The Impact of Perceived Internal Corporate Social Responsibility on Organizational Citizenship Behavior: A Micro-Perspective Analysis

Abstract

In the last few years, the trend of research on corporate social responsibility (CSR)

Effect of Employee Oriented Human Resource Management Practices on Employees' Counterproductive Work Behaviors

“…The 34 measures utilized for the current study had been adopted from earlier research. To assess employeeoriented HRM, four items were adapted from Shen & Benson (2016) and three additional items were adapted from (Rasool 2017). A sample item is "My company adopts flexible working hours and employment programs achieving work-life balance".…”

Impact of Internal CSR Perception on Affective Organisational Commitment among Bank Employees

“…Employee perception of CSR refers to individual evaluation the initiatives, experience emotions about their cognition of CSR, which might lead to subsequent CSR-related attitudes, decisions, or behaviours (Gkorezis & Petridou, 2017;Gond et al, 2017;Rupp et al, 2006). Perception of internal CSR is cognition for practices and policies related to the physiological and psychological well-being of employee (Rasool & Rajput, 2017). Employees perception and support of CSR play a significant part to secure effective CSR programs and policies (Lee et al, 2013).…”

“…The dedication to the firm performance is manifested through positive attitudes and behaviours through employees CSR perceptions, including organisational identification, satisfaction, engagement, commitment, citizenship behaviour, creative involvement, and innovative behaviour (Hur et al, 2018;Wang et al, 2020). Recent studies have emphasised on the external CSR aspects of the organisations and their macro concepts (Rasool & Rajput, 2017). In addition, micro-CSR approaches are receiving increasing attention, focusing on identification of antecedents, mechanisms, evaluations, and consequences in nexus of CSR practices and firm performances and the individual member of stakeholder groups (i.e., consumers, investors, community members) (Glavas, 2016;Morgeson et al, 2013).…”

Corporate Social Responsibility (Csr) and Leadership: Validation of a Multi-Factor Framework in the United Kingdom (Uk)

“…Groves (2014) also found that transformational leadership is a potent mediator that predicts CSR value congruence and identification (outcomes). Other mediators include organisational pride (Carmeli, Gilat, & Waldman, 2007;Jones, 2010), POS and meaningfulness (Glavas & Kelley, 2014;Rasool & Rajput, 2017), authenticity (Glavas, 2016b), and trust (Rasool & Rajput, 2017). Finally, some of the outcome variables studied to date include organizational citizenship (OCBs) e.g., extra-role behavior extra effort (de Luque et al, 2008;Glavas, 2016b;Jones, 2010;Lin, Lyau, Tsai, Chen, & Chiu, 2010;Rasool & Rajput, 2017), organizational identification (Groves, 2014), engagement and creativity (Glavas, 2016b;Glavas & Piderit, 2009), employee commitment (Maignan, Ferrell, & Hult, 1999), and in-role performance (Jones, 2010).…”

“…Aguinis and Glavas (2012) identify this gap as the micro-CSR theory, a new field that focuses on the individual actions and interactions that interlink CSR to outcomes. Though two studies have attempted to connect CSR to employee outcomes via visionary and transformational leadership (e.g., de Luque, Washburn, Waldman, & House, 2008;Groves, 2014), advocates of this emerging field criticize top-tier journals for paying but little attention to promoting research on other underresearched micro-processes (antecedents, mediators, and outcomes) that may explain the employee engagement issue (e.g., Glavas, 2016b;Glavas & Kelley, 2014;Rasool & Rajput, 2017).…”