normative commitment and the first one was found to be correlated with most organizational factors (Meyer, Becker & Vandenberghe, 2004). Affective commitment can be defined as ‘an emotional attachment to, identification with, and involvement in the organization’ (Allen & Meyer, 1990). Committed employees are important for organizations because of the suggested link with absenteeism -which is quite costly for employers- and performance (Mueller, Hattrup, Spiess, Lin-Hi, 2012). Affective commitment is established by a fulfillment of employees' psychological needs, strengthened by their positive experiences within the organization, and comes with a desire to remain in an organization (Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch & Topolnytski, 2002). In 2007, Brammer et al. conducted a study that focused on the link between commitment and CSR and discovered that perceptions of CSR have a major impact on organizational commitment. Research on this relationship was again conducted in 2012 by Mueller et al., who also confirmed a positive relationship between CSR and affective commitment. They added that this relationship is influenced by the organizational culture and the form of CSR executed by the organization. CSR policies that are focused on employees (procedural justice and training) resulted in stronger relationships with affective commitment. Due to the increasing amount of organizational investments in CSR, further investigation in this newly found relationship will be beneficial. Although a lot of organizations solely tend to focus on external CSR, investing in other forms might actually result in greater benefits for the employer as procedural justice and training directly influence the employee. Job satisfaction. Whether employees evaluate their jobs as either positive negative indicates 9

THE INFLUENCE OF CSR ON EMPLOYEE-RELATED OUTCOMES their satisfaction with their job. Job satisfaction refers to a positive evaluation of different aspects of one’s job or the job in general (Locke, 1976, as cited in Brown & Peterson, 1993; Smith et. al., 1969, as cited in Patrick & Sonia, 2012) which proves to be quite an important factor for a lot of work-related outcomes (French, Ikenwilo & Scott, 2007). Satisfaction has proven to influence many employee related outcomes (Khalifa, 2011). It is a widely investigated topic because of its demonstrated influence on the employee’s overall evaluation, the work itself, supervision, working conditions, co-workers, company policies, procedures, pay, promotion opportunities, sales, commitment, turnover, age, organizational tenure, role conflict, task variety and autonomy (Smith et. al., 1969, as cited in Patrick & Sonia, 2012; Brown and Peterson, 1993). In this paper we will investigate whether CSR is also a factor that precedes job satisfaction since this would underline the importance of investing in a good CSR policy. So far, only a few scholars have taken interest in measuring the relationship between CSR and job satisfaction of employees. Some have found anecdotal evidence indicating a correlation between CSR and job satisfaction but no data analytical research has been conducted until recently. Tamm, Eamets and Mõtsmees (2010) were the first to investigate the direct link between CSR and job satisfaction. They correlated a number of aspects of job satisfaction with CSR and discovered that basic pay, career opportunities, workload, supervision, social relations and working conditions were the aspects of job satisfaction most strongly linked to CSR. Since the amount of empirical research on the direct link between CSR and job satisfaction is still relatively scarce and based on correlational relationships, it is important to obtain more knowledge on this relationship. Intrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation is described as ‘the pleasure or value of an activity itself’ and seems to come from within the individual (Miao & Evans, 2007). Zuckerman, Larrance, Porac and Blanck (1980) define intrinsic motivation as ‘the tendency to engage in some activity for no apparent reward except the activity itself.’ In other words, intrinsically motivated individuals want to work hard for the simple sake that they find the work pleasurable; an action derived from a person’s innate tendency towards personal growth. 10

THE INFLUENCE OF CSR ON EMPLOYEE-RELATED OUTCOMES The existing literature on motivation indicates that intrinsic motivation (from now: motivation) is a very strong internal force driving many behaviors. For instance, motivation is a strong predictor of organizational performance (Anderson & Oliver, 1987; Joo, Jeung & Yoon, 2010; Goodman, Jaffer, Keresztesi, Mamdani, Mokgatle, Musariri, Pires & Schlechter, 2011). Because motivation precedes such an important organizational outcome, it is important for us to know if a relationship between CSR and motivation truly exists. Having many intrinsically motivated employees is very valuable for organizations because the motivation is innate and does not have to be ‘bought’ with for instance, bonuses and office space. A strong link has been found between motivation and procedural justice, which is an aspect of CSR. People are quite concerned with the way an organization makes their allocation decisions, whether it concerns personnel selection, promotion or even the matter of dividing parking spots. Employee motivation is influenced by peoples’opinion of the fairness of the decisions made, as this affects their self-esteem (De Cremer & Van Hiel, 2008). Currently, no direct connections have been made between CSR and motivation and because motivation is such an important construct, information on this relationship might proof rather beneficial. Organizational Citizenship Behavior. OCB refers to employees’ daily acts of kindness, contributing to others’ performance rather than their own; sometimes meaning sacrificing themselves for a cause that will give them nothing in return (Smith, Organ & Near, 1983). Organ (1997) formulated a nowadays generally accepted working definition of OCB which “… is performance that supports the social and psychological environment in which task performance takes place.” Examples of OCB are acts of cooperation, helpfulness, suggestions, gestures of goodwill and altruism (Katz, 1964). OCB has been studied for over two decades, as scholars were eager to understand this selfless behavior and to discover whether OCB influenced other outcomes apart from the direct positive outcomes of the act itself. Podsakoff et al. (2009) investigated a variety of outcomes linked to OCB. They found that OCB feeds into performance evaluations, allocation decisions, productivity and efficiency. High OCB also results in lower costs and withdrawal. Since it happens to influence many factors, OCB seems a 11

THE INFLUENCE OF CSR ON EMPLOYEE-RELATED OUTCOMES very important construct for organizations to support. Not many studies focus on the relationship between CSR and OCB. One study was found, indicating that CSR proved to be a mediator variable in the relationship between Leader -Member exchange and OCB (Ouyang, 2011), suggesting a relationship between CSR and OCB. In this study we will investigate whether a direct link between those two variables exists. The previously discussed job-related outcomes all suggest in one way or another, a relationship with CSR. Therefore, the first hypothesis that will be tested in this study is as follows: Hypothesis 1: There is a positive relationship between CSR policy as rated by supervisors and their employees’ experience of commitment, satisfaction, OCB and work motivation. Aside from learning whether or not there is a direct link between CSR and a number of employee related outcomes, we are also interested in factors that might be of influence to this relationship. If there is a variable that is connected to CSR and directly influences the previously mentioned employee related outcomes it might be beneficial for us to know, especially if this is a variable that we can control for. The previously discussed job- related outcomes that are expected to be related to CSR policy are of two different dimensions. Three of them refer to internal states of mind (satisfaction, motivation, commitment) and the other one refers to an external act of behavior that is internally encouraged (OCB). When trying to explain the relationship between the two variables (CSR and employee-related outcomes), it seems therefore as if taking individual factors into account, might be a logical step. This study investigates whether the internal employee factors moral identity and perceived role of social responsibility play an important role in the relationship between CSR and a number of job-related outcomes. Moral Identity Moral identity has proven to be a stable personality characteristic and refers to the self-conception a person has about a specific set of moral traits (Aquino & Reed, 2002). Consistent with the social identity theory of Tajfel (1982) which states that individuals have several identities with some more salient than others, O’Reilly and Aquino (2011) argued that people make several self-definitions, some 12

THE INFLUENCE OF CSR ON EMPLOYEE-RELATED OUTCOMES more central to their core self-definition. This most salient/central self-definition usually influences behavior the strongest (Tajfel, 1982). The reason for this is that people want to act in accordance to the conception they have about themselves (Blasi, 1984). For people with a central moral identity, this means that people want to act in a moral fashion to be consistent with how they see themselves. Moral identity consists of two different constructs: internalization and symbolization. Internalization refers to the moral values individuals keep within themselves, their internal drivers for moral behavior. Symbolization is focused the image they build for their external world about their moral identity (Aquino & Reed, 2002). Many scholars concluded that moral identity is a good predictor for moral functioning, as people have a natural desire to be consistent in their beliefs and behaviors (Aquino, McFerran & Laven, 2011). With a salient moral identity, not behaving in a morally adequate way might create internal inconsistency (Blasi, 1984). In their review, Shao, Aquino and Freeman (2008) confirmed that indeed, moral identity is a reliable determinant for moral behavior. Literature has not been very forthcoming with articles discussing the relationship between CSR on the work floor and employees’ moral identity. Iskman, Gurhan-Canli and Swaminathan (2010) investigated the influence of moral identity on the relationship between personal relevance of CSR activities and company evaluations. They only found weak support, but indicated that this might be due to the fact that their participants were undergraduate students, who generally have little to no experience in the workforce. We suspect that when individuals with a salient moral identity see their company investing a lot of time and effort in setting up and operating an adequate CSR policy, this will reflect on the individual’s levels of job commitment, satisfaction, motivation and execution of OCB. This brings the second hypothesis: Hypothesis 2: The positive relationship between CSR and employees’ commitment, satisfaction, OCB and work motivation, will be stronger as the moral identity of the employee is more salient. Perceived Role of Ethics and Social Responsibility The perceived role of ethics and social responsibility (PRESOR) describes how a person 13

THE INFLUENCE OF CSR ON EMPLOYEE-RELATED OUTCOMES explicitly feels about ethics and social responsibility. In 1996, Singhapakdi et al. constructed a questionnaire measuring managers’ PRESOR. Based on a considerable amount of literature, they acknowledged that ethical and socially responsible behavior would result in higher organizational output. Examples of this behavior are investing in community projects and monitoring littering and paper use. Additionally, Singhapakdi et al. (1996) hypothesized that ethically and socially responsible behavior must be preceded by an active and positive appreciation of these factors before individuals can match their behavior to their perceptions. In the current study, PRESOR will function as a moderating variable, as it seems likely that PRESOR influences the relationship between CSR and job- related outcomes. If an employee perceives social responsibility and ethical behavior as really important, seeing that their organization engages in activities that are in line with these perceptions might positively influence an employees’ overall evaluation of their company. This realization will therefore influence commitment, motivation, OCB and satisfaction. Research on the relationship between PRESOR and employee-related outcomes is scarce and to date, only one article was found that measured the relationship between PRESOR and one of the employee-related factors: commitment (Vitell & Paolillo, 2004). The relationship they found was significant, which underlines the importance of discovering new information about the relationship between PRESOR and employee related factors. We think that employees who perceive ethics and social responsibility as important will consequently score higher on the previously mentioned employee-related outcomes when their company maintains a healthy CSR policy. Because of the shared interest of employee and organization in socially acceptable and responsible behavior, the person- organization fit will be stronger. Person- organization fit has already proven to be a strong predictor of job-related outcomes such as commitment, satisfaction and OCB (Yaniv, Lavi & Siti, 2010). Hypothesis 3: The positive relationship between CSR and employees’ commitment, satisfaction, OCB and work motivation will be stronger the more employees perceive ethics and social responsibility as more valuable. 14

THE INFLUENCE OF CSR ON EMPLOYEE-RELATED OUTCOMES Method Participants For this study information was collected from 50 organizations in the Netherlands. Organizations differed in number of employees: we obtained data from large multinationals as well as from small local shops. Moreover, the organizations operated in various industries; some were more customer-oriented businesses, others were governmental agencies. In total, data was collected from 200 (100 females, 98 males, 2 unknown) individuals. Split out for function, 57 managers cooperated (16 female, 41 male) and 143 employees (84 female, 57 male, 2 unknown). The average age for managers was 45.80 (SD = 9.28). Managers have been with their organizations for an average of 12.83 years (SD = 9.67) and work on average between 38-46 hours a week. Most managers indicated to have obtained a degree from a University of Applied science, but interestingly four managers climbed their way to the top with merely a high school diploma. The average age for employees was 36.63 (SD = 11.40). The largest group of employees indicated to have obtained a degree from the University of Applied sciences. On average, employees worked between 24-36 hours per week, and have been with their current employer for 8.33 years (SD = 8.97). Everyone participated on a voluntary basis. Procedure The data for this study was collected through a questionnaire. Two questionnaires were developed, aiming to attain the most accurate information. One was for organizational managers and measured CSR. The other measured the employee- related outcomes (commitment, satisfaction, motivation, OCB) as well as the moderator variables (moral identity and PRESOR). The rationale here lays in the fact that managers are generally more aware of the specifics of the CSR policy of their company than their employees. In order to achieve generalizable results, the aim was to have as many organizations as possible to participate in the study. Ideally, each organization would have one manager and two or three employees participating. Organizations were approached via email and through phone calls. USG Restart, a Dutch 15

THE INFLUENCE OF CSR ON EMPLOYEE-RELATED OUTCOMES organization that –amongst other things- aims to facilitate the reintegration of mentally- or physically disabled employees was kind enough to cooperate with us, expanding the database of organizations we could approach. Of the 230 organizations that received an email, 18 chose to cooperate and of the 75 organizations that were contacted by telephone, 37 agreed to cooperate. The option of a paper- and- pencil test was added after three months to accelerate the process of data gathering. This resulted in the cooperation of an extra 19 organizations, leading to a total of 74 organizations that agreed to cooperate. After the questionnaires were sent or handed out, 50 organizations returned the full set of questionnaires (data from employees as well as supervisors. The participants that filled out the survey online were first contacted by email. In the email both employees and managers were given an identical number that would represent their organization, and a link to the questionnaire. The first question demanded the number mentioned in the email, in order to link manager- and employee responses and to ensure anonymity. After filling in the last page responses were submitted and saved automatically. Participants filling in the paper-and-pencil test, received the printed versions of the online test and had one week to write down their responses before replies were collected. In this situation, the researcher filled in the organization number prior to the distribution of the questionnaire. Unfortunately, many managers failed to fill in the organization number. In most cases they could be tracked down by IP-address but some of the responses had to be deleted from the dataset because the researcher did not know which organization they belonged to. Measuring Instruments The questionnaire that was designed for managers measured the organization’s CSR-policy and five demographic variables (sex, age, level of education, years of experience in their company and working hours per week). The questionnaire that was designed for employees measured the same demographic variables as well as affective commitment, satisfaction, motivation, organizational citizenship behavior, moral identity and perceived role of ethics and social responsibility. Full examples of the questionnaires can be found in the Appendix. Corporate Social Responsibility. The questionnaire that was used to measure CSR was 16

THE INFLUENCE OF CSR ON EMPLOYEE-RELATED OUTCOMES developed by Turker (2009) and consists of 17 questions measuring different aspects of CSR on a fivepoint Likert scale (1= strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree). The questions can be grouped into four subcomponents: stakeholder-CSR, government-CSR, customer-CSR and employee-CSR. Therefore a score for the entire scale can be calculated, as well as scores on the four subscales. To prevent language from being an influencing factor, the questionnaire was translated to Dutch. An example of a question measuring CSR is: Our company makes well-planned investments to avoid environmental degradation.' Commitment. Commitment was measured with eight translated items on the seven-point Likert (1= strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree) scale developed by Allen and Meyer (1990). Previous research has indicated that affective commitment is the best predictor for a number of employee-related outcomes (Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, & Tolpolnytsky, 2002). We only used this subscale (and not the scale measuring normative and continuance commitment). An example of one of the questions measuring commitment is: ‘I see the problems in this organization as my own.’ Satisfaction. The translated version of the full 18-question Job Satisfaction Questionnaire of Spector (1997) was used to measure this variable. It is a six-point Likert scale (1= strongly disagree; 6 = strongly agree) which hosts several reversed score items. An example of one of the questions is: ‘I like the things I do at work.’ Motivation. To measure motivation we used the scale developed Vallerant and Bissonette (1992) which was translated to Dutch by van Yperen and Hagedoorn (2003). The questionnaire commences with the sentence ‘I do this job…’ followed by 12 propositions that participants could agree or disagree with on a seven-point Likert scale (1 = strongly y disagree; 7 = strongly agree). An example is ‘for the satisfaction I get when I conquer certain difficulties in my job.’ Organizational Citizenship Behavior. OCB was measured on the five point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree) through 20 questions developed by MacKenzie, Podsakoff and Fetter (1991). An example of the questions is: ‘I obey to the rules of the company, even when no one is watching me.’ Moral Identity. Moral identity was measured using the five-item internalization subscale of 17

THE INFLUENCE OF CSR ON EMPLOYEE-RELATED OUTCOMES Aquino and Reed’s (2002) validated self-importance of moral identity questionnaire. These items assess the extent to which moral trait associations are rooted in a person’s sense of self, and are previously shown to be internally consistent and to have a stable factor structure (Aquino & Reed, 2002; Reed & Aquino, 2003). Participants are presented with nine characteristics that describe a person (e.g. caring, compassionate, fair, friendly) and are asked to visualize a person they know with these traits. Subsequently, participants respond to items including:’ Being someone who has these characteristics is an important part of who I am’ and ‘It would make me feel good to be a person that has these characteristics.’ Responses on all five items were assessed using a seven-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree) and were averaged into a single moral identity score. PRESOR. We chose to use the questionnaire that was constructed by Singhapakdi, Vitall, Rallapalli and Kraft (1996). The questionnaire translated to Dutch and consists of 16 statements that could be agreed or disagreed with on a nine-point Likert scale (1= strongly disagree; 9 = strongly agree). An example of one of the questions is: ‘Business has a social responsibility beyond making a profit.’ Results Data analysis plan Because of the design of the study, an individual-level analysis could be done, as well as a grouplevel analysis. The first option entailed entering the organizational CSR score into the employee dataset, making the sample as large as the total number of employees participating in the study. However, since employees from one organization all work with the same supervisor (who filled in the supervisor part of the questionnaire), measurements of employees would not be independents. Given that the assumption of independence is violated for the individual level, we chose not to report the results of that analysis in this section.1 The second option entailed calculating mean scores of employees per organization and working with the dataset of organizational outcomes, making the sample as large as the number of organizations participating in the study. Working with the group level data would not necessitate us to violate the assumption of independence. In addition, one-way Analyses of Variance revealed a significant effect for the random between-subjects-factor organization number for the variable commitment (F (1, 54) = 1.71, p 18

THE INFLUENCE OF CSR ON EMPLOYEE-RELATED OUTCOMES <.05), satisfaction (F (1,54) = 1.67, p < .05), OCB (F (1,54) = 1.61, p < .05) and PRESOR (F (1,45) = 1,52, p < .05). These findings indicate that aggregation to the group level is justifiable. We therefore decided to report the group-level analyses. Note that the questionnaire developed by Turker (2009) can be used to measure ‘total’ CSR, but can also used to measure four different components of CSR: stakeholder-CSR, employee-CSR, customerCSR and government-CSR. We chose to run our tests over the entire CSR scale, as well as over the four separate groups of components, in order to see if some components could possibly be better predictors than others. Correlations and reliability Mean, standard deviations, inter-correlations and Cronbach’s alphas can be found in Table 1. Cronbach’s alphas for most of the measures generally ranged from moderate (α = 0.71 for commitment, OCB and customer- CSR) to relatively high (α = 0.89 for motivation and α = 0.88 for PRESOR). However, two measures scored relatively low on reliability (α = 0.55 for government and α = 0.67 for moral identity). Caution is needed when interpreting results involving these two variables. We have decided not to remove any questions to increase Cronbach’s alpha in order to be able to compare results with previous and future articles using the same questionnaires. As expected, the total scale of CSR correlated significantly and positively with the four subcomponents. Also, the outcome variables commitment, satisfaction, motivation and OCB significantly and positively correlated with each other. Moral identity correlated significantly with commitment, satisfaction and OCB, and PRESOR correlated significantly with satisfaction and motivation. CSR and the Outcome Variables The correlation analysis pointed out that for the total scale of CSR (CSR mean), CSR only correlated significantly with OCB (r (48)= -.24, p= .046). Interestingly, this correlation was negative, meaning the higher the CSR score the lower OCB. Therefore Hypothesis 1 in which we stated that there would be a positive relationship between CSR and the outcome variables, can be discarded. Table 1, also shows another result, namely the significant correlation between several variables 19

THE INFLUENCE OF CSR ON EMPLOYEE-RELATED OUTCOMES and work hours. The demographic variable work hours significantly correlates positively with all of the CSR scales but correlates negatively with the employee-related outcomes as well as the moderator variables. People with more work hours tend to work for employees with high CSR scores. However, the more employees work the less committed, satisfied, motivated and OCB displaying they become. Also, the more work hours people have, the less likely they are to have a prevalent moral identity or PRESOR. A similar pattern unfolded for the relationships between education and the outcome variables: the higher educated employees are, the lower they score on the outcome variables. Hypothesis testing for Moral Identity Hypothesis 2 stated that the positive relationship between CSR and the outcome variables would be stronger for employees scoring higher on moral identity. To test this hypothesis, we used hierarchical regression analysis. In the first step, all demographic variables were entered into the model. In the second step, the predictor and moderator effect (CSR and moral identity) were added. Concluding, step three contained the interaction term (CSR * moral identity or one of the subcomponents of CSR with moral identity). The variables in block two were standardized and the interaction term was computed from the standardized variables from block two (Aiken & West, 1991). Because the hypothesis is formulated in a one-way direction, we can test one-sided. For variables with significant results, graphical representations were made in order to explore the direction of the results. For the total CSR scale, only satisfaction was significantly influenced by the moderation effect. Test results of this analysis can be found in Table 2. Figure 2 depicts a graphic visualization of the effect, confirming that CSR feeds into employee satisfaction but only for those employees with a salient moral identity. Regression analysis on stakeholder-CSR also showed a significant moderator effect for satisfaction (Table 4). Similar to the pattern found for the total CSR scale, Figure 4 shows that specifically individuals with a high moral identity are positively influenced by CSR in terms of satisfaction. Table 10 displays the multiple regression outcomes for government-CSR and shows that there 20

THE INFLUENCE OF CSR ON EMPLOYEE-RELATED OUTCOMES only was a significant moderator effect for the employee factor OCB. Figure 10 shows a negative effect: those with a salient moral identity are negatively affected by CSR in terms of their display of OCB. This is not in accordance with Hypothesis 2. However, due to the low Cronbach’s alpha in the governmentCSR subscale, these outcomes should be interpreted with care. In conclusion, Hypothesis 2 can be partially accepted. We found a moderator effect of moral identity on the relationship between CSR and satisfaction, for the entire scale of CSR as well as for the subscale stakeholder-CSR. Hypothesis testing for PRESOR Hypothesis 3 stated that the positive relationship between CSR and the employee-related outcomes would be stronger once employees scored higher on PRESOR. The same procedure as with the previous hypothesis was repeated; with in the second step CSR and PRESOR and in the third step the interaction term (CSR * PRESOR). Also for this model, variables in step two were standardized and the interaction term was created from the standardized predictor and moderator variables (Aikon & West, 1991). Again, we tested one-sided. For the total CSR scale, one commitment implied that there was a significant moderator effect (Table 3). In Figure 3 the visual representation of the moderator effect can be found. It shows that individuals with a high PRESOR are negatively affected by CSR in terms of commitment. This is not in accordance with the hypothesis. For stakeholder-CSR, interaction results for commitment, satisfaction and OCB were significant (Table 5). Graphic representations can be found in figures 5, 6 and 7. The figures consecutively visualize that CSR feeds into commitment, satisfaction and OCB for employees with a high PRESOR. For employee-CSR, interaction results for satisfaction and motivation were significant, as can be found in Table 7. Figures 8 and 9 display the moderator effects. Employee-CSR does feed into employee satisfaction for those with a high PRESOR, but the relationship is weak. People with a high PRESOR score, scored higher on satisfaction when their organization was rated as more CSR-friendly. However, the strength of this relationship is overruled by the relationship between CSR and satisfaction for those 21

THE INFLUENCE OF CSR ON EMPLOYEE-RELATED OUTCOMES with a low PRESOR. The positive influence of a low PRESOR was also found for the relationship with motivation. Those with a salient PRESOR were negatively affected by employee-CSR. These findings are not fully in concordance with the hypotheses, which predicted positives relationships only for people with a high PRESOR. In conclusion, only for the stakeholder-CSR and the dependent variable satisfaction, Hypothesis 3 can be supported. Discussion This study aimed to replicate findings in the CSR literature and to propose a number of credible moderating variables that influence the relationship between CSR and four employee- related outcomes; commitment, satisfaction, motivation and organizational citizenship behavior. It has already been established that there is a relationship between CSR and a number of job related outcomes (Allen & Meyer, 1990; Khalifa, 2011; Podsakoff, Podsakoff & Blume, 2009; Anderson & Oliver, 1987), but understanding when this relationship exists might proof to be useful as well. Apart from the sake of ‘doing good’ and being fair, organizations could even start using their CSR policy in order to reach organizational goals. In other words: learning why CSR works means changing the current perception of CSR as a mandatory burden, into a possible profit. If we are able to show that individual factors indeed influence the evaluation of CSR, this might function as a selection tool for future employees where those exhibiting the positive moderating individual factors have an advantage over those who do not CSR and Employee-Related Outcomes Contrary to what has been stated in Hypothesis 1 and the literature, no significant positive relationship was found between CSR and the outcome variables. Strikingly we did find a significant negative correlation, between CSR and OCB. The rationale that employees who exhibit behavior focused on helping peers and volunteering in projects, putting organizational needs before their own and conserving resources (Bozkurt & Bal, 2012) are more affected by CSR because of the overlap in content, seems unsupported by the outcomes of this study. In their article on the relationship between CSR and OCB, Bozkurt and Bal (2012) carefully propose OCB is positively affected by an increase of CSR activities. Results of this research contradict those findings and indicate that the relationship with OCB 22

THE INFLUENCE OF CSR ON EMPLOYEE-RELATED OUTCOMES might not be as simple as the literature suggests. Although it seems unlikely, a possible explanation for the negative relationship with OCB could be that as organizations invest more in their CSR policy, they increasingly propagate the concept of CSR on the work floor. This might backfire in employees feeling like they are ‘doing enough’ for others and are therefore diminishing the amount of OCB exhibited. It could also be that moderator variables play an influencing role. The role of Moral Identity Hypothesis 2 stated that for employees with a salient moral identity, their evaluations of the four predictor outcomes would increase with higher CSR scores. From the analyses that were done, only three tests showed significant results. CSR positively influenced satisfaction for employees with a salient moral identity. This effect was also found for stakeholder-CSR. These results are conform the expectations that people who have a salient moral identity -therefore caring about the execution of moral values in daily life- would naturally find a fit in organizations that carry out their moral responsibilities by investing in an extensive CSR policy. There has been very little research on the moderating role of moral identity in any relationship between CSR and satisfaction, but the weak effects found by Iskman, Gurhan-Canli and Swaminathan (2010) for moral identity on the relationship between relevance of CSR and company evaluations offer some support for the moderating role of moral identity. Interestingly, findings of the current study align well with insights derived from the personorganization fit (P-O fit) literature, addressing the compatibility between an individual employee and their organization (Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman & Johnson, 2005). A good P-O fit is linked to positive attitudinal outcomes (Biswas & Bhatnagar, 2013). When there is a fit between organization and employee, this influences the evaluation of employees of the organization as a whole and their job. The theory behind P-O fit could be an explanation for the moderating role of moral identity; because of the high moral identity of employees, there is a good fit with CSR engaging organizations and because of that congruence, employees attitudes towards their job are positively affected. It remains unclear why it was only satisfaction that showed significant results, but a vast amount of literature backs up the positive results for satisfaction. In 2004, Steijn discovered that job satisfaction 23

THE INFLUENCE OF CSR ON EMPLOYEE-RELATED OUTCOMES as can indeed be influenced by individual characteristics (here: moral identity) but that the effects remain small. In another study, Steijn (2008) stated that the fit between a person and their organization significantly effects job satisfaction. For the current research design, this would imply that people with a higher moral identity experience a better fit with their organization when that organization invests in a CSR policy because it is in line with their personal beliefs; therefore enhancing their satisfaction. This is somewhat supported by Kim (2012), who investigated the relationship between public service motivation and employee satisfaction through person-organization fit and discovered that these last two variables were intertwined. Analyses on government-CSR as predictor variable also provided significant moderator effects for the relationship with OCB. Surprisingly, the graph shows relationships contradicting our expectations: for employees with a high moral identity, their OCB scores dropped as CSR scores increased. A possible explanation for this effect lies in the nature of the scale of government as a subcomponent. The scale consists of two items: “Our company complies with legal regulations completely and promptly” and “Our company always pays its taxes on a regular and continuing basis.” These statements refer to the obedience to legal requirements whereas OCB in nature is focused on voluntary acts of kindness (Katz, 1964). It may be that employees who feel that their organization only engages in CSR in order to comply with rules instead of acting out of an innate urge to ‘do good’ are negatively influenced. Apart from the convincing evidence that moral identity acts as a moderator in the relationship between CSR and satisfaction, Hypothesis 2 can be largely discarded with regards to the other three employee related factors. However, these conclusions should be interpreted with some caution due to the relatively low reliability of the moral identity scale. The Role of PRESOR Results for the regression analyses of PRESOR were quite ambiguous. The total CSR scale only showed a significant interaction effect only for commitment. However, the graphic visualization of the effect pointed out that with regards to the expectations, the relationship was reversed. A high CSR score resulted in low commitment from employees with a high PRESOR. This contradicts previous research. In 24

THE INFLUENCE OF CSR ON EMPLOYEE-RELATED OUTCOMES his article on the effects of CSR on commitment, Turker (2009) states that commitment should be positively influenced by CSR because of the social identity theory literature. In accordance with Hypothesis 1 and 2, the complete CSR scale hasn’t shown very promising results for Hypothesis 3. The nature of the complete CSR scale might be one of the reasons why results have been so unremarkable. Concerns with regards to the measuring scales will be further outlined in ‘strengths and limitations. Stakeholder-CSR was a good predictor for employee related outcomes when moderated by PRESOR: commitment, satisfaction as well as OCB scores increased for employees with a high PRESOR. This is in accordance with the literature on PRESOR and the outcome variables (Vitell & Paolillo, 2004; Turker, 2009). Similar to moral identity-outcomes, one could argue that this is due to the enhanced fit between person and organization: people who have a high perceived role of ethics and social responsibility would logically approve of their organizations’ attempts to act in a socially responsible manner, and therefore feel more at ease with their organization. Yaniv, Lavi and Siti (2010) provided evidence for the influence of person- organization fit on commitment, satisfaction and OCB. Tests for the effects of employee-CSR provided ambiguous results. There was a moderator effect in the expected direction for satisfaction, but in the opposite direction for motivation. Conspicuous was that people with a low PRESOR were more strongly influenced by the CSR score of their organization than those with a high PRESOR. That relationship was positive for satisfaction as well as motivation. This raises the question why people with a low PRESOR are more strongly influenced by CSR score than those scoring high. The answer to this question might again lie in the nature of the scale of the subcomponent employee. The full questionnaire can be found in the appendix, but a few examples are: “Our company encourages its employees to participate in voluntary activities,” “The managerial decisions related to the employees are usually fair” and “Our company implements flexible policies to provide a good work and life balance for its employees.” It could be argued that people with a high perceived role of ethics and social responsibility regard these issues as being evident, and therefore would be more stunned if their organization did not behave in such a fashion. Low PRESOR employees do not have such expectations and could therefore be more positively influenced when an organization fulfills the duties 25

THE INFLUENCE OF CSR ON EMPLOYEE-RELATED OUTCOMES provided by the employee-CSR scale. This is in line with the study of Chatman (1991) who discovered that recruits whose values match closely with those of the organization, feel most satisfied. High PRESOR scorers might therefore be less influenced, because the CSR policy belongs in their status quo. When solely looking at the results for the subcomponent stakeholder-CSR, one could argue that Hypothesis 3 is largely supported. However, due to the fact that the analyses have been run over all subsets of data, we wish to state that there is some support with regards to three of the four employeerelated factors. Still, additional research is needed when assessing PRESOR as a credible moderator between CSR and employee-related factors. Strengths and Limitations The current study has its strengths and limitations, and in this section we shall discuss its strong characteristics as well as factors that could have negatively influenced the outcomes of this study. The first strength of this study is the investigation of possible moderator effects next to the (previously investigated) main effects between CSR and the outcome variables. Studies like these have not been conducted often before; it therefore adds new insights to the CSR literature. Also the use of multiple sources to obtain data was a very strong and useful decision, because made the data more reliable and objective by splitting up the questionnaire into one section for supervisors and another one for employees. This prevented the possible effect of priming the employees into a CSR- friendly state of min. Another strength of this study is the diverse set of respondents. Data was obtained from 50 different organizations, ranging from large consultancy firms to supermarkets. This enlarges the generalizability of the results. The first limitation of this study is the length of the questionnaire. Feedback from employees pointed out that the 79 statement-questionnaire was too long. For many participants, this resulted in sloppy replies: overlooking questions and even ignoring entire pages. For the digital questionnaire, this could have been prevented by forcing participants to answer all the questions in order to continue to the next page. For the paper-and-pencil test, it could possibly have been prevented if the researcher would have been in the room whenever participants filled in the questionnaire. 26

THE INFLUENCE OF CSR ON EMPLOYEE-RELATED OUTCOMES An unforeseen mistake that cost the study a couple of managers was the method used to link managers to employees. Every organization that agreed to cooperate, received an email containing an organization number. It was clearly explained that in order for the replies to be useful, this number had to be entered in the first question. Many supervisors failed to do this, leaving us unable to link their data to the data of their employees. This could have easily been prevented by forcing supervisors to type in their organization number before they could commence with the actual online questionnaire. A third limitation of the study was the difficulty of measuring CSR in an adequate way. Scholars have already agreed that there is little consensus on a working definition (Turker, 2009; Wan-Jan, 2006). The decision to use Turker’s questionnaire (2009) was because of his effect size, citations and use of subcomponents. However, his 17-question scale did not touch all the CSR related topics, lowering CSR scores for organizations engaging in other of CSR. For example, one of the supervisors reported that a large part of their CSR policy consists of hiring people with mental disabilities and that none of the questions in the questionnaire grasped this topic. Also the fact that we tried to measure actual CSR instead of employees’ perception of CSR might have influenced results. Perception of CSR would come down to managers’ translation of the CSR policy to the work floor. If employees do not know about their company’s CSR policy, it will not influence their commitment, satisfaction, motivation and OCB. A fourth limitation is the low Cronbach’s alpha of two of the measuring scale: moral identity and government-CSR. Even though the moral identity scale is not strikingly low, both are below the standard which means that results should be interpreted with caution. A last limitation of the study is our sample size. The number of participants was relatively large but because the measures were not independent (similar organization/supervisor for every three employees), individual employees could not be treated as individual participants. This decreased the sample size to 50, making it more difficult to find significant results. Future Research and Practical Implications This study was amongst the first to investigate possible moderators that are of influence on the relationship between CSR and a number of employee-related factors. Even though this was a very 27

THE INFLUENCE OF CSR ON EMPLOYEE-RELATED OUTCOMES informational exploratory study on the moderating effects of moral identity and PRESOR it is evident that additional research is needed in order to make more concrete statements about the actual moderator effects. Firstly, additional effects need to be found in a larger participant group. Also, a better balance has to be found between generalizability and specificity. If the study is too broad, chances are that other factors influence outcomes, whereas if the study is too specific (e.g. data is collected in only one organization) it is hard to draw general conclusions. Future research should try and control for some factors such as organization size, function, area of research (rural or urban) or branch of industry. There is also need for additional research into the subcomponents of CSR. Stakeholder CSR seemed to be the best predictor for positive employee outcomes whereas for instance, governance CSR showed reversed effects. Possibly the best way to create a good measuring instrument for CSR would be to first agree on a universally accepted definition of CSR and all the subcomponents it entails, and then look into the elements that are needed for the measuring scale. As mentioned before, the theory regarding P-O fit seems to be a good explanation for the moderating effects of moral identity and PRESOR. Future research should therefore not only focus on expanding the information there is about personality and in specific value factors as moderators, but by doing so it should look into the P-O fit literature as well in order to create a more solid theoretical basis to build hypotheses on. Mueller, Hattrup, Spiess and Lin-Hi (2012) pointed out that the form of CSR an organization implements affects employees differently. This is supported by our study, which showed different results for different categories of the CSR scale. However, CSR type does not explain the entire effect. Even though ours is one of the first studies to touch the topic of moderator effects in CSR – employee relationships, the results seem clear enough: personality factors are of influence Not only do high moral identity/PRESOR employees generally seem positively influenced by a high CSR policy, employees with a low moral identity/PRESOR genuinely seem negatively affected by CSR of their organization. It is therefore of utmost importance for organizations to have a clear idea of the employees they are dealing 28

THE INFLUENCE OF CSR ON EMPLOYEE-RELATED OUTCOMES with when thinking out a CSR strategy as it eventually does influence commitment, satisfaction, motivation and OCB of employees. The role of the managers can be important here they are responsible for translating the CSR policy to the work floor. Managers need to be sensitive with regards to whom they are dealing with and how it can possibly affect the employees. If future research supports these findings and strong scientific proof is found for the moderating effects of moral identity and PRESOR, organizations could use this information to their advantage by only selecting those employees that have the characteristics that match with their CSR policy. Because of the P-O fit this will result in more committed, satisfied, motivated and OCB displaying employees. Conclusion This study set out to investigate possible moderators in the relationship between corporate social responsibility and the employee-related factors commitment, satisfaction, motivation and OCB. Even though most hypotheses were not fully supported, some interesting results were found. Employees with a highly salient moral identity are positively influenced by CSR as well as stakeholder-CSR in their evaluation of satisfaction with their job. Those with a salient PRESOR are positively influenced by stakeholder-CSR in their evaluation of satisfaction, as well as commitment and OCB. Employee-CSR feeds into satisfaction for those with a salient PRESOR. However, employee-CSR negatively influences motivation for individuals with a high PRESOR. Negative relationships were also found for CSR on commitment for people with a salient PRESOR and government-CSR on OCB for individuals with a high moral identity. Interestingly for some dependent variables, people with low moral identity or PRESOR were positively influenced by CSR and its subscales. We stress the importance of further investigation of this topic because we believe that with more accurate information, managers can manipulate their CSR practices into an even greater advantage than the mere pleasure of ‘doing good.’ To refer back to the question in this study’s title: is CSR a burden or a profit? With some additional research, we believe in the latter.

29

THE INFLUENCE OF CSR ON EMPLOYEE-RELATED OUTCOMES References

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(4), 932-968. Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA US: Sage Publications, Inc. Alexander, S., & Ruderman, M. (1987). The role of procedural and distributive justice in organizational behavior. Social Justice Research, 1(2), 177-198. 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 Anderson, E., & Oliver, R. L. (1987). Perspectives on behavior-based versus outcome-based salesforce control systems. Journal of Marketing, 51(4), 76-88. doi:10.2307/1251249 Aquino, K., Freeman, D., Reed, A.,II, Lim, V. K. G., & Felps, W. (2009). Testing a social-cognitive model of moral behavior: The interactive influence of situations and moral identity centrality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(1), 123-141. doi:10.1037/a0015406 Aquino, K., McFerran, B., & Laven, M. (2011). Moral identity and the experience of moral elevation in response to acts of uncommon goodness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(4), 703718. doi:10.1037/a0022540 Aquino, K., & Reed, A.,II. (2002). The self-importance of moral identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(6), 1423-1440. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.83.6.1423 Basu, K., & Palazzo, G. (2008). Corporate social responsibility: a process model of sensemaking. Academy of Management Review, 33(1), 122-136. doi:10.5465/AMR.2008.27745504 Biswas, S., & Bhatnagar, J. (2013). Mediator analysis of employee engagement: role of perceived organizational support, P-O fit, organizational commitment and job satisfaction. Vikalpa: The Journal for Decision Makers, 38(1), 27-40. 30

THE INFLUENCE OF CSR ON EMPLOYEE-RELATED OUTCOMES Blasi, A. (1984). Moral identity: Its role in moral functioning. In W. Kurtines & J. Gewirtz (Eds.), Morality, moral behavior and moral development (pp. 128–139). New York: Wiley. Bozkurt, S.& Bal, Y. (2012). Investigation of the relationship between corporate social responsibility and organizational citizenship behavior: a research. International Journal of Innovations in Business, 1 (1), 40-59. Brammer, S., Millington, A., & Rayton, B. (2007). The contribution of corporate social responsibility to organizational commitment. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18(10), 1701-1719. doi:10.1080/09585190701570866 Brown, S. P., & Peterson, R. A. (1993). Antecedents and consequences of salesperson job satisfaction: Meta-analysis and assessment of causal effects. Journal of Marketing Research, 30(1), 63-77. doi:10.2307/3172514 Chatman, J. (1991). Matching people and organizations: selection and socialization in public accounting firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 459-84. Coca Cola Enterprises Nederland B.V. (2011). Maatschappelijk Jaarverslag, Duurzaamheid in Actie. Netherlands Cropanzano, R.. & Folger, R. (1991). Procedural justice and worker motivation. In R. M. Steers & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Motivation and work behavior, 5, 131-143. New York: McGraw-Hill. Dalal, R. S., Baysinger, M., Brummel, B. J., & LeBreton, J. M. (2012). The relative importance of employee engagement, other job attitudes, and trait affect as predictors of job performance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42, E295-E325. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.01017.x De Cremer, D., & Van Hiel, A. (2008). Procedural justice effects on self-esteem under certainty versus uncertainty emotions. Motivation and Emotion, 32(4), 278-287. doi:10.1007/s11031-008-9090-4 Etheredge, J. M. (1999). The perceived role of ethics and social responsibility: An alternative scale structure. Journal of Business Ethics, 18(1), 51-64. Folger. R.. & Greenberg. J. (1985). Proceduraljustice: An interpretative analysis of personnel systems. In K. Rowland & G. Ferris (Eds.). Research in Personnel and Human 31

THE INFLUENCE OF CSR ON EMPLOYEE-RELATED OUTCOMES Resource Management (Vol. 3. pp. 141-183). Greenwich. CT: lA1 Press. Folger, R., & Konovsky, M. A. (1989). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to pay raise decisions. The Academy of Management Journal, 32(1), 115-130. French, F., Ikenwilo, D., & Scott, A. (2007). What influences the job satisfaction of staff and associate specialist hospital doctors? Health Services Management Research: An Official Journal of the Association of University Programs in Health Administration / HSMC, AUPHA, 20(3), 153-161. Gavin, J. F., & Maynard, W. S. (1975). Perceptions of corporate social responsibility. Personnel Psychology, 28(3), 377-387. Graafland, J., & Mazereeuw-Van der, D. S. (2012). Motives for corporate social responsibility. De Economist, 160(4), 377-396. Goodman, S., Jaffer, T., Keresztesi, M., Mamdani, F., Mokgatle, D., Musariri, M., Pires, J. & Slechter, A. (2011). An investigation of the relationship between students’ motivation and academic performance as mediated by effort. South African Journal of Psychology, 41 (3), 373-385. Hay, R. & Gray, E. (1974). Social responsibilities of business managers. Academy of Management Journal, 17, 135-143. Houghton, S. M., Gabel, J. T. A., & Williams, D. W. (2009). Connecting the two faces of CSR: Does employee volunteerism improve compliance? Journal of Business Ethics, 87(4), 477-494. doi:10.1007/s10551-008-9954-2 Isikman, E., Gurhan-Canli, Z., & Swaminathan, V. (2010). The effects of self-construal and moral identity on company evaluations: The moderating roles of social and personal relevance of corporate social responsibility activities. Advances in Consumer Research, 37, 818-820. Joo, B., Jeung, C., & Yoon, H. J. (2010). Investigating the influences of core self-evaluations, job autonomy, and intrinsic motivation on in-role job performance. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 21(4), 353-371. Katz, D. (1964). The motivational basis of organizational behavior. Behavioral Science, 9, 131-146.

32

THE INFLUENCE OF CSR ON EMPLOYEE-RELATED OUTCOMES Khalifa, M. H. e. H., & Truong, Q. (2011). The effects of internal and external equity on components of organizational commitment: An empirical study in the Egyptian hotel sector. International Journal of Management, 28(1), 306-315. Kim, S. (2012). Does person-organization fit matter in the public sector? Testing the mediating effect of person-organization fit in the relationship between public service motivation and work attitudes. Public Administration Review, 72(6), 830-840. Kristof-Brown, A., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005). Consequences of individuals' fit at work: a meta-analysis of person–job, person–organization, person–group, and person–supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58(2), 281-342. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00672.x MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Fetter, R. 1991. Organizational citizenship behavior and objective productivity as determinants of managerial evaluations of salespersons’ performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50: 123–150. Meyer, J. P. & Allen, N.J. (1987). Organizational commitment: Toward a three-component model. Research Bulletin, 660 Meyer, J. P., Becker, T. E., & Vandenberghe, C. (2004). Employee commitment and motivation: A conceptual analysis and integrative model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6), 991-1007. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.991 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(1), 20-52. doi:10.1006/jvbe.2001.1842 Miao, C. F., & Evans, K. R. (2007). The impact of salesperson motivation on role perceptions and job performance--a cognitive and affective perspective. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 27(1), 89-101. doi:10.2753/PSS0885-3134270106 Mueller, K., Hattrup, K., Spiess, S., & Lin-Hi, N. (2012). The effects of corporate social responsibility on employees' affective commitment: A cross-cultural investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(6), 1186-1200. doi:10.1037/a0030204 33

THE INFLUENCE OF CSR ON EMPLOYEE-RELATED OUTCOMES C. Murphy, N. Ramamoorthy, P. C. Flood and S. Mac Curtain. 2006. Organisational justice perceptions and employee attitudes among Irish employees: an empirical test of the main and moderating effects of individualism/collectivism. Management Revue, 17, 3, pp328-343. Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It's construct clean-up yime. Human Performance, 10(2), 85. Ouyang, Y. (2011). Understanding employees' organizational citizenship behaviors through the mediating role of corporate social responsibility. International Research Journal of Applied Finance, 2(1), 2949. doi:http://irjaf.com Patrick, H.A. & Sonia, J. (2012). Job satisfaction and affective commitment. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 11 (1), 23-36. Podsakoff, N. P., Whiting, S. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & Blume, B. D. (2009). Individual- and organizational-level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 122-141. doi:10.1037/a0013079 PwC. (2012). Duurzaamheidsbarometer. Netherlands. Reed, A.,II, & Aquino, K. F. (2003). Moral identity and the expanding circle of moral regard toward out-groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(6), 1270-1286. doi:10.1037/00223514.84.6.1270 Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2003). On assimilating identities to the self: A self-determination theory perspective on internalization and integrity within cultures. In M. R. Leary, & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), (pp. 253-272). New York, NY US: Guilford Press. Singhapakdi, A., Vitell, S.J., Rallapalli, K.C. & Kraft, K.L. (1996). The perceived role of ethics and social responsibility: A scale development. Journal of Business Ethics, 15(11), 1131-1140. doi:10.1007/BF00412812 Shao, R., Aquino, K., & Freeman, D. (2008). Beyond moral reasoning: A review of moral identity research and its implications for business ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly, 18, 513–540.

34

THE INFLUENCE OF CSR ON EMPLOYEE-RELATED OUTCOMES Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(4), 653-663. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.68.4.653 Spector, P. E. (1985). Measurement of human service staff satisfaction: Development of the Job Satisfaction Survey. American Journal of Community Psychology, 13(6), 693-713. doi:10.1007/BF00929796 Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38(5), 1442-1465. doi:10.2307/256865 Steijn, B. (2004). Human resource management and job satisfaction in the Dutch public sector. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 24(4), 291-303. doi:10.1177/0734371X04269187 Steijn, B. (2008). Person-environment fit and public service motivation. International Public Management Journal, 11(1), 13-27. doi:10.1080/10967490801887863 Swanson, D. L. 1995. Addressing a theoretical problem by reorienting the corporate social performance model. Academy of Management Review, 20 (1): 43-64. Tamm, K., Eamets, R. & Mõtsmees, P. (2010). Relationship between corporate social responsibility and job satisfaction: the case of Baltic countries. The University of Tartu Faculty of Economics and Business Administration Working Paper No. 76-2010. doi:10.2139/ssrn.1717710 Turker, D. (2009). How corporate social responsibility influences organizational commitment. Journal of Business Ethics, 89(2), 189-204. doi:10.1007/s10551-008-9993-8 Turker, D. (2009). Measuring corporate social responsibility: A scale development study. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(4), 411-427. doi:10.1007/s10551-008-9780-6 Vallerand, R. J., & Bissonnette, R. (1992). Intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivational styles as predictors of behavior: A prospective study. Journal of Personality, 60, 599-620. Van Yperen, N. W., & Hagedoorn, M. (2003). Do high job demands increase intrinsic motivation or fatigue or both? The role of job control and job social support. Academy of Management Journal, 46(3), 339-348. doi:10.2307/30040627

35

THE INFLUENCE OF CSR ON EMPLOYEE-RELATED OUTCOMES Vitell, S. J., & Paolillo, J. G. P. (2004). A cross-cultural study of the antecedents of the perceived role of ethics and social responsibility. Business Ethics: A European Review, 13(2), 185-199. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8608.2004.00362.x Votaw, D. (1972). Genius became rare: A comment on the doctrine of social responsibility. California Management Review, 15(2), 25-31. Wan, H. L., Sulaiman, M., & Omar, A. (2012). Procedural justice in promotion decisions of managerial staff in Malaysia. Asia Pacific Business Review, 18(1), 99-121. doi:10.1080/13602380903424167 Wan, S. W. (2006). Defining corporate social responsibility. Journal of Public Affairs (14723891), 6(3), 176-184. doi:10.1002/pa.227 Wasti, S. A. (2005). Commitment profiles: Combinations of organizational commitment forms and job outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67(2), 290-308. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2004.07.002 Wright, C. W., & Sablynski, C. J. (2008). Procedural justice, mood, and prosocial personality influence on organizational citizenship behavior. North American Journal of Psychology, 10(2), 397-411. Yaniv, E., Lavi, O. S., & Siti, G. (2010). Person-organisation fit and its impact on organisational citizenship behavior as related to social performance. Journal of General Management, 36(2), 81-89. Zuckerman, M., Larrance, D. T., Porac, J. F., & Blanck, P. D. (1980). Effects of fear of success on intrinsic motivation, causal attribution, and choice behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(3), 503-513. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.39.3.503

36

THE INFLUENCE OF CSR ON EMPLOYEE-RELATED OUTCOMES Footnotes 1

A multiple regression analysis was also conducted for the individual employee scores (N= 142), using

their company CSR scores as an independent predictor variable. Similar to the group analysis, a multiple regression analysis was done for the total CSR score as well as for the four subcomponents StakeholderCSR, Customer-CSR, Employee-CSR and Government-CSR. Entered into the first step were descriptive variables (age, sex, education, experience, work hours), the standardized predictor and moderator effects were entered in the second step and in the third step the interaction term (of the standardized variables in block two) was entered. Only two significant interactions were found. Moral identity proved to be a significant moderator for the relationship between GovernmentCSR and motivation (F (1, 97) = 3.48, p < .05) but in contrast to what we expected the effect indicated that the relationship was to be negative: the relationship between government-CSR and motivation is negatively influenced by a high moral identity. The influence of PRESOR on the relationship between stakeholder CSR and commitment also turned out to be significant (F (1, 90) = 3,41, p < .05) and a graphic representation of the showed that, in accordance with Hypothesis 3, the relationship between CSR and commitment was positively influenced by employees with a high PRESOR. In conclusion, based on the individual-level analysis, there was little to no support for the hypotheses. Possible explanations are the relatively small number of useful responses (N = 97 and N= 90) while as much as 142 employees filled in at least parts of the questionnaires), the relatively low Cronbach’s Alpha for the moral identity and the government CSR scale (α = 0.67 and α = 0.55) and the possibility that employee responses were not independent due to the fact that some work in the same organization.

37

Table 1

Means, standard deviations, correlations and reliabilities for dependent, independent and demographic variables for employees Variable 1 Sex 2 Age 3 Education 4 Experience 5Workhours 6 CSR Mean 7 CSR- Stakeholders 8 CSR- Employees 9 CSR- Customers 10 CSR-Government 11 Commitment 12 Satisfaction 13 Motivation 14 OCB 15Moral Identity 16 PRESOR 1. 2. 3.

Mean 1.58 35.77 2.89 8.89 3.31 3.79 3.33 3.99 4.31 4.19 4.89 4.35 5.49 3.76 4.06 6.55

SD .37 9.76 .90 8.42 .81 .55 .87 .63 .70 .86 .64 .50 .47 .29 .34 .70

1 1 -.07 -.11 -.14 -.25* -.04 -.01 .08 -.27* -.16 -.12 -.04 .15 -.10 -.16 .12

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

1 -.20 .68** .28* .10 .13 .08 -.09 .05 -.01 -.25* .18 -.20 -.36** .11

1 -.13 .18 .05 -.08 .05 .29* .16 -.08 -.14 -.46** -.32* .11 -.08

1 .12 .01 -.00 .00 .05 .01 -.01 -.20 .08 -.04 -.23 -.09

1 .42** .25* .42** .27* .33** -.26* -.25* -.23 -.47** -.43** -.07

(.82) .81** .78** .51** .56** -.23 -.06 -.16 -.24* -.22 -.11

(.74) .33** .09 .19 -.15 -.17 -.13 -.18 -.21 -.16

(.74) .45** .68** -.23 .11 -.03 -.22 -.19 -.01

(.71) .55** -.11 -.02 -.23 -.09 -.01 -.02

(.55) -.21 -.04 -.16 -.28* .02 -.15

(.71) .41** .46** .47** .32* .18

(.78) .44** .32* .32* .26*

(.89) .48** (.71) .09 .45** (.67) .32* .23 .19 (.88)

*= p <.05 **= p <.01 Reliability of the scales are found between brackets on the diagonals N = 50

14

15

16

Table 2 R 2, β and t values for step three in the hierarchical moderator analysis of the demographic variables and CSR on the criterion variables for Moral Identity R2 .19

Commitment b t

Sex Age Education Experience Workhours CSR Moral Identity CSR * Moral Identity

-0.17 0.08 0.04 -0.05 -0.24 -0.04 0.07 0.12

Satisfaction b t

R2 0.24

-1.63 0.63 0.43 -0.38 -1.76 -0.36 0.65 1.22

-0.10 -0.06 -0.04 -0.05 -0.13 -0.00 0.12 0.17

Motivation b t

R2 0.29 -1.11 -0.55 -0.42 -0.51 -1.09 -0.04 1.28 2.03*

0.01 0.09 -0.15 -0.03 -0.14 -0.01 0.04 0.10

OCB R2 0.35

0.15 0.98 -1.92 -0.33 -1.36 -0.18 0.48 1.33

b

t

-0.05 -0.01 -0.07 0.01 -0.07 -0.03 0.06 0.01

-1.34 -0.28 -1.70 0.28 -1.25 -0.69 1.48 0.13

*p<.05 **p<.01

Table 3 R 2, β and t values for step three in the hierarchical moderator analysis of the demographic variables and CSR on the criterion variables for PRESOR Commitment b t R 0.24 -0.15 -1.53 0.067 0.48 -0.00 -0.04 -0.07 -0.54 -0.23 -1.99 -0.05 -0.45 0.05 0.56 0.23 1.87 2

Sex Age Education Experience Workhours CSR PRESOR CSR * PRESOR

*p<.05 **p<.01

Satisfaction b t R 0.27 -0.09 -0.97 -0.19 -1.59 -0.12 -1.4 0.03 0.29 -0.13 -1.26 0.00 0.01 0.12 1.43 0.18 1.60 2

Motivation b t R 0.42 0.07 1.05 0.12 1.26 -0.16 -2.32* -0.04 -0.48 -0.11 -1.39 0.06 0.72 0.11 1.65 0.07 0.82 2

OCB 2

R 0.26

b

t

-0.05 0.02 0.05 -0.01 -0.05 -0.02 0.03 0.06

-1.63 0.37 -1.54 -0.30 -1.42 -0.63 0.89 1.45

THE INFLUENCE OF CSR ON EMPLOYEE-RELATED OUTCOMES Table 4 R 2, β and t values for step three in the hierarchical moderator analysis of the demographic variables and CSRsubscale Stakeholders on the criterion variables for Moral Identity

Stakeholders Sex Age Education Experience Workhours CSR Moral Identity CSR * Moral Identity

Commitment b t R2 0.22 -0.17 -1.69* 0.09 0.70 0.05 0.53 -0.06 -0.53 -0.23 -1.98* -0.02 -0.23 0.07 0.62 0.16 1.64

R2 0.26

Satisfaction b -0.08 -0.03 -0.04 -0.08 -0.08 -0.08 0.11 0.19

t

R2 0.29

-0.99 -0.30 -0.45 -0.82 -0.75 -0.97 1.22 2.22*

Motivation b

OCB R2

t

b

t

-0.06 -0.01 -0.06 0.01 -0.08 -0.03 0.06 0.02

-1.54 -0.15 -1.60 0.13 -1.68 -0.90 1.40 0.62

0.36 0.03 0.11 -0.16 -0.05 -0.10 -0.06 0.03 0.08

0.35 1.13 -2.09* -0.51 -1.1 -0.87 0.41 1.06

*p<.05 **p<.01

Table 5 R 2, β and t values for step three in the hierarchical moderator analysis of the demographic variables and CSRsubscale Stakeholders on the criterion variables for PRESOR

Stakeholders

R2 0.38

Commitment b

Sex Age Education Experience Workhours CSR PRESOR CSR * PRESOR

-0.17 0.04 0.00 -0.03 -0.20 0.06 0.11 0.30

t

-1.84 0.28 0.03 -0.27 -2.07* 0.71 1.25 3.33**

R2 0.32

Satisfaction b -0.09 -0.19 -0.12 0.04 -0.08 -0.03 0.14 0.20

t -1.00 -1.63 -1.46 0.37 -0.86 -0.32 1.79* 2.34*

R2 0.42

Motivation b 0.07 0.12 -0.15 -0.04 -0.07 0.03 0.12 0.10

t 0.98 1.19 -2.35* -0.40 -1.00 0.38 1.85* 1.40

R2 0.32

OCB b

t

-0.06 0.01 -0.05 -0.01 -0.04 -0.01 0.04 0.07

-1.81* 0.34 -1.63 -0.18 -1.36 -0.34 1.27 2.28*

*p<.05 **p<.01

40

THE INFLUENCE OF CSR ON EMPLOYEE-RELATED OUTCOMES Table 6 R 2, β and t values for step three in the hierarchical moderator analysis of the demographic variables and CSRsubscale Employees on the criterion variables for Moral Identity

Employees Sex Age Education Experience Workhours CSR Moral Identity CSR * Moral Identity

Commitment b t R2 0.16 -0.13 -1.22 0.07 0.54 0.01 0.05 -0.03 -0.28 -0.19 -1.28 -0.03 -0.26 0.07 0.65 0.03 0.32

R2 0.23

Satisfaction b -0.10 -0.08 -0.08 -0.03 -0.16 0.13 0.10 0.07

t

R2 0.31

-1.07 -0.76 -0.93 -0.31 -.30 1.54 1.04 0.99

Motivation b -0.01 0.08 -0.16 -0.02 -0.19 0.06 0.03 0.08

t

R2 0.34

-0.10 0.81 -2.21* -0.17 -1.79* 0.86 0.34 1.29

OCB b

t

-0.05 -0.02 -0.07 0.02 -0.07 -0.01 0.06 -0.00

-1.18 -0.33 -1.84* 0.33 -1.20 -0.23 1.46 -0.10

*p<.05 **p<.01

Table 7 R 2, β and t values for step three in the hierarchical moderator analysis of the demographic variables and CSRsubscale Employees on the criterion variables for PRESOR

Employees Sex Age Education Experience Workhours CSR Moral PRESOR CSR * PRESOR

Commitment b t R2 0.20 -0.13 -1.26 0.13 0.88 0.07 0.69 -0.08 -0.62 -0.18 -1.50 0.06 0.51 0.13 1.30 -0.18 -1.19

R2 0.37

Satisfaction b -0.09 -0.13 -0.04 0.02 -0.14 0.25 0.19 -0.25

t -1.07 -1.12 -0.56 0.17 -1.45 2.79** 2.45** -2.05*

R2 0.50

Motivation b 0.07 0.17 -0.11 -0.06 -0.10 0.18 0.15 -0.19

OCB t 1.02 1.88* -.77* -0.69 -1.37* 2.61** 2.44* -2.01*

R2 0.26

b

t

-0.05 0.03 -0.03 -0.01 -0.05 0.04 0.05 -0.06

-1.52 0.75 -0.84 -0.36 -1.35 1.14 1.65 -1.37

*p<.05 **p<.01

41

THE INFLUENCE OF CSR ON EMPLOYEE-RELATED OUTCOMES Table 8 R 2, β and t values for step three in the hierarchical moderator analysis of the demographic variables and CSRsubscale Customers on the criterion variables for Moral Identity

Customers Sex Age Education Experience Workhours CSR Moral Identity CSR * Moral Identity

Commitment R2 b t 0.16 -0.13 -1.24 0.07 0.51 0.00 0.02 -0.03 -0.26 -0.17 -1.40 -0.02 -0.18 0.07 0.64 0.01 0.09

R2 0.16

Satisfaction b -0.02 -0.06 -0.09 -0.04 -0.02 0.01 0.12 0.07

R2 0.26

t

Motivation b

-0.27 -0.48 -1.08 -0.38 -0.22 0.12 1.22 0.58

0.05 0.09 -0.18 -0.03 -0.09 0.02 0.04 0.01

t

R2 0.37

0.69 0.94 -2.50** -0.28 -1.00 0.27 0.43 0.09

OCB b

t

-0.06 -0.03 -0.07 0.02 -0.07 -0.02 0.06 -0.07

-1.64 -0.57 -2.01* 0.36 -1.51 -0.43 1.43 -1.30

*p<.05 **p<.01

Table 9 R 2, β and t values for step three in the hierarchical moderator analysis of the demographic variables and CSRsubscale Customers on the criterion variables for PRESOR

Customers Sex Age Education Experience Workhours CSR PRESOR CSR * PRESOR

Commitment b t R2 0.17 -0.14 -1.30 0.09 0.62 0.05 0.46 -0.07 -0.55 -0.20 -1.77* -0.05 -0.47 0.09 0.87 0.05 0.45

R2 0.24

Satisfaction b -0.08 -0.17 -0.09 0.01 -0.11 -0.05 0.12 0.12

t -0.90 -1.41 -1.01 0.94 -1.14 -0.56 1.45 1.32

R2 0.43

Motivation b 0.07 0.13 -0.14 -0.07 -0.09 -0.04 0.09 0.11

OCB t 0.97 1.36 -2.19* -0.75 -1.23 -0.56 1.41 1.65

R2 0.23

b

t

-0.05 0.02 -0.03 -0.01 -0.05 -0.02 0.04 0.02

-1.49 0.45 -1.09 -0.29 -1.38 -0.51 1.15 0.47

*p<.05 **p<.01

42

THE INFLUENCE OF CSR ON EMPLOYEE-RELATED OUTCOMES

Table 10 R 2, β and t values for step three in the hierarchical moderator analysis of the demographic variables and CSRsubscale Government on the criterion variables for Moral Identity

Government Sex Age Education Experience Workhours CSR Moral Identity CSR *Moral Identity

Commitment b t R2 0.20 -0.13 -1.37 0.08 0.60 0.01 0.06 -0.04 -0.34 -0.11 -0.88 -0.12 -1.29 0.09 0.81 -0.07 -0.61

R2 0.15

Satisfaction b -0.03 -0.06 -0.10 -0.04 -0.03 0.01 0.12 0.04

t

R2 0.29

-0.39 -0.55 -1.15 -0.39 -0.27 0.08 1.20 0.36

Motivation b 0.05 0.38 -0.19 -0.02 -0.05 -0.02 0.03 -0.10

t

R2 0.49

0.69 0.83 -2.62* -0.24 -0.53 -0.22 0.36 -1.24

OCB b

t

-0.06 -0.02 -0.07 0.01 -0.02 -0.07 0.07 -0.09

-1.65 -0.46 -2.01* 0.35 -0.51 -2.18* 1.75* -2.49*

*p<.05 **p<.01

Table 11 R 2, β and t values for step three in the hierarchical moderator analysis of the demographic variables and CSRsubscale Government on the criterion variables for PRESOR

Government Sex Age Education Experience Workhours CSR PRESOR CSR *PRESOR

Commitment R2 b t 0.02 -0.11 -1.00 0.10 0.75 0.04 0.41 -0.07 -0.55 -0.16 -1.45 -0.03 -0.30 0.09 0.98 0.01 -1.23

Satisfaction R b 0.22 -0.04 -0.16 -0.10 0.04 -0.09 0.08 0.16 -0.07 2

t -0.38 -1.34 -1.18 0.31 -0.95 0.87 1.87* -0.79

Motivation R b 0.43 0.12 0.14 -0.16 -0.04 -0.07 0.09 0.13 -0.09 2

OCB t 1.61 1.44 -2.42* -0.45 -0.91 1.28 1.99* -1.32

2

R 0.28

b

t

-0.04 0.03 -0.04 -0.01 -0.03 -0.01 0.04 -0.04

-1.18 0.59 -1.21 -0.30 -1.00 -0.42 1.29 -1.40

*p<.05 **p<.01

43

THE INFLUENCE OF CSR ON EMPLOYEE-RELATED OUTCOMES

Commitment

Moral Identity

Satisfaction Corporate Social Responsibility Motivation Perceived Role of Ethics and Social Responsibility

Organizational Citizenship Behavior

Figure 1: Research model.

4,7 4,6 4,5

4,4 4,3

Low Moral Identity

Satisfaction 4,2

High Moral Identity

4,1 4 3,9 3,8 Low CSR

High CSR

Figure 2: Moderating relationship of moral identity on the relationship between CSR and satisfaction.

44

THE INFLUENCE OF CSR ON EMPLOYEE-RELATED OUTCOMES

5,3 5,2

5,1 Low PRESOR

5

Commitment

High PRESOR 4,9 4,8 4,7 Low CSR

High CSR

Figure 3: Moderating relationship of PRESOR on the relationship between CSR and commitment.

4,7 4,6 4,5 4,4 4,3 Satisfaction

Low Moral Identity

4,2

High Moral Identity

4,1 4 3,9 3,8 Low CSR Stakeholder

High CSR Stakeholder

Figure 4: Moderating relationship of moral identity on the relationship between CSR Stakeholder and satisfaction.

45

THE INFLUENCE OF CSR ON EMPLOYEE-RELATED OUTCOMES

5,6 5,4

5,2 Low PRESOR

5

Commitment

High PRESOR 4,8 4,6 4,4 Low CSR Stakeholder High CSR Stakeholder Figure 5: Moderating relationship of PRESOR on the relationship between CSR stakeholder and commitment.

5 4,8 4,6 4,4

Low PRESOR

Satisfaction 4,2

High PRESOR

4 3,8 3,6 3,4

Low CSR Stakeholder High CSR Stakeholder Figure 6: Moderating relationship of PRESOR on the relationship between CSR stakeholder and satisfaction.

46

THE INFLUENCE OF CSR ON EMPLOYEE-RELATED OUTCOMES

4 3,95 3,9 3,85 3,8 Low PRESOR

OCB 3,75

High PRESOR

3,7 3,65 3,6 3,55 3,5

Low Stakeholder CSR

High Stakeholder CSR

Figure 7: Moderating relationship of PRESOR on the relationship between CSR stakeholder and OCB.

4,7 4,65 4,6 4,55

Low PRESOR

Satisfaction 4,5

High PRESOR

4,45 4,4 4,35 4,3

Low CSR Employee

High CSR Employee

Figure 8: Moderating relationship of PRESOR on the relationship between CSR employee and satisfaction. 47

THE INFLUENCE OF CSR ON EMPLOYEE-RELATED OUTCOMES

5,8 5,7 5,6

5,5 5,4

Low PRESOR

Motivation 5,3

High PRESOR

5,2 5,1 5 4,9 Low CSR Employee

High CSR Employee

Figure 9: Moderating relationship of PRESOR on the relationship between CSR employee and motivation.

4,1 4,05 4 3,95 3,9 OCB 3,85

Low Moral Identity

3,8

High Moral Identity

3,75 3,7 3,65 3,6

Low CSR Government High CSR Government Figure 10: Moderating relationship of moral identity on the relationship between CSR government and OCB.

48

THE INFLUENCE OF CSR ON EMPLOYEE-RELATED OUTCOMES

Appendix A Questionnaire for Supervisors Geachte leidinggevende, U staat op het punt mee te werken aan een afstudeeronderzoek dat ondersteund wordt door de Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. Het doel van dit onderzoek is om erachter te komen of Maatschappelijk Verantwoord Ondernemen in een organisatie van invloed is op de werkervaring en werkhouding van werknemers. Maatschappelijk Verantwoord Ondernemen betekent kort gezegd dat bedrijven tijd, geld en energie steken in activiteiten die bijdragen aan de maatschappij. Dit kan slaan op donaties aan goede doelen maar ook op het gebruik van milieuvriendelijke producten of bijvoorbeeld het aanbieden van trainingen en opleidingen aan werknemers zodat zij zich individueel kunnen ontwikkelen. Tegenwoordig zijn er steeds meer organisaties die een MVO-beleid in hun beleidsplannen opnemen. Wij willen erachter komen wat de gevolgen hiervan zijn voor medewerkers: geeft het MVO beleid van hun organisatie hen een beter gevoel over hun organisatie? Worden zij meer tevreden, gemotiveerd en toegewijd? Omdat medewerkers vaak niet geheel op de hoogte zijn van de maatregelen die organisaties nemen om bij te dragen aan MVO, leek het ons betrouwbaarder dat u als leidinggevende ons de informatie over MVO beleid van uw organisatie verschaft. Instructies: Om de resultaten zo betrouwbaar mogelijk te maken, is het van groot belang dat u: - De tijd neemt bij het invullen van de vragenlijst - Alle vragen zorgvuldig doorleest. Sommige vragen zullen ontkennend gesteld zijn. - Iedere vraag invult. Bij missende antwoorden wordt de gehele vragenlijst namelijk onbruikbaar. Vul hier uw emailadres in indien u geïnteresseerd bent in de uitkomsten van het onderzoek. ……………………………………… Alvast hartelijk dank voor uw medewerking! 49

THE INFLUENCE OF CSR ON EMPLOYEE-RELATED OUTCOMES

Voordat de vragenlijst officieel van start gaat, zouden we graag wat willen weten over u en uw geschiedenis bij de organisatie. Wat is uw geslacht?

○ Man ○ Vrouw

Wat is uw leeftijd?

........... jaar

Wat is uw hoogst genoten opleidingsniveau?

○ Middelbaar Onderwijs ○ MBO opleiding ○ HBO opleiding ○ WO Bachelor ○ WO Master ○ Anders

Hoe lang bent u werkzaam bij uw huidige organisatie?

..............jaar

Hoeveel uur werkt u per week?

○ 0-12 uur ○ 12-24 uur ○ 24-36 uur ○ 36-48 uur ○ Meer dan 48 uur

50

THE INFLUENCE OF CSR ON EMPLOYEE-RELATED OUTCOMES Geef bij de volgende stellingen aan in hoeverre u het ermee eens bent. 1= geheel mee oneens 2= oneens 3 = niet eens, niet oneens 4= eens 5 = geheel mee eens.

Geheel oneens 1 2

3

4

Geheel eens 5

1. Onze organisatie benadrukt het belang van haar sociale maatschappelijke verantwoordelijkheden. 1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

2. Onze organisatie doneert aan scholen, ziekenhuizen en andere maatschappelijk relevante projecten. 3. Onze organisatie doneert aan campagnes en projecten die het welzijn van de maatschappij bevorderen. 4. Onze organisatie implementeert speciale programma’s om haar negatieve invloed op de omgeving te minimaliseren. 5. Onze organisatie zet zich in voor activiteiten die de omgeving en natuur beschermen en verbeteren. 6. Onze organisatie beschikt over de middelen om haar negatieve invloed op het milieu en de omgeving te verminderen. 7. Onze organisatie doet weldoordachte investeringen om bevuiling van het milieu en verval van de omgeving tegen te gaan. 8. Onze organisatie streeft naar duurzame groei die toekomstige generaties in overweging neemt. 9. Onze organisatie doet investeringen om een beter leven voor toekomstige generaties te bewerkstelligen. 10. Onze organisatie doet investeringen om werkgelegenheid voor toekomstige generaties te creëren. 11. Onze organisatie investeert in R&D projecten om het welzijn van toekomstige generaties te verbeteren. 12. Onze organisatie geeft genoeg financiële bijdragen aan goede doelen. 13. Onze organisatie stimuleert haar werknemers om mee te doen aan vrijwilligersprojecten. 14. Eén van de belangrijkste principes van onze organisatie is om onze klanten te voorzien van producten van hoge kwaliteit. 15. Onze producten voldoen aan nationale en internationale standaarden. 51

THE INFLUENCE OF CSR ON EMPLOYEE-RELATED OUTCOMES Geheel oneens 1 2

3

4

Geheel eens 5

16. De garantieperiode van onze producten is de meest voordelige van onze marktsector. 1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

17. Onze organisatie voorziet onze klanten van uitgebreide en accurate informatie over onze producten. 18. Onze organisatie doet meer voor de consument dan er wettelijk wordt verlangd. 19. Klanttevredenheid is heel belangrijk voor onze organisatie. 20. Onze organisatie reageert adequaat op klachten van klanten. 21. Onze organisatie staat bekend als een gerespecteerd en betrouwbaar bedrijf. 22. Onze organisatie probeert de overheid te helpen bij het oplossen van sociale problemen. 23. Onze organisatie handelt op alle terreinen conform legale normen. 24. Het belangrijkste uitgangspunt in onze organisatie is om te allen tijde eerlijk zaken te doen. 25. Onze organisatie werkt samen met concurrerende organisaties aan sociale 26. Onze organisatie concurreert met andere organisaties op een ethisch verantwoorde wijze. 27. Onze organisatie streeft er naar om werkgelegenheid te creëren. 28. Onze organisatie voldoet volledig en tijdig aan wettelijke voorschriften. 29. Onze organisatie steunt NGOs (zoals het Rode Kruis, Oxfam Novib, Milieudefensie) bij hun werk in probleemgebieden. 30. Onze organisatie neemt alle waarschuwingen gegeven door NGO’s serieus. 31. Onze organisatie betaalt altijd haar belasting op tijd. 32. Onze organisatie voorziet haar werknemers in een groot aantal secundaire arbeidsvoorwaarden om hun kwaliteit van leven te verbeteren.

52

THE INFLUENCE OF CSR ON EMPLOYEE-RELATED OUTCOMES Geheel oneens 33. De werknemers in onze organisatie ontvangen een fatsoenlijk salaris waarmee zij kunnen voorzien in hun levensbehoeften.

Geheel eens

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

34. Ons bedrijfsbeleid zorgt voor een veilige en gezonde werkomgeving voor alle werknemers. 35. Onze organisatie kent flexibele regelingen om voor werknemers een goede werk/privé-balans mogelijk te maken. 36. Het management van onze organisatie houdt zich voornamelijk bezig met de behoeften en belangen van de werknemers. 37. De beslissingen die door het management worden genomen ten opzichte van de werknemers zijn doorgaans fair. 38. Ik geloof dat onze organisatie gelijke mogelijkheden biedt voor alle werknemers. 39. Onze organisatie vermijdt oneerlijke competitie. 40. Onze organisatie steunt medewerkers die aanvullende scholing willen. 41. Werknemers krijgen genoeg mogelijkheden om binnen hun baan nieuwe vaardigheden te ontwikkelen, indien zij aangeven hier de behoefte aan te hebben. 42. Ons bedrijfsbeleid moedigt medewerkers aan om hun vaardigheden en hun carrière verder te ontwikkelen.

Dit was het einde van de vragenlijst. Hartelijk dank voor het invullen van de vragen en uw bijdrage aan wetenschappelijk onderzoek. Mocht u nog vragen of opmerkingen hebben, kunt u een e-mail sturen naar [email protected].

Jennifer M. J. Noble (Onderzoeker, Bsc. Psychologie) Prof. Dr. B. M. Wisse (Onderzoeksbegeleider)

53

THE INFLUENCE OF CSR ON EMPLOYEE-RELATED OUTCOMES

Appendix B Questionnaire for Employees Geachte deelnemer,

U staat op het punt mee te werken aan een afstudeeronderzoek dat ondersteund wordt door de Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. Het doel van dit onderzoek is om erachter te komen of Maatschappelijk Verantwoord Ondernemen in een organisatie van invloed is op de werkervaring en werkhouding van werknemers. Maatschappelijk Verantwoord Ondernemen (MVO) betekent kort gezegd dat bedrijven tijd, geld en energie steken in activiteiten die bijdragen aan de maatschappij. Dit kan slaan op donaties aan goede doelen maar ook op het gebruik van milieuvriendelijke producten of bijvoorbeeld het aanbieden van trainingen en opleidingen aan werknemers zodat zij zich individueel kunnen ontwikkelen. Uw leidinggevende zal een vragenlijst invullen die gaat over het MVO beleid binnen uw organisatie, zodat wij daar een goed beeld van krijgen. U willen we graag vragen gaan stellen over onder andere uw tevredenheid op het werk, uw werkmotivatie en wat uw mening is ten opzichte van sociale verantwoordelijkheid. Antwoorden van leidinggevenden en werknemers zullen nooit aan elkaar worden doorgespeeld. Uw antwoorden zullen anoniem blijven.

Instructies:

Om de resultaten zo betrouwbaar mogelijk te maken, is het van groot belang dat u: -

De tijd neemt bij het invullen van de vragenlijst

-

Alle vragen zorgvuldig doorleest. Sommige vragen zullen ontkennend gesteld zijn.

-

Niet te lang nadenkt over uw antwoorden, maar afgaat op uw intuïtie. Het gaat immers om uw

mening: er zijn geen goede of foute antwoorden!

Vul hier uw emailadres in indien u geïnteresseerd bent in de uitkomsten van het onderzoek. ……………………………………… Alvast hartelijk dank voor uw medewerking! Jennifer M.J. Noble (Onderzoeker, Bsc. Psychologie) Prof. Dr. B.M. Wisse (Onderzoeksbegeleider) 54

THE INFLUENCE OF CSR ON EMPLOYEE-RELATED OUTCOMES

Voordat de vragenlijst officieel van start gaat, zouden we graag wat willen weten over u en uw geschiedenis bij de organisatie. Wat is uw geslacht?

○ Man ○ Vrouw

Wat is uw leeftijd?

........... jaar

Wat is uw hoogst genoten opleidingsniveau?

○ Middelbaar Onderwijs ○ MBO opleiding ○ HBO opleiding ○ WO Bachelor ○ WO Master ○ Anders

Hoe lang bent u werkzaam bij uw huidige organisatie?

..............jaar

Hoeveel uur werkt u per week?

○ 0-12 uur ○ 12-24 uur ○ 24-36 uur ○ 36-48 uur ○ Meer dan 48 uur

55

THE INFLUENCE OF CSR ON EMPLOYEE-RELATED OUTCOMES Geef aan in hoeverre u het met de stellingen eens bent: 1 = geheel mee oneens 2= mee oneens 3 = overwegend mee oneens 4= niet eens, niet oneens 5 = overwegend mee eens 6 = mee eens 7= geheel mee eens.

Geheel oneens 1 2

1. Ik zou met veel plezier de rest van mijn leven bij deze organisatie blijven werken. 2. Ik vind het leuk om met buitenstaanders over mijn organisatie te discussiëren. 3. Ik zie de problemen binnen deze organisatie als mijn eigen problemen. 4. Ik zou net zo gemakkelijk gehecht kunnen raken aan een andere organisatie als aan deze. 5. Ik heb binnen deze organisatie niet het gevoel dat ik deel uitmaak van ‘de familie.’ 6. Ik voel me niet emotioneel verbonden aan deze organisatie. 7. Deze organisatie betekent heel veel voor mij. 8. Ik voel mij niet sterk verbonden aan deze organisatie.

3

4

5

6

Geheel eens 7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

5 5

6 6

7 7

Geef aan in hoeverre u het met de volgende stellingen eens bent: 1 = geheel mee oneens 2= mee oneens 3 = overwegend mee oneens 4 = overwegend mee eens 5= mee eens 6= geheel mee eens

1. Ik krijg een fatsoenlijk salaris voor het werk dat ik doe. 2. Er zijn te weinig promotiemogelijkheden in mijn werk. 3. Mijn leidinggevende is goed in hetgeen hij/zij doet. 4. Ik ben niet tevreden met de secundaire arbeidsvoorwaarden. 5. Wanneer ik goed presteer, krijg ik daarvoor de waardering die ik verdien. 6. Regels en verplichte procedures op het werk, zorgen ervoor dat het lastig wordt mijn taak goed uit te voeren. 7. Ik vind de mensen met wie ik werk aardig. 8. Soms heb ik het gevoel dat mijn baan betekenisloos is. 9. De communicatie binnen deze organisatie is goed.

Geheel oneens 1 2

3

4

5

Geheel eens 6

1

2

3

4

5

6

1

2

3

4

5

6

1

2

3

4

5

6

1

2

3

4

5

6

1

2

3

4

5

6

1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

5 5

6 6

1

2

3

4

5

6

56

THE INFLUENCE OF CSR ON EMPLOYEE-RELATED OUTCOMES

10. Salaris verhogingen zijn zeldzaam. 11. Werknemers die hun werk goed doen, hebben een goede kans op een promotie 12. Mijn leidinggevende behandelt me (vaak) oneerlijk. 13. Onze secundaire arbeidsvoorwaarden zijn net zo goed als bij de meeste andere bedrijven 14. Ik krijg niet het gevoel dat het werk dat ik doe, wordt gewaardeerd. 15. Mijn pogingen om goed te presteren worden stranden zelden in bureaucratische rompslomp. 16. Ik heb het idee dat ik op mijn werk harder mijn best moet doen om te compenseren voor mijn collega’s die minder competent zijn. 17. Ik geniet van de dingen die ik op mijn werk moet doen/ ik vind mijn taken op het werk leuk. 18. De organisatiedoelen zijn mij niet duidelijk.

Geheel oneens 1 2 1 2

3 3

4 4

5 5

Geheel eens 6 6

1

2

3

4

5

6

1

2

3

4

5

6

1

2

3

4

5

6

1

2

3

4

5

6

1

2

3

4

5

6

1

2

3

4

5

6

1

2

3

4

5

6

Geef aan in hoeverre u het met de volgende stellingen eens bent:1 = geheel mee oneens 2= mee oneens 3 = overwegend mee oneens 4= niet eens, niet oneens 5 = overwegend mee eens 6 = mee eens 7= geheel mee eens. Ik doe dit werk:

1 Voor het plezier dat ik ontleen aan het verkrijgen van kennis over het werk. 2. Omdat ik er plezier aan beleef om in het werk nieuwe dingen te doen. 3. Omdat ik plezier ontleen aan het leren van nieuwe dingen in het werk.

Geheel oneens 1 2

3

4

5

6

Geheel eens 7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

4. Omdat ik het leuk vind dat ik in het werk nieuwe vaardigheden kan ontwikkelen. 5. Omdat ik het heel bevredigend vind als ik bepaalde moeilijke vaardigheden die voor mijn werk vereist zijn, onder de knie krijg 6. Omdat ik er voldoening uitput als ik in m'n werk m'n zwakke punten verbeter. 7. Omdat het me een tevreden gevoel geeft wanneer ik mijn vaardigheden op het werk perfectioneer. 57

THE INFLUENCE OF CSR ON EMPLOYEE-RELATED OUTCOMES

8. Voor de tevredenheid die ik voel wanneer ik bepaalde moeilijkheden in mijn werk overwin.

Geheel oneens 1 2

3

4

5

6

Geheel eens 7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

9. Omdat ik me plezierig voel in mijn werk. 10. Omdat ik een enorme 'kick' krijg wanneer ik door mijn werk in beslag wordt genomen. 11. Omdat ik me heel prettig voel wanneer ik bezig ben met de leuke kanten van mijn werk. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 12. Omdat ik ervan houd om me volledig op het werk te kunnen storten. Geef bij de volgende stellingen aan in hoeverre u het ermee eens bent. 1 = Geheel mee oneens 2= mee oneens 3 = niet eens, niet oneens 4= eens 5= geheel mee eens.

1. Ik help andere collega’s die afwezig zijn geweest. 2. Ik help anderen die een grote werklast hebben. 3. Ik help nieuwe werknemers zich te oriënteren op het werk, ook al wordt dit niet van mij verwacht. 4. Ik help anderen met werk-gerelateerde problemen. 5. Ik spendeer geen tijd aan persoonlijke telefoontjes tijdens op werk. 6. Ik praat niet over koetjes en kalfjes op het werk. 7. Ik kom vroeger op het werk wanneer dat nodig is. 8. Ik houd me aan de regels van het bedrijf, ook als er niemand is die mij in de gaten houdt. 9. Ik ben klaag veel over onbelangrijke zaken op het werk. 10. Ik richt me vaak op wat er allemaal mis is, in plaats van op positieve dingen. 11. Ik maak snel van een mug een olifant. 12. Ik ben het vaak niet eens met wat de organisatie doet. 13. Ik vermijd het creëren van problemen voor collega’s. 14. Bij beslissingen die ik neem, denk ik na over de gevolgen hiervan voor mijn collega’s.

Geheel oneens 1

Geheel eens 2

3

4

5

1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

5 5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

5 5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

58

THE INFLUENCE OF CSR ON EMPLOYEE-RELATED OUTCOMES

15. Ik ga vaak naar niet-verplichte bijeenkomsten 16. Ik help bij het organiseren van borrels en andere informele bijeenkomsten. 17. Ik ga naar activiteiten/bijeenkomsten die niet verplicht zijn, maar die wel het imago van het bedrijf ten goede komen. 18. Ik blijf op de hoogte van alle veranderingen op het werk. 19. Ik blijf op de hoogte van de gebeurtenissen door alle aankondigingen, memo’s enzovoorts te lezen. 20. Ik neem vaak in overweging wat het belangrijkste is voor het bedrijf.

Geheel oneens 1 1

Geheel eens 2 2

3 3

4 4

5 5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

Hieronder staat een lijst van eigenschappen die een persoon kunnen beschrijven. Zorgzaam Barmhartig Oprecht Vriendelijk Gul Behulpzaam Hardwerkend Eerlijk Aardig De persoon met deze eigenschappen zou jijzelf kunnen zijn of iemand anders. Probeer de soort persoon die over deze kenmerken beschikt voor een moment in je hoofd te visualiseren. Beeld je in hoe deze persoon zou denken, handelen en hoe deze zich zou voelen. Wanneer je een duidelijk beeld hebt over hoe deze persoon zou zijn, beantwoord dan de volgende vragen. Geef bij de volgende stellingen aan in hoeverre u het ermee eens bent. 1 = Geheel mee oneens 2= mee oneens 3 = niet eens, niet oneens 4= eens 5= geheel mee eens.

1. Het zo mij een goed gevoel geven om een persoon te zijn die over deze eigenschappen beschikt. 2. Iemand zijn die over deze eigenschappen beschikt is een belangrijk deel van wie ik ben. 3. Ik zou mij schamen om een persoon te zijn met deze eigenschappen 4. Het hebben van deze eigenschappen is niet erg belangrijk voor mij. 5. Ik heb een sterke wens om deze eigenschappen te hebben.

Geheel oneens 1

2

3

4

Geheel eens 5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

59

THE INFLUENCE OF CSR ON EMPLOYEE-RELATED OUTCOMES Geef bij de volgende stellingen aan in hoeverre u het ermee eens bent. 1= Geheel oneens 9 = Geheel eens.

1. Het belangrijkste wat een bedrijf kan doen, is zich ethisch en sociaal verantwoord opstellen. 2. Kwaliteit is belangrijk voor een succesvol bedrijf, maar ethiek en sociale verantwoordelijkheid zijn dat niet. 3. Communicatie is belangrijker voor de algehele effectiviteit van een bedrijf dan of een bedrijf zich al dan niet bezighoudt met ethiek en sociale verantwoordelijkheid. 4. In vergaderingen over bedrijfsplanning en doelstellingen zouden ook de rol van ethiek en sociale verantwoordelijkheid besproken moeten worden. 5. Het belangrijkste doel van een organisatie is het behalen van winst, zelfs als dat betekent dat regels gebroken moeten worden. 6. Ethiek en sociale verantwoordelijkheid zijn essentieel voor succes op de lange termijn. 7. De algemene effectiviteit van een organisatie wordt grotendeels bepaald door de mate waarin ze ethisch en sociaal verantwoordelijk handelt. 8. Om competitief te blijven in de internationale markt, zullen bedrijven hun ethiek en sociale verantwoordelijkheid opzij moeten zetten. 9. Sociale verantwoordelijkheid en winstgevendheid zijn verenigbare begrippen. 10. Bedrijfsethiek en sociale verantwoordelijkheid zijn belangrijk voor het overleven van een organisatie. 11. Het reguleren van een positieve arbeidsethos en werknemersmoraal zou in iedere organisatie prioriteit moeten krijgen. 12. Naast het genereren van winst, hebben bedrijven ook een sociale verantwoordelijkheid. 13. Als een bedrijf op het punt van instorten staat, moeten ethische principes en sociale verantwoordelijkheid opzij gezet worden. 14. Efficiëntie is belangrijker voor een bedrijf dan of het gezien wordt als ethisch of sociaal verantwoordelijk. 15. Ethisch handelen staat vaak gelijk aan het doen van goede zaken. 16. Wanneer de aandeelhouders ongelukkig zijn, is al het andere onbelangrijk.

Geheel oneens 1 2 1 2

3 3

4 4

5 5

6 6

7 7

8 8

Geheel eens 9 9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Dit is het einde van deze vragenlijst. Ik wil u hartelijk bedanken voor het beantwoorden van de vragen en uw bijdrage aan wetenschappelijk onderzoek. Mocht u nog vragen of opmerkingen hebben, dan kunt u een e-mail sturen naar [email protected]

60