i

National College of Business

Administration and Economics

Lahore

EXAMINING THE IMPACT OF EMPLOYEES’ PERCEPTION OF CORPORATE SOCIAL

RESPONSIBILITY ON EMPLOYEES’ OUTCOMES: THE MEDIATING ROLE OF ORGANIZATIONAL

TRUST, JOB SATISFACTION AND ORGANIZATIONAL IDENTIFICATION

BY

RASHID AHMAD

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN

BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

AUGUST, 2017

ii

NATIONAL COLLEGE OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION AND

ECONOMICS

EXAMINING THE IMPACT OF EMPLOYEES’ PERCEPTION OF CORPORATE SOCIAL

RESPONSIBILITY ON EMPLOYEES’ OUTCOMES: THE MEDIATING ROLE OF ORGANIZATIONAL

TRUST, JOB SATISFACTION AND ORGANIZATIONAL IDENTIFICATION

BY

RASHID AHMAD

A dissertation submitted to School of Business Administration

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN

BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

August, 2017

iii

In the name of ALLAH,

The Most Beneficial,

The Most Merciful,

iv

AUTHOR’S DECLARATION

I, Rashid Ahmad hereby state that my PhD thesis titled “Examining the

Impact of Employees’ Perception of Corporate Social Responsibility on

Employees’ Outcomes: The Mediating Role of Organizational Trust, Job

Satisfaction and Organizational Identification” is my own work and has not

been submitted previously by me for taking any degree from this university,

National College of Business Administration and Economics, Lahore or

anywhere else in the country/world.

At any time if my statement is found to be incorrect even after my

graduate the university has the right to withdraw my PhD degree.

RASHID AHMAD

August, 2017

v

PLAGIARISM UNDERTAKING

I solemnly declare that research work presented in the thesis titled

“Examining the Impact of Employees’ Perception of Corporate Social

Responsibility on Employees’ Outcomes: The Mediating Role of

Organizational Trust, Job Satisfaction and Organizational Identification”

is solely my research work with no significant contribution from any other

person. Small contribution/help whenever taken has been duly acknowledged

and that complete thesis has been written by me.

I understand the zero-tolerance policy of the HEC and National College

of Business Administration and Economics, Lahore towards plagiarism.

Therefore, I as an Author of the above titled thesis declare that no portion of my

thesis has been plagiarized and any material used as reference is properly/cited.

I undertake that if I am found guilty of any formal plagiarism in the above

title thesis even after award of PhD degree, the university reserves the right to

withdraw/revoke my PhD degree and that HEC and the University has the right

to publish my name on the HEC/University website on which names of students

are placed who submitted plagiarized thesis.

Rashid Ahmad

vi

CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL This is to certify that research work presented in the thesis, entitled

“Examining the Impact of Employees’ Perception of Corporate Social

Responsibility on Employees’ Outcomes: The Mediating Role of Organizational

Trust, Job Satisfaction and Organizational Identification” was conducted by Mr.

Rashid Ahmad under the supervision of Dr. Talat Islam.

No part of this thesis has been submitted anywhere else for any other degree.

This thesis is submitted to the School of Business Administration in partial

fulfillment of requirements for the degree of requirements for the degree of Doctor of

Philosophy in the field of Business Administration, School of Business

Administration, National College of Business Administration and Economics, Lahore.

Student Name: Rashid Ahmad Signature:

Examination Committee:

a) External Examiner 1:

Dr. Muhammad Ali Asadullah Signature:

Associate Professor, Lahore Business School,

The University of Lahore, Lahore, Pakistan

b) External Examiner 2:

Dr. Muhammad Shoaib Farooq Signature:

Assistant Professor, Institute of Business and Management,

University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore,

Pakistan

c) Internal Examiner 1:

Dr. Ghulam Abid Signature:

Assistant Professor, National College of Business

Administration & Economics, Lahore, Pakistan

d) Internal Examiner 2:

Dr. Matti Ullah Signature:

Assistant Professor, National College of Business

Administration & Economics, Lahore, Pakistan

Supervisor Name: Dr. Talat Islam Signature:

Assistant Professor, Hailey College of Banking & Finance,

University of the Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan

Name of Dean/HOD: Dr. Alia Ahmed Signature:

vii

DEDICATION

Dedicated to

My Loving Parents

& Teachers

viii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I am thankful to Almighty Allah who provided me the opportunity, strength and courage to complete my research work with good health and spirit.

I am highly grateful to the management of NCBA&E for providing me the

platform to nurture my abilities and skills during my studies at the College.

Indeed, the faculty and staff of the College deserve recognition for their all-out support during my stay at the College. I give special thanks to my parents who

always pray for my prosperous and successful life in this world and hereinafter.

I am indebted to my supervisor Dr. Talat Islam for his motivation, encouragement and appreciation which made it possible to achieve this

milestone in my academic career. He provided utmost support and sparked my

interest in the topic which made it possible to complete my research. One could

not wish for more kind, accessible and friendlier supervisor than him. My special thanks to Dr. Muhammad Adeel Nawab who helped me a lot throughout

my work and gave useful suggestions during this endeavor. I am thankful to my

supportive family for tolerating my unforgiving hours of sitting on computer and endless discussions especially my kids who always miss me at home; it is

an honor to be their father. I am eager to see them at the top in their professional

lives and become good human beings. It would be amiss if I could not

acknowledge the all-out support of my friends and colleagues who always reiterated the value of education which helped in raising my morale through my

long academic journey. They gave me incredible amounts of encouragement and

support during my hours of contemplation, discussion, reflection, and hard work in this arduous endeavor.

ix

SUMMARY

In the recent decades, the concept of Corporate Social Responsibility

(CSR) has gained prominence and thus, has attracted the attention of researchers and practitioners. In spite of scant research on the topic of CSR, only a handful

of academic studies have explored the relationship between CSR and the

commonly neglected stakeholder i.e. employees. Previous research has

suggested that CSR contributes in attaining the competitive advantage by influencing the employees’ attitudes and behaviours. Although, the role of CSR

in influencing employees’ outcomes has received growing attention and CSR

initiatives have been found to influence employees’ attitudes and behaviours. However, most of the previous research studies have addressed the conceptual

issues of the topic of CSR. By considering the dearth of research which can

examine the impact of employees’ perception of CSR on employees’ outcome,

this study attempted to fill this gap and a theoretical model is presented to explain how employees’ perception of CSR impacts their workplace outcomes

(i.e. organizational commitment, employee engagement and organizational

citizenship behaviour). This study examines the mediation effect of organizational trust, job satisfaction and organizational identification between

the relationship of perceived CSR and employees’ workplace outcomes. Social

exchange theory and social identity theory provide the theoretical underpinning

for the predicted relationships, that the primary outcomes of employees’ perception of CSR programs are organizational trust, job satisfaction and

organizational identification, which subsequently effect employees’ attitudes

including organizational commitment, employee engagement and behaviour (i.e. extra role behaviour). Primary data was collected from faculty members of

higher education institutions of Pakistan. Based on the sample of 736 faculty

members of higher education institutions, 595 faculty members responded the

questionnaires. Multi-stage sampling technique was used to select the samples and structural equation modeling was applied to test the postulated relationships.

The results led the researcher to conclude that SEM provided acceptable fit to

the data and that most of the hypothesized relationships were supported. The findings indicate that employees’ perceptions of CSR have positive impact on

employees’ attitude and behaviour including organizational trust, job

satisfaction, organizational identification and organizational citizenship

behaviour. However, contrary to predicted relationship and priori research, it turned out from the results that employees’ perception of CSR is not predictor

and neither directly positively associated with organizational commitment and

employee engagement. In addition, organizational trust, job satisfaction and

organizational identification partially mediate the relationships between perceived CSR and employees’ workplace outcomes. Accordingly, results

revealed that CSR activities are of particular importance which reinforces the

x

efforts of the organization in maintaining strong relationship with employees

which ultimately impact positively on their attitudes and behaviours. Moreover, findings of the study also revealed that faculty members of higher education

institutions attach weight to responsible attitudes and behaviours: the higher

education institutions should recognize CSR in term of strategic importance.

This study contributes to the advancement of research on CSR by examining the impact of employees’ perception of CSR on their attitudes and behaviours. More

specifically, a small number of organizational research studies have been

conducted in the field of higher education, whereas CSR has become an important and essential concept for the survival of organizations including

universities. Hence, this empirical research supported the framework and

provided rich information for further research studies in the realm of CSR.

xi

LIST OF TABLES

Table

No. Title Page

2.1 The Corporate Social Performance (CSP) Model 27

2.2 Summary of Evolution of Academic Research Definition of CSR 30

3.1 Comparison of Current Study’ Research Design with Some of

Previous Studies

100

3.2 Represents the Value of Cronbach’s Alpha Value of the Scale

which meets the above Requirement

104

4.1 Demographic Characteristics 115

4.2 Inter Correlation Matrix among Variables 117

4.3 Standardized values for Model Fit 120

4.4 Reliability of Pretest of the Measures 128

4.5 Evaluation of Measurement Model 130

4.6 Results of Hypotheses Testing 133

4.7 Indices of Structural Models 134

4.8 Hypothesized Mediation Relations among Variables and its

Results

138

4.9 Path Analysis Outcomes for CSR-OT-OC 139

4.10 Path Analysis Outcomes for CSR-OT-EE 140

4.11 Path Analysis Outcomes for CSR-OT-OCB 141

4.12 Path Analysis Outcomes for CSR-JS-OC 142

4.13 Path Analysis Outcomes for CSR-JS-EE 143

4.14 Path Analysis Outcomes for CSR-JS-OCB 144

4.15 Path Analysis Outcomes for CSR-OI-OC 145

4.16 Path Analysis Outcomes for CSR-OI-EE 146

4.17 Path Analysis Outcomes for CSR-OI-EE 147

4.18 Results of Hypotheses Testing 148

5.1 Hypothesized Associations of CSR 152

5.2 Hypothesized Mediation Relationship among Variables and its

Results

162

xii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure

No. Title Page

1.1 Proposed Theoretical Research Model 87

3.1 Two-Stage SEM 102

3.2 Approaches of Uni-dimensionality 103

4.1 Residual Histogram for JS 112

4.2 P-Plot for JS 112

4.3 CFA Measurement Model for CSR 121

4.4 CFA Measurement Model for OT 122

4.5 CFA Measurement Model for JS 123

4.6 CFA Measurement Model for OI 124

4.7 CFA Measurement Model for OC 125

4.8 CFA Measurement Model for EE 126

4.9 CFA Measurement Model for OCB 127

4.10 Hypothesized Structural Model-1 132

4.11 Hypothesized Structural Model 7 – Final 135

4.12 Mediation Model 137

4.13 Mediation Analysis CSR-OT-OC 139

4.14 Mediation Analysis CSR-OT-EE 140

4.15 Mediation Analysis CSR-OT-OCB 141

4.16 Mediation Analysis CSR-JS-OC 142

4.17 Mediation Analysis CSR-JS-EE 143

4.18 Mediation Analysis CSR-JS-OCB 144

4.19 Mediation Analysis CSR-OI-OC 145

4.20 Mediation Analysis CSR-OI-EE 146

4.21 Mediation Analysis CSR-OI-OCB 147

xiii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

AUTHOR’S DECLARATION ................................................................................... iv

PLAGIARISM UNDERTAKING ............................................................................... v

CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL ............................................................................... vi

DEDICATION ........................................................................................................... vii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT......................................................................................... viii

SUMMARY ................................................................................................................ ix

LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................... xi

LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................... xii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................. 1

1.1 Background of the study ...................................................................................... 5

1.2 Motivation for the Study ...................................................................................... 8

1.3 Problem Statement ............................................................................................... 9

1.4 Significance of the Study ................................................................................... 15

1.5 Objectives of the Study ...................................................................................... 17

1.6 Operational Definitions ...................................................................................... 20

1.7 Summary of the Chapter .................................................................................... 22

CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE ................................. 23

2.1 Evolution of Conceptualization of Corporate Social Responsibility ................. 23

2.1.1 Conceptualization of CSR....................................................................... 23

2.1.2 The Business Imperative Debate and Corporate Social Responsibility ..... 32

2.1.3 Employees’ Perceptions of CSR and its Effects on Their Outcomes ....... 33

2.1.4 The Shifting of Role of Universities - CSR and Universities ................. 35

2.2 Review of Relevant Literature ........................................................................... 37

2.2.1 Theoretical Support of Employees’ Perceptions of CSR........................ 38

2.2.2 Importance of Employees’ Perceptions of CSR ..................................... 42

2.3 Organizational Trust (OT) ................................................................................. 44

2.3.1 Definitions of Organizational Trust ........................................................ 44

2.3.2 Development of Construct of Organizational Trust ............................... 45

2.3.3 Importance of Organizational Trust ........................................................ 45

2.4 Job Satisfaction (JS) ........................................................................................... 47

2.4.1 Definitions of Job Satisfaction ................................................................ 47

2.4.2 Development of Construct of Job Satisfaction ....................................... 48

2.4.3 Importance of Job Satisfaction................................................................ 48

2.5 Organizational Identitfication (OI) .................................................................... 50

2.5.1 Definitions of Organizational Identitfication .......................................... 50

2.5.2 Development of the Construct of Organizational Identitfication ........... 50

2.5.3 Importance of Organizational Identitfication ......................................... 51

2.6 Organizational Commitment (OC)..................................................................... 53

2.6.1 Definitions of Organizational Commitment ........................................... 53

2.6.2 Development of Construct of Organizational Commitment ................... 54

2.6.3 Importance of Organizational Commitment ........................................... 55

xiv

2.7 Employee Engagement (EE) .............................................................................. 56

2.7.1 Definitions of Employee Engagement .................................................... 56

2.7.2 Development of Construct of Employee Engagement ........................... 57

2.7.3 Importance of Employee Engagement .................................................... 58

2.8 Organizational Citizenship Behaviour (OCB) ................................................... 59

2.8.1 Definitions of Organizational Citizenship Behaviour ............................ 59

2.8.2 Development of Construct of Organizational Citizenship Behaviour ...... 59

2.8.3 Importance of Organizational Citizenship Behaviour ............................ 61

2.9 Development of Hypotheses .............................................................................. 62

2.9.1 Relationship between Employees’ Perception of CSR

and Organizational Trust......................................................................... 62

2.9.2 Relationship between Employees’ Perception of CSR and Job

Satisfaction (JS) ...................................................................................... 68

2.9.3 Relationship between Employees’ Perception of CSR

and Organizational Identity..................................................................... 74

2.9.4 Relationship between Employees’ Perception’ of CSR and OC ............ 81

2.9.5 Relationship between Employees’ Perception of CSR

and Employee Engagement..................................................................... 82

2.9.6 Relationship of Employees’ Perceptions of CSR and OCB ................... 84

2.10 Conceptual Framework of the Study ................................................................. 86

2.11 Summary of the Chapter .................................................................................... 87

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ................................................... 88

3.1 Research Philosophy .......................................................................................... 88

3.2 Research Design ................................................................................................. 88

3.2.1 Research Approach ................................................................................. 90

3.2.2 Research Strategy.................................................................................... 91

3.2.3 Time Horizon of the Study ..................................................................... 91

3.2.4 Population & Sampling ........................................................................... 92

3.2.5 Data Collection Method .......................................................................... 94

3.2.6 Data Collection Procedures..................................................................... 95

3.2.7 Response Rate ......................................................................................... 95

3.3 Measuring Instruments ....................................................................................... 96

3.3.1 Pretest of the Questionnaire .................................................................... 96

3.3.2 Measurement of Independent Variable of the Study .............................. 97

3.3.2.1 Perceived CSR .......................................................................... 97

3.3.2.2 Measurement of Mediating Variables of the Study .................. 97

3.3.2.3 Organizational Trust ................................................................. 97

3.3.2.4 Job Satisfaction ......................................................................... 98

3.3.2.5 Organizational Identification .................................................... 98

3.3.2.6 Measurement of Dependent Variables of the Study ................. 98

3.3.2.7 Organizational Commitment ..................................................... 98

3.3.2.8 Employee Engagement ............................................................. 99

3.3.2.9 Organizational Citizenship Behaviour ...................................... 99

3.4 Statistical Descriptive Analysis ......................................................................... 99

3.4.1 Data Analysis Tools ................................................................................ 99

xv

3.5 Preliminary Data Analysis Techniques ............................................................ 100

3.5.1 Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) ................................................... 101

3.5.2 Two-Stage SEM Technique .................................................................. 101

3.5.3 Stage-One (Measurement Model) ......................................................... 102

3.5.3.1 Assessment of uni-dimensionality .......................................... 102

3.5.3.2 Assessment of Internal Reliability of the Measures ............... 103

3.5.3.3 Assessment of Validity of the Measures ................................. 105

3.5.4 Stage-Two (Structural Model) .............................................................. 106

3.5.4.1 Assumptions for Using Structural Equation

Modeling (SEM) ..................................................................... 106

3.5.4.2 Sample Size ............................................................................. 107

3.5.4.3 Missing Values ........................................................................ 107

3.5.4.4 Data Normality ........................................................................ 107

3.5.4.5 Multivariate Outliers ............................................................... 108

3.5.4.6 Theoretical Base for Causality ................................................ 108

3.5.4.7 Model Specification ................................................................ 108

3.5.5 Control Variables .................................................................................. 108

3.6 Chapter Summary ............................................................................................ 109

CHAPTER 4: DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS............................................ 110

4.1 Screening of Data ............................................................................................. 110

4.2 Identification of Missing Values ...................................................................... 110

4.3 Multivariate Outliers ........................................................................................ 111

4.4 Data Normality Analysis .................................................................................. 111

4.5 Descriptive Statistics ........................................................................................ 113

4.6 Categorization of Demographical Variables .................................................... 113

4.7 Demographic Profile of the Respondents ........................................................ 114

4.8 Correlation among Variables ........................................................................... 116

4.9 Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) .............................................................. 118

4.10 Stage-First-Measurement Model...................................................................... 118

4.11 Application of CFA-Assessment of Uni-Dimensionality ................................ 119

4.12 Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) ........................................................... 120

4.12.1 Organizational Trust ............................................................................. 122

4.12.2 Job Satisfaction ..................................................................................... 122

4.12.3 Organizational Identity ......................................................................... 123

4.12.4 Organizational Commitment ................................................................. 124

4.12.5 Employee Engagement ......................................................................... 125

4.12.6 Organizational Citizenship Behaviour .................................................. 126

4.13 Constructs Reliability ....................................................................................... 127

4.13.1 Assessment of Reliability and Validity ................................................ 129

4.14 Hypotheses Testing (Second Stage-SEM Application) ................................... 131

4.14.1 Structural Model-1 ................................................................................ 131

4.14.2 Removal of Insignificant Paths and Fit Indices for Structural Model ...... 133

4.15 Structural Models for Mediation Analysis ....................................................... 136

4.15.1 The Relationship between CSR, OT and OC ....................................... 138

4.15.2 The Relationship between CSR, OT and EE ........................................ 139

xvi

4.15.3 The Relationship between CSR, OT and OCB ..................................... 140

4.15.4 The Relationship between CSR, JS and OC ......................................... 141

4.15.5 The Relationship between CSR, JS and EE .......................................... 142

4.15.6 The Relationship between CSR, JS and OCB ...................................... 143

4.15.7 The Relationship between CSR, OI and OC......................................... 144

4.15.8 The Relationship between CSR, OI and EE ......................................... 145

4.15.9 The Relationship between CSR, OI and OCB ...................................... 146

4.16 Results for Hypotheses Testing........................................................................ 147

4.17 Chapter Summary ............................................................................................ 148

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ........................................... 149

5.1 Summary of the Results ................................................................................... 149

5.2 Discussion on the Findings of the Study.......................................................... 151

5.2.1 Employees’ Perceptions of CSR and its Outcomes (RO1) ................... 152

5.2.2 Mediating Role of OT between Employees’ Perceptions of

CSR and OC, EE and OCB ................................................................... 161

5.2.3 Mediating Role of JS between Employees’ Perceptions of

CSR and OC, EE and OCB ................................................................... 165

5.2.4 Mediating Role of OI between Perception of CSR and

OC, EE and OCB .................................................................................. 169

5.3 Implications of the Study ................................................................................. 172

5.3.1 Theoretical Implications ....................................................................... 173

5.3.2 Practical Implications............................................................................ 176

5.3.3 Recommendations for Organizations .................................................... 178

5.3.4 Limitations of the Study........................................................................ 179

5.3.5 Future Research Directions ................................................................... 180

5.4 Conclusion........................................................................................................ 182

REFERENCES ......................................................................................................... 185

SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE ................................................................................. 248

APPENDIX-A: 177- HEC Recognized Universities and Degree

Awarding Institutions ................................................................... 253

APPENDIX-B: HEC Recognized 103 Public Sector Universities ........................ 263

APPENDIX-C: HEC Recognized 74 Private Sector Universities ......................... 264

APPENDIX-D: Detail of Full Time Faculty Members IN HEIS ........................... 265

APPENDIX-E: Determining Sample Size for Finite Population ........................... 266

APPENDIX-F: HEC Recognized 74 Private Sector Universities ......................... 267

APPENDIX-G: Strata based on HEC Recognized Public Sector Universities ...... 268

APPENDIX-H: Residual Histogram and P-Plots of the Variables ........................ 270

APPENDIX-I: Skewness and Kurtosis Values for Data Normality ..................... 272

APPENDIX-J: CFA Measurement Model ............................................................ 273

APPENDIX-K: Diagrams for Structural Models of the Study............................... 276

APPENDIX-L: Mediation Models ......................................................................... 284

1

CHAPTER 1:

INTRODUCTION

The concept of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is based on the notion that companies should involve in socially responsible activities to make

contributions for the welfare of the society. In the field of organizational

psychology, CSR has become a key area of interest with the growing amount of

organizational involvement in social responsibilities; which are beyond the lawful requirements (McWilliams & Siegel, 2001). The concept of CSR has

been gaining importance over the years (Rexhepi, Kurtishi & Bexheti, 2013)

and recently it has become an important factor to be considered by both

businesses and academics (McWilliams et al., 2006; Carroll & Shabana, 2010; Lee et al., 2013; Bolton & Mattila, 2015). This conception can be tracked back

to 50's when Bowen (1953) defined it as "corporations’ social obligation to

pursue policies, to make the decisions, or to follow those lines of action which are desirable in terms of the objectives and values of our society” (p. 6). Kotler

and Lee (2005) explained that CSR is “the commitment to improve the well-

being of the community through discretionary business practices and

contributions of corporate resources” (p. 3). According to the definition presented by World Business Council for Sustainable Development (2002),

CSR is “the commitment of business to contribute to sustainable economic

development, working with employees, their families, and the local communities”.

Despite the growing importance of CSR in business and society, no

commonly accepted definition of CSR is available in the literature (Carroll, 1991; Garriga & Melé, 2004; Fu, Ye, & Law, 2014). Davis (1973) contributes

and define CSR as “the firm’s considerations and response to, issues beyond the

narrow economic, technical, and legal requirements of the firm to accomplish social (including environmental) benefits along with the traditional economic

gains which the firm seeks” (p. 312). Mukherjee and Chaturvedi (2013) also

contributed and added their views that CSR comes from the society it should go

back to the society. Similarly, Belcourt et al. (2014) claimed that CSR is “the responsibility of the firm to act in the best interest of the people and communities

affected by its activities” (p. 10). Hence, different scholars have been using

multiple approaches to define the concept of CSR, each definition has its own meanings and characteristics.

2

In this context, Carroll (1979) presented a model of social performance

of CSR and explained its different dimensions including economic, legal, ethical, and philanthropic (Carroll, 1991; Geva, 2008; Trevino & Nelson, 2011).

Economic obligations of a corporation that refer to the development of

marketable goods and services which are found desirable by the consumer.

Through which an organization generates revenue to operate the business and provide some social good. Legal obligations of a corporation correspond the

view that organizations must operate within the defined guidelines by

government legislation to fulfill the society’s legal requirements. Ethical responsibilities of a corporation include all such efforts to carry out business

activities in ethical manners which are based on societal norms. Philanthropic

responsibilities address all such voluntary, positive social behaviours of

organizations which can benefit the society at large. Based on social performance model presented by Carrol (1979), a widely accepted definition

and approach was presented by Carroll (1991) and identified four dimensions of

CSR which make up a pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility. Recently, Carroll and Buchholtz (2014) reiterate that “Corporate social responsibility

includes the economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary expectations which the

society has of organizations at a given time” (p. 32).

In literature, CSR pyramid presented by Carroll is frequently used to

explain the main spheres of obligations of corporation and to take care of the

interests of its stakeholders come under its preview including maximization of

profit. In addition, Friedman (1970) argued that “the basic goal of a firm is to maximize the profit rather fulfillment of the needs of the society” (p. 1). Some

other economists have also emphasized that, attention on social responsibility

redirect business efforts to make profit, which is also beneficial for the society as a whole (Zajac & Westphal, 2004; Henderson, 2004). Organizations have

adopted CSR activities with the purpose to return a share of its profit to the

society (Reputation Institution, 2010). Although, the traditional finance theory

emphasizes that the maximization of profit is the prime purpose of the corporation; however, business dynamics by the times have been changed. Now

the firms are contributing for the welfare of the society and investing in its

employees for sustainable and long term development. In fact, to achieve sustainable development, CSR transfer back the benefit to complete the cycle.

This view of CSR is rooted in the fact that the prosperity of the business depends

upon the health of the society and its surrounding community (Boesso &

Michelon, 2010). Mozes et al. (2011) also supported this view point by asserting that corporations are aware of such needs to keep a balance between profitability

and depicting a positive public image, by adopting more social and

environmental obligation.

3

More specifically, CSR is essentially a firm’s effort to improve welfare

of the society through utilization of firm’s resources and discretionary corporate practices (Kotler & Lee, 2005). Therefore, the perception of an organization (i.e.

social performance) has become more important as compared to its performance

(i.e. actual behaviours) (Glavas & Godwin, 2013). In knowledge and service

based economies, the role of employees has become more important and valuable than before (Chen, Wang & Chu, 2010). A recent global study of

managers indicates that two-third respondents are of the view that investment in

CSR is a competitive necessity (Kiron et al., 2012). Additionally, CSR provides a path for companies to contribute to the welfare of the society, alongside it also

creates an opportunity for competitive advantage to establish positive reputation

among the business world (Porter & Kramer, 2006; Smith, 2007). In a more

recent study, Siddique, (2014) concludes that organizations that are involved in CSR practices have a great opportunity to achieve competitive advantage;

therefore, companies should pay more attention towards CSR practices.

In the 21st century, CSR has become an important issue for the

organizations that define the role of business towards society (Vilanova, Lozano

& Arenas, 2008). Accordingly, corporation’ stakeholders are categorized into

two main categories, the first internal stakeholders (i.e. employees), and the second stakeholders are recognized as external stakeholders of the corporation

(i.e. customer and society etc.). The European Commission (2011) described

that CSR is a corporate strategy and practice which integrates social and

environmental activities as well as it reveals relationship of corporation with its stakeholders, which includes shareholder, customers, suppliers, employees and

the community. Suffice to say that, organizational engagement in social

activities benefit its stakeholders. Some researchers have attempted to make it understandable to the companies that expenditure on CSR should not be

considered as cost rather it should be viewed as investment to develop a good

relationship with the stakeholders (Singh & Paithankar, 2015). While, others

opined that CSR can be costly for the firms, however, if the CSR activities are planned at strategic level they may positively affect the association between the

stakeholders and the firms (Bhattacharyya et al., 2007; Bhattacharya et al.,

2008). This argument is further supported by the stakeholder theory which was presented by Freeman (1984). The theory states that, CSR strategies of a

corporation benefit its various stakeholders by satisfying their major interests.

Hence, effects of CSR strategies on academic research tend to investigate the companies’ stakeholders’ attitude. In this context, Samy, Odemilin, and

Bampton (2010) argued that it became increasingly accepted in the corporate

settings since the start of the twenty first century that overlooking the importance of stakeholders was unrealistic which may produce negative

economic and social outcomes for organizations. Supporting this view, Cohen

4

and Greenfield (1997) emphasized that “if an organization is involved in socially

responsible activities, people want to buy from you, they want to work for you, they want to be associated with you, they feel invested in your success” (p. 29).

Similarly, Henriques and Sadorsky (1999) proposed that organizations should

work according to its stakeholders’ desires and expectations instead of the public

in general. In addition, they also proposed a classification of four groups of stakeholders, shareholders, suppliers, customers and employees. The

stakeholder-centered perspective of CSR generates many studies addressing the

relationship between CSR and potential employees (Greening & Turban, 2000; Kim & Park, 2011) studies related to CSR and current employees of the

organization (Brammer et al., 2007; Turker, 2009; Zheng, 2010; Roeck &

Delobbe, 2012; You et al., 2013).

Employees are always considered as the key stakeholders of a firm and

firm exercise CSR activities in view of the employees (Mishra & Suar, 2010),

especially in service industry (Arasli, Daskin & Saydam, 2014). In a service firm, the success of the firm depends on its employees and their welfare

determines on the basis of their job performance (Bowling, 2007), further the

quality of products and services offered to customer also depends on employees

(Lee et al., 2012). In literature, some empirical evidences indicate that organizational engagement in CSR is not a detrimental factor for the

development and survival of an organization, it is beneficial for positive

outcomes of employees in the organization (Zhang, Fan & Zhu, 2014;

Chaudhary et al., 2015; Islam et al., 2016). More specifically, Tziner (2013) indicates that CSR provides multiple benefits to corporations including

improvement in attitudes and behaviours of employees which increase their

productivity. Recently, an empirical study has been carried out by Singhapakdi et al. (2015) which indicates that consistency in CSR belief of employees

contributes positively towards employees’ workplace outcomes.

In most of the developed economies, contribution of the service sector has increased from manufacturing sector (Shuck et al., 2011; Islam, 2011), service

sector contributes 73% in developed economies whereas 53% in developing

economies in their GDP (Ahmed & Ahsan, 2011). In Pakistan, service sector contributes 54% in GDP and it contributes one third in providing employment

opportunities in the country (Islam et al., 2014). In general, the concept of CSR

is associated with business firms. In current era, the importance of social

responsibility is growing for both profit and non-profit organizations. Researchers have different perspective about the term of CSR for universities,

which is based on the universities’ objectives in different countries and cultures.

This view of CSR shifts from conventional perspective of corporate and it leads to contributing towards the welfare of the society (Carroll, 1979; Williamson et

al., 2006). Specifically, this is true for universities, in which great importance

5

is given to generation of knowledge and well-being of society (Nejati et al.,

2011). Accordingly, service sector (i.e. higher education institutions) is selected as the population of this study. The following section of this study explains the

contextual backdrop of the concepts and their relationship which finally helps

in concluding the problem statement.

1.1 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

In current business landscape, CSR has emerged as a very hot topic. In

the world, the rapid dispersal of CSR can be assumed to have a positive impact

on business which in turn enhance organization’ reputation and its performance.

These positive outcomes of the engagement of CSR encourage the organizations to adopt CSR in their businesses. Since last couple of decades, on account of

rapid technological advancement, demographic and climate changes some

considerable changes have taken place in the working environment of the organizations which has increased competition among the firms. Long and

inflexible working hours and contractual terms have increased stress levels of

the workforce, which in response affect their workplace attitudes and

behaviours. In this emerging context, the employers always desire from workforce to remain engaged in their work with enhanced levels of

psychological attachment, and contemporary organizations are getting help by

involving in CSR activities (Chawak & Dutta, 2014).

Moreover, it is true that successful organizations need CSR to shape their

public images and reputations; organizations also need CSR to stand out from

their competitors. Thus, because of the competitive environment and public awareness, corporations need to behave like socially responsible citizens to

survive and grow in a competitive environment (Ma, 2011). In view of the

importance of CSR, some researchers suggest that corporations have started to

acknowledge the strategic significance of the social responsibility of the corporations for their sustainability and operations (Porter & Kramer, 2006).

However, lack of understanding of the organizations about the impact of CSR

activities on employees may lead them to make inappropriate decisions concerning to adoption of CSR policies and its impact on internal stakeholders

i.e. employees. Similarly, Ellis (2008) concludes that some organizations may

ignore the fact which may provide support for its employees and it may have

significant influence on attitudes and behaviours of the employees.

Some researchers suggested that in order to win goodwill, non-profit

organizations or universities should be socially responsible to their respective communities (Hoffman & Woody, 2008; Haden, Oyler & Humphreys, 2009).

The question arises that what are the factors which stimulate higher education

6

institutions to adopt social responsibility practices. More particularly, when do

universities consider the social responsibilities as their core policies. This seems to be more voluntarily based which needs to be explored. In this context, Rossi

(2014) suggested that fundamental changes take place in universities and now

they act as big businesses and students are considered as their customers.

Therefore, to compete in dynamic education industry, higher education also needs to fulfil its obligation of perpetual transformation and these norms and

values can also be reflected in their own actions which they claim to represent.

In the current era, therefore, importance of CSR is growing for profit and non-profit organizations, in order to address CSR, the role of universities is twofold.

It can lead the corporate sector to attain competitive advantage by using CSR

through capacity building of human resource or it can adopt CSR activities as a

follower.

Thus, higher education institutions have three key stakeholders; students,

employees and the society in general. This indicates that CSR policies and programs are not limited to corporations, but higher education institutions are

also adopting these programs to develop human resource as employers. More

specifically, to ensure sustainability, universities need to focus on its

stakeholders, while on the other hand, progress and survival of corporation and society mainly depends on the universities. However, Ahmad (2012) suggested

that universities are considered a driver for CSR activities, and employees are

considered as key stakeholder (Rodrigo & Arenas, 2008). Therefore, in higher

education institutions, CSR activities start from employees and move on to other stakeholders. Thus, it is assumed that for effective implementation of CSR

policies and programs on other stakeholders, there is a need to focus on

employees in higher education institutions.

In 20th and early 21st centuries, higher education institutions were facing

more extensive challenges due to their global nature, which affected number of

people and institutions and particularly in 21st century, higher education has become a competitive industry (Altbach et al., 2009). Consequently, universities

are competing for their status, achieving high ranking and to get funding from

public or private sources. Although, competition has always been a challenge in the academic world and it can add value to improve the academic standards.

Thus, to support the need of diversity in higher education, effect of globalization

has always been considered as an important factor. Over the period, public

sector universities have not been able to satisfy different demands. Thus, weak existence of public sector universities and failure to achieve different

requirements have led to establishment of private institutions. Therefore,

universities can be considered as a commercial product which are essentially governed by market forces and this brings the concept of competitiveness

(Mohamedbhai, 2003). Hence, new management approach is required to higher

7

education institutions for securing of funds, collaboration, research and

enrollment of students. Supporting this view point, Kamalakanthan (2013) described it a ‘full-scale corporation’. This happens in higher education around

the globe including in Pakistan. In Pakistan, during last few years, a considerable

increase in establishment of higher education institution has taken place. The

higher education commission (HEC), the regulatory body is introducing the reforms to accredit these institutions (Asrar-ul-Haq, 2015). Therefore, it is

assumed that in Pakistan, CSR is an appropriate term for higher education

institutions (Nadeem & Kakakhel, 2012).

In the domain of CSR literature, some researchers noted that employees

have received slight attention and the element of importance of employees have

not been focused in theoretical and empirical deliberations (Boddy et al., 2010; Pinnington et al., 2007). A small number of studies have essentially investigated

the association between employees’ perceptions of CSR and their workplace

outcomes (Valentine & Fleischman, 2008; Turker, 2009b; De Roeck et al., 2014; Story & Neves, 2015). However, in recent years, a growing body of CSR

research has started to emphasis on employees and community, these

dimensional changes are occurring about the field’s perspective on CSR (Rupp

et al., 2011). In this context, Crilly et al. (2008), Ones and Dilchert (2012) also suggested that although, CSR programs are planned and implemented on behalf

of the organization, individuals are important who supports for, comply with

and contribute in CSR. Thus, it has become imperative for organizational

psychologists to only deliberate how CSR impacts employees' attitudes and behaviours (Lefkowitz, 2013).

Recognizing the importance of individuals in CSR perspective, Rupp and Mallory (2015), emphasized that there is need to further examine the

psychological effects of practicing of CSR, observing CSR and receiving CSR,

as a beneficiary of CSR initiatives. Previously, some studies were conducted in

relationship with value of perceived CSR and workplace outcomes which includes employees’ attitudes and behaviors. However, Nadeem and Kakakhel

(2012) suggested that a very few studies were conducted in the context of higher

education. More specifically, organizational commitment, employee engagement and organizational citizenship behaviours are hardly studied in

higher education context. This is a first ever study in relationship to perception

of CSR and faculty members’ attitudes and behaviours in developing countries

like Pakistan. Memon et al. (2014) indicated that Pakistan is developing country having some socioeconomic challenges such as poverty, high rate of population

growth, energy crisis, insufficient health care and education facilities. In

developing countries, the concept of CSR is newer and still confined in curriculum in developing countries (Memon et al., 2014). Therefore, in

developing countries including Pakistan, there is need to create awareness

8

among people and organizations about the practices of CSR. Therefore, the

purpose of this study is to examine the faculty members’ perception about CSR activities in Pakistani universities and its impact on their level of organization

commitment, employee engagement and organizational citizenship behaviours

with mediation role of organizational trust, job satisfaction and organizational

identification.

1.2 MOTIVATION FOR THE STUDY

Sir Winston Churchill (1943) quoted - “Responsibility is the Price of

Greatness”. This quotation reveals and describe the importance of CSR for the

corporate firms. Considering the importance of CSR, Story and Neves (2015) asserted that organizations might mislay their reputation among stakeholders if

not involved in CSR activities and this affect their long-term survival in today’s

global era. This is the reason that a growing number of studies consistently indicate that CSR initiatives of an organization can provide benefits to its

stakeholders (e.g. Kim et al., 2010; Wang et al., 2013). In addition, Fu et al.

(2014) and Lee et al. (2013) also asserted that among many stakeholders,

employees are considered key stakeholders as they play a significant role for the success of an organization. Although, some scholars examined the effects of

employees’ perceptions of CSR on their psychological states, attitudinal and

behavioural outcomes (Albdour & Altarawneh, 2012; You et al., 2013;

Brammer, He & Mellahi, 2015). In this context, Bhattacharya et al. (2008) emphasized that although planning of CSR initiatives is made at strategic level;

however, they will influence positively the relationships between corporation

and stakeholders e.g. employees.

In the 21st century, economies are considered knowledge based and

almost all developing countries including Pakistan are trying to develop their

knowledge pool to boost their economic growth. Moreover, in the current era of knowledge based economy, the role of employees has become more

important and valuable than before (Chen, Wang & Chu, 2010). Accordingly,

Waddock and Grave (1997), Margolis and Walsh (2003) asserted that in literature, a considerable number of studies have focused to examine the impact

of CSR on financial benefits to corporations such as Corporate Financial

Performance (CFP). Although, some studies have been conducted focusing on

the external stakeholders outside the organization such as customer and supplier however, less attention has been paid to carry out research focusing on internal

stakeholder of the organization i.e. employee. Therefore, there is need to focus

and to further examine the effect of CSR on employee (Hansen et al., 2011).

9

More specifically, during the last decade, the concept of CSR has

attracted researchers’ intention, specifically in the services sector (Arasli, Daskin & Saydam, 2014). Similar to other service organizations, universities

and higher education institutions are also considered not only education

providers, but also form national identity with key responsibilities broadly to the

world (Sullivan, 2003). Furthermore, universities are also facing some challenges like other corporations and struggling for establishing good

reputation and more particularly retention of talented employees. Moreover, the

emerging challenge for today’s universities is also to satisfy the requirement of different stakeholders including students, employees, associated companies and

society at large (Kunstler, 2006). In order to meet these challenges, higher

education institutions need human capital (particularly faculty) which may have

significant role in developing these institutions into a knowledge center (Mubarak et al., 2012).

In a society, universities are considered the institutions which generates the knowledge to shape up the societal norms and to create knowledge activity.

Thus, the role of faculty members who are serving in universities and higher

education institutions has become important and there is need to examine their

attitudes and behaviours at their workplace. In this context, the business leaders are increasingly realizing the importance of CSR practices to provide further

support, work culture and values of social responsibility and vice versa

(Kermani, 2006; Porter, 2006). In particular, for successful functioning of

higher education institutions largely depends on faculty members’ performance at the work. Hence, it has become important to understand and

examine the impact of faculty members’ perception of CSR on their outcomes

which may ultimately affect the performance of higher education institutions. Therefore, there is need to develop a theoretical synthesis and examining a

mechanism to know the impact of employees’ perceptions of CSR on their

attitudes and behaviours. Through this study some mixed empirical evidences

were discussed and simultaneously research gap was filled by examining the impact of perceived CSR on employees’ workplace outcomes. More precisely,

the main purpose of this study is to develop a conceptual framework which

depicts that how an organization can influence employees’ positive attitudes and behaviours including organizational commitment, employee engagement and

organizational citizenship behaviour through organizational CSR activities by

focusing intervening variables as mediators i.e. organizational trust, job

satisfaction and organizational identification.

1.3 PROBLEM STATEMENT

World economies have emerged as the knowledge based economies and

significant changes have also been observed especially in developing nations.

10

In the knowledge economies, acquisition and application of knowledge have become a major factor in the economic development, it is considered as an essential element for national competitive advantage (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development-OECD, 2008). The responsibilities of higher education institutions in comparison to a traditional corporation may be summarized as “transferring the knowledge to the new generations by teaching, training and doing research; determining a balance between basic and applied research and between professional training and general education; meeting the priority needs of their respective societies” (UNESCO, 1991). In this perspective, the role of higher education institutions in developing knowledge based economies have also become important. In developing countries like Pakistan, higher education institutions are particularly valued for their contribution which they can make towards their national development. In this emerging era, similar to corporations, the higher education institutions have been in process of in-depth transformations, influenced and being influenced by economic, political and socio demographical phenomena. Therefore, in order to compete and survive in the changing environment such as the globalization, privatization and competition among higher education institutions, most of the institutions are adopting business like strategies (Gioia & Thomas, 1996; Gumport, 2000; Weymans, 2010).

In present scenario, the higher education sector has also come up as highly

competitive and diversified “mature industry”, as it has become necessary for the universities to reposition themselves to face new emerging challenges and opportunities. During the course of adoption of corporate approach, some educational institutions are focusing on importance of corporate identity, building of corporate image, corporate reputation and primarily adoption of CSR as a status and strategy of advantage building (Porter & Kramer, 2006; Atakan & Eker, 2007; Stensaker, 2007). In addition to their other obligations, the higher education institutions are also engaged in multi-dimensional CSR activities which may attract the faculty members and potential faculty members’ desire to be a part of such institutions. In this context, the higher education institutions are also developing strategies and discovering opportunities to move their focus beyond classroom activities to their institutional operations which also includes their employees’ related CSR activities such as work life balance, health and safety, training and development, workplace diversity, day care centers, fee concession to employee and their siblings, special grants for employees etc. This may also include all such activities which has impact on society such as tree plantation campaign, environmental protection awareness, blood transfusion campaign and other social work related to community etc.

Similar to employees in a firm, faculty members in educational

institutions are considered important stakeholder. In higher education institutions, faculty members’ performance contributes significantly in

11

successful functioning of the institutions. Conversely, previous studies were inappropriately developed to examine the impact of CSR practices on stakeholders’ attitudes and behaviours about their organization (Lindgreen et al., 2009). In literature, the empirical investigations on CSR and employees job related outcomes are limited (You et al., 2013; Zheng, 2010; Valentine & Fleischman, 2008) and there is a need to shed light on this aspect of CSR (Islam et al., 2016; Ahmad, Islam & Saleem, 2017; Haq, Kuchinke & Iqbal, 2017).

Thus, from the organizational and managerial perspective, it is important

to identify and recognize the factors which may have influence on faculty members’ attitudes and behaviours at their workplace such as CSR. Therefore, in higher education institutions, CSR can be a useful strategy for efficient management of faculty members by enhancing their work attitudes i.e. organizational trust, job satisfaction and organizational identification which can impact positively on their workplace outcomes. Therefore, there is need to have a clear picture about how and why employees’ perception of CSR affected perceived corporate performance and attachment level of employees with their firm (Lee et al., 2013). Although, faculty members’ performance is an essential and important factor through which the institutions can attain competitive advantage. However, despite the importance of the faculty members in higher education institutions’ hardly a study is carried out which can examine the impact of faculty members’ perceptions of CSR on their attitude and behaviours. Hence, there is need to examine the phenomenon with alternative perspectives which might provide more clear understanding and richer body of knowledge in the domain.

In organizational perspective, CSR is considered as an obligation of a

corporation beyond its traditional responsibilities which complies with legal obligations and practicing voluntary actions which has overall positive impact on the society. Employees’ perception of CSR is developed on the basis of an organization’s engagement in CSR practices (Vlachos, Panagopoulos & Rapp, 2014). However, employees’ perception of CSR relates to their cognitive aspect, which means it differs from their actual CSR program. CSR perception reflects the personal evaluations and interpretations of organizational programs at the individual level, while the later indicates the actual business activities related to CSR at the organizational level. Some researchers suggested that the formation of employees’ attitude and behaviours is derived from such cognition process (Crites et al., 1994). Similarly, Rupp et al. (2006) suggested that firms’ initiatives related to responsibility or irresponsibility influence employees’ attitudes and behaviours which in turn affects employees’ perceptions of CSR which further trigger their emotional, attitudinal, and behavioural responses. In the literature, some researchers indicated that there is need to further examine the employees’ CSR perceptions and its impact on employees’ attitudes and behaviours because organizations’ CSR initiatives have positive influence on

12

employees’ perception of CSR (Lee et al., 2012). In addition, Lee et al. (2013) also suggested in another study that “researchers and managers to move toward more sophisticated assessments concerning how and why employee perceptions affect perceived corporate performance and employee attachment toward the company”. Considering above referred call for studies, this study aims to examine the impact of faculty members’ perception of CSR on their attitudes and behaviours at their workplace i.e. organizational commitment (OC) and employee engagement (EE) and behaviours i.e. extra-role behaviours (OCB). This study also considers the attitudinal constructs which perform their role as mediators between the relationship of perceived CSR and employees’ attitudes and behaviours at their workplace (i.e. organizational trust, job satisfaction and organizational identification). Thus, this issue examines by investigating the following research question: RQ1: Does employees’ perceptions of CSR have impact on employees’

psychological (Organizational Identification), attitudinal (Organizational Trust, Job Satisfaction, Organizational Commitment and Employees Engagement) and behavioural (Organizational Citizenship Behaviour) outcomes? A feeling of trust is derived from considerable exchange of shared values

between firm and its stakeholders (Morgan & Hunt, 1994). In other words, trust is a sense of confidence in reliability and integrity on exchange of partners and eventually, trust influences the parties’ commitment level and their future behaviours. In this context, Mayer et al. (1995) suggest that trust is “the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of another party based on the expectation that the other will perform a particular action important to the trustor, irrespective of the ability to monitor or control that other party” (p. 712). Similarly, Bhattacharya et al. (1998) explained that trust as the “expectancy of positive (or non-negative) outcomes that one can receive based on the expected action of another party in an interaction characterized by uncertainty” (p. 462). Considering the importance of trust, some researcher indicated that in order to maintain a successful and long term relationship, trust has been considered as an essential element (Dwyer et al., 1987; Morgan & Hunt, 1994; Berry, 1995).

Hence, trust seems to be an important factor when it comes to employees’

perceptions of organization’ CSR practices. Conversely, element of trust may

have impact negatively if employees perceive that their organization’s efforts

about its engagement in CSR deviates from socially responsible programs and consequently organization may damage its reputation and lose its credibility.

Advancing the debate, Bell and Patterson (2011) described that “in case of

employees having high level of trust and feel hopefulness in their work, they feel more freedom and empowerment, which would help them to step outside

their formal role and serve a higher purpose” (p. 30). More specifically, if the

13

level of trust of employees’ is high which may affect their performance and

ultimately influence their attitudes and behaviours including organizational commitment, employee engagement and organizational citizenship behaviours.

In this context, some scholars investigated that organizational CSR practices

influence employees’ commitment towards their organization (Ali et al., 2010).

In organizational perspective, some researchers have also investigated that organizational trust is an important factor to enhance cooperation within the

organization which improve the employees’ behavioural and performance

outcomes (Kramer, 1999; Dirks & Ferrin, 2001). In particular, researchers stressed upon the need to further examine the role of trust as a mediating variable

between employees’ perceptions of CSR and employees’ workplace outcomes

as so much has not been examined in this regards (Hansen et al., 2011; Lee et

al., 2012). This shows that some psychological or cognition process involves which influence the employees’ perception about their organization, such as its

involvement in CSR activities which needs to be further examined. Lee et al.

(2012) suggested that in order to achieve relationship commitment, it is important to earn employees’ trust to keep them satisfied though CSR activities.

It means that developing a sound relationship with employees and controlling

and monitoring the relationship are important for sustaining relationship

commitment. In addition, Farooq et al. (2014) suggested that organizational trust and organizational identification seem relevant in the case of employees’ related

CSR actions and in future other variables may also consider within social

exchange relationships. Based on above referred calls, in this study, it is

predicted that organizational trust mediates between the relationship of employees’ perceptions of CSR and their attitudes and behaviours, which is

examined by the following research question:

RQ2: Does Organizational Trust mediate the relationship between employees’

perception of CSR and, Organizational Commitment, Employees

Engagement and Organizational Citizenship Behaviour?

The concept of job satisfaction first time originated by Viteles in 1932

and afterwards analyzed from different perspectives to explore its possible and

potential antecedents and consequences. Locke (1976) defines that “job satisfaction is a positive emotional state resulting from one’s evaluation of

experience of work” (p. 1300). This experience of work includes all features of

job and environment at working place. It means that if employees are satisfied

with their organization it is likely they would be more committed to it. The construct of job satisfaction has been widely explored which relates to the

subject of organizational psychology. Evidences of some empirical studies

indicate that job satisfaction relates to the employees’ perceptions of organization performance (Koh & Boo, 2001; Valentine & Fleischman, 2008)

and employees’ behaviours at their work place (Gonzalez & Garazo, 2006;

14

Maharaj & Schlechter, 2007). The underlying principle behind phenomenon is

that the actions of an organization have direct impact on attitudes and behaviours of its members who may response on the basis of their perception and appraisal

of their organization (Aguilera et al., 2007). In literature, a study was carried out

by Farooq et al. (2014) they called for study and suggested that in future research

may well achieve a more comprehensive account of CSR activities' effectiveness and efficiency by incorporating additional variables. In addition,

Lee et al. (2013) also suggested that examining the usefulness and efficiency of

CSR, more variables need to incorporate to carry out a study in this area of research. Based on the above referred calls, in this study, it is assumed that

attitudinal construct (i.e. job satisfaction) may be investigated to know its

influence as mediator between perceived CSR and employees’ workplace

outcomes. Thus, following research question is predicted:

RQ3: Does Job Satisfaction mediate the relationship between employees’

perception of CSR and Organizational Commitment, Employees Engagement and Organizational Citizenship Behaviour?

Ashforth and Mael (1989) asserted that “organizational identification is a

specific form of social identification where the individual defines himself or herself in terms of their membership in a particular organization” (p. 34). The

theoretical model also depicts, organizational identity assumed as a mediator

between employees’ perception of CSR and employees’ important work related

attitudes and behaviours. Bhattacharya et al. (2008) suggested that organizational engagement in CSR activities can play a significant role in

organizational attractiveness. When employees feel that their organization is

categorized as a “good citizen” among the public, it may develop feelings of pride and attachment in the employees with their organization. In literature, a

small body of research have examined the relationship of employees’ perception

of CSR and its impact on their attitudes and behaviours. For instance, Rupp et

al. (2006) indicated that employees’ perceptions about CSR activities can generate emotional, attitudinal and behavioural reactions which are helpful to

the organization. For example, CSR activities have positive effects on

employees’ work performance including satisfaction (Devinney, 2009), commitment (Peterson, 2004), and identification (Kim et al, 2010). Recently,

Farooq et al. (2014) concluded that organizational identity is an important

construct which plays its role in exchange relationship as a mediator between

perceived CSR and commitment. In addition, Barrantes (2012) suggest that “future studies could consider examining the impact of employees’ perceptions

of CSR and it is necessary to conduct more empirical organizational studies

which can examine the impact of CSR on employees’ attitudes and behaviours (e.g. organizational identification)” (p. 128). Thus, based on above referred call,

it can be assumed and following research question is investigated to understand

15

the mediating role of organizational identification between employees’

perception of CSR and employees’ workplace outcomes:

RQ4: Does Organizational Identification mediate the relationship between

employees’ perception of CSR and Organizational Commitment,

Employees Engagement and Organizational Citizenship Behaviour?

Examining the perceptions of CSR from the employees’ perspective, it is

proposed that CSR has positive influence on employees’ attitudes and behaviours. It is argued that in most of the previous studies mediating role of

employees’ concerning attitudes was ignored which may lead to certain work

attitudes and behaviours. In previous research studies, it does not appear to apply

a strong theoretical framework to examine the essential and basic mechanism through which CSR influence employee’ attitude and behaviour, demanding

further research to fill this research gap. More specifically, the objective of this

study is to examine how employees’ perceptions of CSR impacts employees’ psychological states (i.e. organizational identification), attitudes (i.e. job

satisfaction, organizational trust, organizational commitment and employee’

engagement) and behaviours (i.e. organizational citizenship behaviour), less

investigated areas from the perspective of employees’ workplace outcomes.

1.4 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

During the last few decades, corporate social responsibility has gaining

the importance and it has been considered as an important factor by the

businessmen and academicians (Rexhepi, Kurtishi & Bexheti, 2013; Lee et al., 2013). In addition, Bolton and Mattila (2015) also highlighted the importance

of CSR and stated that it has become an important construct of academic interest

and a prominent agenda item in business. Recently, a growing number of

research studies shed light and explain that how the individuals’ views the acts and subsequently reaction of CSR (e.g. Jones, 2010; Rupp et al., 2013) or

irresponsibility by the organization (Barnett, 2014). Although, in literature,

there are relatively few numbers of studies which have focused the individual level of CSR however, this scholarly research contributes to the knowledge

regarding impact of CSR on individuals. More specifically, organizational

involvement in philanthropic activities is a two-way approach; it may also

contribute in term of more dedicated workforce for an organization. It indicates that organizational contribution towards CSR may prove to be a substantial

element for maintaining a motivated, committed and dedicated workforce in the

organization.

16

Pakistan is a developing country having diversity in social and economic

challenges (Memon et al., 2014), and in developing economies, the concept of CSR is still restricted to educational curriculum (Jaseem, 2006; Memon et al.,

2014). Ellin (2006) identified that change in dynamics of economy, scope of

universities and financial benefits of faculty are some of the main factors which

have changed the role of the universities. However, some studies have been carried out to investigate the perceived value of CSR and its relationship with

employees’ attitudes and behaviours in the context of corporations, but hardly a

study is carried out which can examine the impact of faculty members’ perception of CSR. More specifically, organizational commitment, employee

engagement and organizational citizenship behaviours have not ever been

studied in the context of higher education institutions in relationship to

perception of CSR in developing economies like Pakistan.

In literature, the findings of some of previous studies indicated a potential

influence of perceived CSR on employees’ attitudes, but their findings do not illustrate the mechanisms which can explain and predict such relationships

(Bhattacharya et al., 2009; Jones, 2010). In this context, it is important to

investigate and to understand the circumstances in which organizations made

investment on society which could positively impact on employee’s attitude (Bhattacharya et al., 2009; Jones, 2010). Hence, still there is a further need to

carry out research to examine at individual level of analysis to have a profound

insight about how firm’ stakeholders view the CSR initiatives, particularly the

key stakeholders of the company i.e. employees. Similar to the findings of the most of previous studies, it is expected that there would be a positive

relationship between employees’ perception of CSR and organizational

commitment, employee engagement, organizational citizenship behaviour. Apart from theoretical contribution, this study provides practical benefits to the

managers and the academicians such as:

First, this study indicates that the management of higher education institutions should include CSR strategy and focus on CSR policies and

organizational ethics which in turn bring feeling of attachment by the employees

and positive outcomes for the organization. CSR has not only significant impact on financial performance of an organization but also have impact on individuals’

outcomes at workplace. This study examines the intangible impact of CSR on

employees’ work attitude and behaviours rather to evaluate the financial effects

of CSR. Secondly, employees play an important role in the success of an organization; therefore, organizations should not overlook the participation of

the employees in CSR initiatives and employees’ perception of CSR

subsequently influence their workplace outcomes. Thirdly, organizations should emphasize the role of the employees in CSR activities and organization would

17

get more benefits by involving and interacting the employees in CSR activities

which support organizations to achieve competitive advantage.

Theoretically, the aim of this study is to provide a framework for future

researchers in the area of organizational psychology which determines that how

the employees’ perception of CSR affects the employees’ workplace outcomes particularly in the context of higher education sector. More specifically, in this

study, it is proposed that organizational CSR practices have positive impact on

employees’ level of organizational commitment, employee engagement and organizational citizenship behaviour. This relationship is also likely mediated

by the employees’ attitudes (i.e. organizational trust, job satisfaction and

organizational identification). Similar to other organizations by adopting CSR

strategies, higher education institutions may enhance the attachment level of their faculty members which may also improve their performance at their

workplace. Thus, it expected that the proposed framework of this study add

value and broaden the understanding about the relationship between employees’ perceptions of CSR and employees’ attitudes and behaviours at their workplace.

1.5 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

CSR is a newly construct in Organizational Behaviour (OB) and Human

Resource Management (HRM) research, despite its widespread diffusion and

potential relevance with employees’ perspective (Rupp, Baldwin & Bashshur, 2006). To make more substantial contribution in CSR research, this study

presents a comprehensive framework for the potential relationship between

employees’ perception of CSR, work attitudes and behaviours of employees at their workplace. The main question is whether CSR perceptions of employees

develop positive attitudes and behaviours in employees at their workplace. A

growing number of empirical studies have started to investigate the differential

effect of CSR activities directed towards various stakeholders on the work attitude of employees (Turker, 2009b; Hofman & Newman, 2014). In addition,

a few empirical evidences suggest a potential impact of CSR on favorable

attitudes of employees’ but do not explain the mechanisms to predict such relationships. In this context, psychological response of employees towards

CSR need further examination to understand why, how and under which

conditions organizational investment and contribution in social well-being may

have positive impact on employees’ attitudes (Bhattacharya et al., 2009; Jones, 2010). Similar to other organizations, CSR has become an important concept for

universities because of role of universities in shifting the society (Frederick,

2006; Jongbloed et al., 2008; Nejati et al., 2011). In addition, universities’ leadership role in society enables these institutions to influence the CSR

acceptance and practices through teaching, research and transfer into the society.

18

Thus, it has become important to investigate universities’ engagement in CSR

practices. This is a unique and a novel study in the relevant knowledge domain and findings of the study significantly contribute in the higher education sector

specifically and in other fields in general regarding CSR in the following ways:

First, it examines why CSR perceptions of employees ‘can potentially influence the employees’ attitudes and behaviours. In this regard, the proposed

model tests employees’ CSR’s perceptions and its influence on employees’

various dimensions of outcomes i.e. organizational commitment, employee engagement and organizational citizenship behaviour. In the literature, construct

of organizational commitment, employee engagement and organizational

citizenship behaviour are mostly accepted as a critical psychological process for

strengthening employees’ relationship with their organization (Riketta, 2005; Bhattacharya et al., 2009). Basically, the critical psychology is a perspective in

which employees attempt to apply their psychological understandings in some

more progressive ways at their workplace. Second, on the basis of some of previous empirical evidences, it is predicted that employees’ perceptions about

the organizational CSR initiatives should positively influence their: job

satisfaction level, improve organizational trust and strengthen their

identification which promotes employees’ performance and extra role behaviour in favor of organization (De Roeck & Delobbe, 2012; Story & Neves, 2015). By

examining such issues, this study makes a significant contribution in literature

by giving a clear understanding to enhance organizational commitment,

employee engagement and organizational citizenship behaviour through effective implementation of CSR in the organization. In this study an integrated

framework is to be developed to test how CSR perceptions of employees can

affect employees’ workplace outcomes through three potential mediating mechanisms: organizational trust, job satisfaction and organizational identity.

Social Identity Theory (SIT) and Social Exchange Theory (SET) were adopted

to provide theoretical underpinning to the proposed framework. Therefore, these

theories provide theoretical ground to explain the relationship between faculty members’ perception of CSR and their attitudes and behaviours (Blau, 1964;

Tajfel & Turner, 1986; Hogg & Terry, 2000; Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005).

Third, contingency impact or possible influence is assumed to be examined which explains such circumstances under which CSR more positively enhances

employees’ attitudes and behaviours. It is assumed that employees’ attitudes or

their aspirations about organizational CSR initiatives perform as mediators (i.e.

organizational trust, job satisfaction and organizational identification) between hypothesized relationship i.e. perception of CSR and employees’ workplace

outcome (i.e. organizational commitment, employee engagement and

organizational citizenship behaviour). Fourth, as per our knowledge, this hypothesized framework presents a first ever empirical study which predicts

19

faculty members’ attitudes and behaviours in higher education institutions on

the basis of their perception of CSR.

Moreover, this study may also provide an empirical contribution to the

literature by examining the impact of CSR initiatives on employees’ attitude and

behaviours in contrary to prior studies which usually carried out in developed countries with different set of constructs and mechanisms. In developed

countries, higher education institutions mainly focus on a wider range of CSR

activities such as protection of environment, community development, conservation of resources, and philanthropic giving (Quazi & O’Brien, 2000).

However, in developing countries, higher education institutions focus on CSR

related activities and paying close attention towards employees related issues

including risk prevention and health & safety at workplace, training and development, Equal opportunities for employees, work-life balance, promotion

and fair work relations and volunteering activities for employees. Fifth, apart

from above theoretical and empirical contributions, practically this study contributes significantly by providing guidance to the organizations for the

importance and application of different strategic CSR activities such as work-

life balance, training and development, security & protection at workplace, and

health & safety of employees. Sixth, environment of the higher education institutions could be improved by practicing the findings of the study which

would eventually affect the attachment level of faculty members with the

institutions, enhance employees’ performance and OCB for effective operations,

to accomplish the organizational goals and to secure competitive advantage. The objective of the present study is to address the research questions to have a better

understanding about the relationship through which CSR practices of an

organization enhance employees’ support to their organizational objectives in higher education sector in Pakistan. This study focused the current employees,

who may respond positively or negatively to perceive CSR policies of

corporation (Freeman, 1984; Donaldson & Preston, 1995; Wood & Jones,

1995). More specifically, during the course of study, relationship among following variables of interest is to be examined and research objectives of this

study are:

1. RO1- To examine the impact of employees’ perceptions of CSR

on employees psychological, attitudinal and behavioural outcomes

(e.g. Organizational Identification, Job Satisfaction,

Organizational Trust, Organizational Commitment, Employees Engagement, Organizational Citizenship Behaviour) (H1-H6).

2. RO2- To examine the mediating role of Organizational Trust between employees’ perceptions of CSR and, employees level of

20

Organizational Commitment, Employees Engagement and

Organizational Citizenship Behaviour (H7-H9).

3. RO3- To examine the mediating role of Job Satisfaction between

employees’ perceptions of CSR and, employees level of

Organizational Commitment, Employees Engagement and Organizational Citizenship Behaviour (H10-H12).

4. RO4- To examine the mediating role of Organizational Identification between employees’ perceptions of CSR and,

employees level of Organizational Commitment, Employees

Engagement and Organizational Citizenship Behaviour (H13-

H15).

A significant number of studies focusses that social responsibility should

be recognized as an essential characteristic of the university and it also be imbedded in the operations of the institutions (Parsons, 2014). This perceptive

is often shared that higher education institutions should promote as well

represent a sense of social responsibility through its functions. Although, faculty

members play key role for the success of higher education institutions, therefore, there is need to examine the impact of faculty members’ perception of CSR on

their important dimensions of outcomes (i.e. Organizational Commitment,

Employees Engagement and Organizational Citizenship Behaviour which

ultimately affect the performance of the institutions. Similar to other countries, in Pakistan, the higher education institutions have been involved in different

CSR concerning activities which ultimately may have positive impact on society

in general and faculty members’ attitudes and behaviours in particular. In the domain of CSR literature, a number of studies focusing influence of CSR on

employees’ outcomes have been carried out but no study has so far been carried

out which could examine the impact of faculty members’ perception of CSR on

their outcomes in higher education institutions. Hence, this study may provide a better understanding about the mechanism through which CSR initiatives may

have positive influence on faculty members’ attitudes and behaviours with

meditation influence of organizational trust, job satisfaction and organizational identification which may ultimately provide support to higher education

institutions to achieve their goals.

1.6 OPERATIONAL DEFINITIONS

In order to understand the topic of the dissertation, this section explains the key operational terms which relates to review of the literature, research

design, and qualitative inquiry.

21

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). “Corporates social responsibility includes the economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary

expectations which the society has of organizations at a given time” (Carroll &

Buchholtz, 2014 p. 32).

Perception of CSR. Perception of CSR can be defined that it is

employees own internal cognition about their organization, this cognition of

employees about organizational involvement in CSR activities serves the reference point of evaluation of organization by the employees.

Organizational Trust. Organizational trust is acknowledged as

employees’ readiness to be vulnerable to the actions of the organization because they assume that the decisions of the organization will be made and implement

in consideration of the interest of employees.

Job Satisfaction. “it is a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting

from the appraisal of one’s job experiences, this experience of job satisfaction

includes all characteristics of the job and workplace environment” (Locke, 1976

p. 1300).

Organizational Identification. Identification is considered as an active

process through which individuals link themselves with elements in a social

scene and these factors of identifications provide support to make sense and these considerations provide support to make decisions (Cheney, 1983).

Organizational Commitment. An employee who is committed with his organization (a) has a firm belief in the goals and objectives of the organization

(b) has a strong desire to attach and keep continue relationship with the

organization (c) willingness to make great contribution to the organization

(Meyer & Allen, 1997).

Employee Engagement. “employee engagement is a condition of

employee who feels involved, committed, passionate, and empowered and demonstrates those feelings in work behaviour” (Mone & London, 2014 p. 4).

Organizational Citizenship Behaviour. “it is individual behaviour that

is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the

organization” (Organ, 1988 p. 4).

22

1.7 SUMMARY OF THE CHAPTER

In this chapter, the background, motivation and the statement of problem

of this study is presented. In addition, it introduces the research questions and

explained the study’s significance within the domain of CSR literature. In

conclusion, this chapter also offers important terms and expressions which provides in depth contextual understanding of the study’s main variables which

are to be discussed at length in the next chapter. The next chapter also includes

its prominence, assumptions and limitations.

23

CHAPTER 2:

REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE

In the light of the relevant literature, the main objective of this chapter is to discuss the observed variables i.e. Perceived CSR, Organizational Trust (OT),

Job Satisfaction (JS), Organizational Identification (OT), Organizational

Commitment (OC), Employee Engagement (EE) and Organizational

Citizenship Behaviour (OCB). This chapter is bifurcated into two sections. In first section, definitions, theoretical grounds, development and importance of

the observed variables is presented whereas the second section addresses the

development of research & theoretical model and development of hypotheses of

the study.

2.1 EVOLUTION OF THE CONCEPT OF CORPORATE SOCIAL

RESPONSIBILITY

Over a period of decades, considerable changes have been noticed in the

development of the concept of CSR. In the beginning, this concept was initiated from a single business-oriented context to multi-dimensional orientation. To

have a clear understanding about the concept of CSR and to recognize its

footprints, there is a need to have a thorough review of the related theories and research which will lead to in depth understanding about the concept. The

theoretical evolution and development of concept of CSR, the notion of social

responsibility demands similar attention and thoughtfulness. This effort may

provide further better understanding and new paths in entirely in a new context (i.e. higher education sector) in CSR research.

2.1.1 Conceptualization of CSR

Since long, the researchers have been making efforts to develop a

consensus to be agreed upon a comprehensive definition of CSR. However, in literature no single and common definition of CSR is available (Carroll, 1999).

The roots of this concept can be tracked back from 1920’s when business

practitioners started to identify the concept of responsible practices in their businesses (Sheldon, 1923). The business practitioners of that era were of the

view that basic norms and ethical practices should be emphasized to be

considered necessary in the business settings. During this period, a spirit was

considered as corporate philanthropy and welfare, because fewer formal ethical

24

business rules and regulations were established. However, the definition of CSR

was first presented in Bowen’s (1953) book titled “Social Responsibilities of the Businessman”. He clarified that “CSR as the obligations of businessmen to

pursue those policies, to make those decisions, or to follow those line of actions

which are desirable in terms of the objectives and values of our society” (Bowen,

1953 p. 44). In the academic literature, first time Bowen attempted to establish a relationship between corporation and community. He is commonly known the

“Father of CSR” (Carroll, 1979; Preston, 1975; Wartick & Cochran, 1985).

In 1954, Drucker talked about the eight key areas, working on an

organization may be able to accomplish its goals and amongst those CSR was

given the highest importance. Moreover, he further defined that the first

responsibility of a manager is to make profit, the management must think about the effect of organizational policies and actions which may have impact on

society (Joyner & Payne, 2002). Similarly, Lantos (2001) opined that in 1960s,

the discussion and importance of business ethics reached at its exceptional level. As a general category of ethical principles, business ethics have been developed, such

as care, honesty, promises, serving and respecting others rights (Post, Lawrence

& Weber, 2002). Business ethics consist of moral principle, ethical notions, and

value-driven rules equally as CSR. Lantos (2001) further asserted that in mid 1970s, the universities started to teach the concept of CSR and the significance

of ethical behaviour of business augmented which in turn developed the interest

in the topic of social responsibility. He further clarified that the concept of social

responsibility of business came under discussion in 1950s but the concept of business ethics got popularity in 1960s.

Advancing the debate, Carroll (1999) declared that the concept of CSR grew significant attention in 1960s and some scholars such as Davis, Frederick

and McGuire emphasized to establish the meaning of CSR more precisely. In

this context, in an early stage Davis (1960) described about CSR that “some

socially responsible business decisions can be justified by having a good chance of bringing long-run economic gain to the firm, thus paying it back

for its socially responsible outlook” (p. 70). Subsequently, Davis (1967)

emphasized about CSR that “the substance of social responsibility arises for the concern of ethical consequence of one’s acts as they might affect the

interests of others” (p. 46), which defined the concept of business ethics to

CSR (Thomas & Nowak, 2006). Finally, Davis (1960) defined CSR “as

decisions and actions taken for reasons at least partially beyond the firm’s direct economic or technical interest” (p. 70). In this era, Frederick (1960)

also defines that social responsibility finally shows voluntarily public

position towards economic conditions of the society and situation of its human resources to use these resources for broader interest of the society

rather private use for persons and organizations. Similarly, McGuire

25

(1963) asserted that organizations apart from their economic interests and legal

responsibilities must contribute towards the well-being of the society, employees’ education and happiness. There is an agreement that CSR

addresses the organization’s responsibilities towards the society, however,

CSR may be defined in multiple ways and CSR practices may also address

some other concerns, beyond economic interests and legal obligations.

A considerable shift was made in 1962, when Milton Friedman presented

his argument about CSR and stated that the business has the only social responsibility by utilizing its resources and get involved in all activities to

enhance the profit of the firm on complying with government rules, in open and

free competitions without involving in any fraudulent activity. However, in

literature, this view was not considered overwhelmingly and some researcher contested this view by putting their arguments that “Today, many will not be

comfortable with such a profit-oriented statement” (McAleer, 2003 p. 450;

Oketch, 2004 p. 5). Similarly, in the year, 1975, Sethi described about CSR that “social responsibility implies bringing corporate behaviour up to a level, where

it is congruent with the prevailing social norms, values, and expectations of

performance” (p. 70). Supporting the Sethi’ arguments about CSR, Carroll

(1979) asserted that CSR is expectations of the society at a certain point, which relates to organizational ethics, legal obligations, actions based on discretion,

and profitability can be included by their social responsibilities. In literature, this

CSR model has been frequently used to explain the CSR construct and is widely

accepted by the researchers.

In the 1980s, the principles of sustainable development as a major social

expectation has been associated to the CSR practices. This stage was started in 1980 when Jones pronounced that CSR should be voluntary. Jones (1980) stated

that the focus of CSR activities was converted from shareholders to social

groups such as employees, customers, suppliers, and society. He further asserted

that to discharge social responsibility is not an outcome but a process (Jones, 1980). Thus, the perception of CSR denotes that how a corporation is perceived

when it engages in the process of CSR. Primarily, the concept of CSR was based

on the notion of philanthropy which has now changed and stakeholder concept is being focused. In the development of CSR, stakeholder theory (Freeman,

1984) contributed significantly and strengthened the concept of CSR. According

to stakeholder theory, a firm should be responsible for the welfare of all

stakeholders including employees. Hence, Freeman (1984) presented his point of view about CSR that in order to meet the shareholders’ needs, organizations

started to adopt more responsible approach in their corporate strategies which is

an important element for their value adding process. Moreover, Carroll (1999, p. 284) stated that “in 1980s, development of new definitions of CSR initiated a

number of studies on CSR for example corporate social responsiveness,

26

corporate social performance, public policy, business ethics, and stakeholder

theory”. Consequently, in 1980s the scholars were interested to have explored whether implementation of CSR could be profitable for corporations.

Accordingly, Aupperle, Carroll and Hatfield (1985), examined “the link

between CSR and profitability, which in result prioritized four components of

CSR: economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary” (Carroll 1999, p. 287).

In the literature, Wood (1991) made a significant contribution by

developing a new perspective and placed CSR in a wider context which was based on outcomes and performance. He presented a corporate social

performance model which was mostly considered a complete framework, it

includes the principles, processes and outcomes of socially responsible

behaviours.

27

Table 2.1

The Corporate Social Performance Model (CSP)

Principles of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)

PRINCIPLES OF

SOCIAL

RESPONSIBILITY

PROCESSES OF

SOCIAL

RESPONSIVENESS

OUTCOMES &

IMPACTS OF

PERFORMANCE

Institutional

Principle: Legitimacy (Origin: Davis, 1973):

businesses that abuse

the power society grants them will lose

that power.

Environmental

Scanning: gather the information needed to

understand and analyze

the firm’s social, political, legal, and

ethical environments

Effects on

people and

rganizations.

Organizational

Principle: Public

Responsibility (Origin: Preston & Post, 1975):

Businesses are

responsible for

outcomes related to their primary and

secondary areas of

involvement with society.

Stakeholder

Management: active and constructive

engagement in

relationships with

stakeholders.

Effects on the natural and

physical

environments.

Individual Principal:

Managerial

Discretion: (Origin:

Carroll, 1979; Wood, 1990) Managers and

other employees are

moral actors and have a

duty to exercise discretion toward

socially responsible,

ethical outcomes.

Issues/Public Affairs

Management: a set of

processes that allow a

company to identify, analyze, and act on the

social or political

issues that may affect it

significantly.

Effects on social

systems and

institutions.

28

Carroll’ Model (1991)

More precisely, principles refer to basic obligations of an organization

which includes social legality (institutional principle), public obligation

(organization principle) and discretion of management (individual principle). Processes are primarily related to organizational capacity to address social

pressures. To assess the corporations’ performance on social issues, outcomes

of corporate behaviours are used to decide whether the social performance of the corporation impacts the social relationship (Wood, 1991). This framework

explained the corporations’ responsibility towards the society, it presents a

comprehensive view of socially responsible performance. Based on Wood’s

model, Carroll designed the pyramid of CSR responsibilities which is represented below:

In this pyramid, he placed the economic responsibilities as the basis of pyramid model and philanthropic practices at the top (Carroll, 1999; Windsor,

2001). Carroll (1999) asserted that as a dynamic part of an organizational

activities, CSR would continue, because it is congruent with public aspirations

and it provides essential foundation to various other theories and concepts such as “CSP, stake holder-theory, business ethics theory, and corporate citizenship”

(Carroll, 1999 p. 288). In addition, CSR’s role in business continued to be

debated in 21st century with the assertion that multinational corporations should exercise more efforts to improve social and environmental conditions on the

globe (Scherer & Smid, 2000; Lee, 2008).

29

In the beginning of 21st century, persistent efforts were made by the

researchers which provided a new insight about CSR. The scholars could be able to extend CSR studies to the global level but due to lack of model, CSR

has been considered in a diverse environment, social culture and different

market settings. Addressing this issue, Quazi and O’Brien (2000) presented a

CSR framework in cross cultural perspective with two general dimensions i.e. extent of corporate responsibility of the firm (narrow-wide) and variety of

outcomes of the firm with respect to its social commitments (cost-profits).

McWilliams and Siegel (2001) declared that CSR is a situation in which organizations go beyond from the compliance of the regulations and they

involve in all such practices which provides benefits to the society. In addition,

McGuire asserted that organizations apart from their economic and legal

responsibilities must contribute towards the well-being of the community and employees’ education and happiness. In this perspective, McGuire (1963),

McWilliams & Siegel (2001) and Smith (2003) further supported that it is

agreed that CSR addresses the obligations of the organization towards the society, however, CSR may be defined in multiple ways and CSR practices

may also address some other concerns, beyond economic interests and legal

obligations.

Apart from above illustrated progresses in evolution of CSR, some

significant International developments occurred which also influenced CSR’s

evolution including the Minister’s appointment in British government to

corporate social responsibility; Green paper’s publication and release by the European Commission titled “Promoting a European Framework for Corporate

Social Responsibility”; release a report on Global Compact by the United

Nations addressing the issues pertaining to human rights, labor practices and the global environment (Gail & Nowak, 2006; Lee, 2008). In 2007, Hopkins

contributed in CSR literature and outlined the CSR that it relates to treatment

of stakeholders (internal and external) in a civilized society in a responsible

manner, social responsibility demands better living standards for internal and external stakeholders with the profitability of the firm. Social obligations of a

firm include its economic and environmental responsibilities. In addition, Nord

and Fuller (2009) also conclude that scholars and writers both have dominant paradigm in the development of CSR literature, however, there is need to have

an alternative model which can provide a strategic view of CSR. They

suggested that to understand and align the organization with current and

dynamic environments, employees focused perspective is gaining attention in the recent years. In this context, Moura-Leite and Padgett (2011) suggested

that starting from the 21st century, the attention of CSR studies has shifted into

integration of CSR practices towards corporate strategies which further moved from macro-social level to corporation level.

30

Hopkins (2007) concluded that in 1950s, the concept of CSR developed

and the CSR definitions has also been changed according to the different approaches of CSR. These CSR approaches were related to: (i) business

obligations towards society to fulfil the community values and objectives

(Bowen, 1953); (ii) corporations’ public posture towards economic and human

resources of the society (Frederick, 1960); (iii) maximization of profit (Friedman, 1962); (iv) effects of actions and decisions of the corporation on the

societal system of the community (Davis & Blomstrom, 1966); (v) corporate

behaviour of an organization in accordance with values, social norms and performance expectations (Sethi, 1975); (vi) economic, legal, ethical and

philanthropic needs of the society (Carroll, 1979); (vii) responsibility to

establish groups in the community (Jones, 1980); (viii) interactions of business

and community (wood, 1991); (x) CSR is related with the treatment of the stakeholders in a responsible and ethical manner by the company (Hopkins,

2007); (xi) strategic perspective of CSR to understand and to align the

organization with current and dynamic environments (Nord & Fuller, 2009). To have a glance, following table summarizes different academic research

definitions of CSR presented by different scholars.

Table 2.2

Summary of Evolution of Academic Research Definition of CSR

Authors CSR definition

Bowen (1953) “CSR is the responsibility of businessmen to follow those policies, practices and decisions, or to follow

those guidelines which are desirable in the society in

terms of the values and objectives” (p. 44).

Frederick (1960) Social responsibility finally shows voluntarily public

position towards economic conditions of the society and situation of its human resources to use these

resources for broader interest of the society rather

private use for persons and organizations.

Friedman (1962) Business have the only social responsibility by

utilizing its resources and get involved in all activities to enhance the profit of the firm on complying with

government rules, in open and free competitions

without involving in any fraudulent activity.

Davis and

Blomstrom (1966)

Social obligation is basically an individual’s

responsibility to be aware about the consequences of his actions and decisions on the overall social system.

31

Authors CSR definition

Sethi (1975) Social obligation indicates to bring corporate behaviour of an organization in accordance with

existing social norms, ethics and performance

expectations.

Carroll (1979) Corporate Social responsibility refers to expectations

of the society at a certain point, which relates to organizational ethics, legal obligations, actions based

on discretion, and profitability can be included by

their social responsibilities.

Jones (1980) Social responsibility is the concept in which

organizations have the responsibility to establish groups other than its stockholders and in addition to

that suggested by law and union contract in the

community.

Wood (1991) The basic concept is that society have the expectations

from the businesses to perform in a responsible manner for the benefit of both businesses & society,

both are intertwined and not separate entities.

Quazi and O’Brien

(2000)

Presented a CSR framework in cross culture

perspective with two general dimensions i.e. extent

of responsibility of the corporation (narrow-wide) and variety of results of corporation’ social

commitments (cost-profits).

Hopkins (2007) CSR relates to treatment of stakeholders in a civilized

society in a responsible manner, social responsibility

demands better living standards for both internal and external stakeholders with the profitability of the firm.

Nord and Fuller

(2009)

There is need to have an alternative model which can

provide alternative for strategic view of CSR to

understand and to align the organization with current

and dynamic environments.

Note: Author’s work

32

After comprehensive view of the available literature on the concept of

CSR, the definition presented in the Business Dictionary seems appropriate which covers the broad range of CSR concept, it identifies that CSR is “a

company's sense of responsibility towards the community and environment (both

ecological and social) in which it operates”.

2.1.2 The Business Imperative Debate and Corporate Social Responsibility

In the 1950s, CSR practices appeared after the Supreme Court’s decision

which empowered the corporations to identify all such philanthropic activities

and record in their financial statements which could be directly benefited to the

society. In the decade of 1970s, Milton Friedman, the well-known economist was one of the most candid challengers who strongly opposed the growing

attention of the topic of CSR. He advocated that the purpose of CSR programs

is to earn profit, therefore, goal to implement the CSR programs in a firm is to improve the firms’ performance, so management must implement CSR

programs. According to Friedman (1962) “there is one and only one social

responsibility of business – to use its resources and engage in activities to

increase its profits” (p. 98). In mid 1990s, considerable changes took place in business settings such as shifting to knowledge and service based industries and

new employment opportunities and corporate interests have been renewed to

integrate CSR in business related policies (Greenfield, 2005; Porter & Kramer,

2006; Maxfield, 2008). In the 21st century, the debate continued about the role of CSR with the assertion that multinational corporations need to exert more

efforts to improve environmental and social conditions around the globe. Some

scholars described that multinational companies such as Nike, Nestle, and Shell Oil have initiated CSR practices to face unfavorable public relations and press

related to non-compliance of international environment and labor standards

(Knight, 2002; Guarnieri & Kao, 2007).

However, some scholars have the opinion that social responsibility diverts

the focus of the business from earning of profitability which as a whole benefits

the society (Zajac & Westphal, 2004; Henderson, 2004). In comparison to Friedman, Drucker (1997) suggested that profit maximization theory is

worthless and it could be harmful to the community by asserting that “profit is

not the explanation, cause, or rationale of business behaviour and business

decisions, but rather the test of their validity” (Drucker, 2001). Thus, profit making is not an ultimate object, it is just required outcomes to make sure that

business remain continue to achieve its substantive goal. Similarly, some other

scholars highlighted that business is one of many social means and it must accept its responsibility which relates to its impact on society during pursuance of its

primary object (Pinkston & Carroll, 1996; Kreps, 2003; Guarnieri & Kao, 2007).

33

Therefore, CSR has become an important factor for corporations and it

considered as an appropriate strategy to achieve public trust and management of the corporation may organize the CSR initiatives in way to improve their

credibility.

2.1.3 Employees’ Perceptions of CSR and its Effects on Their Outcomes

A number of theoretical and empirical evidences are available which show that corporation’s social responsibility has importance to stakeholders

including consumers, shareholders and employees. Moreover, sufficient

literature is available on organizational CSR activities and its performance

(Davidson & Worrell, 1988; Aupperle, Carroll & Hatfield, 1985; McGuire, Sundgren & Schnrrweis, 1988; Waddock & Graves, 1997; Maignan, Ferrell &

Hult, 1999). Thus, it is obvious that CSR has borne value addition and it also

reflects that CSR activities may have impact on all three pillars (profit, people, and planet). Accordingly, such a thoughtful view about CSR practices could

assist organizations for accomplishment of organizational obligations to all

stakeholders including employees in a better way. However, an early research

focused on employees’ micro-level of CSR which was designed to understand the views of potential employees. Therefore, a number of empirical evidences

have examined and reached the similar conclusion that perception of potential

employees to organizational attractiveness and their intentions for job search are

influenced on the basis of their knowledge about the concerned organizations’ CSR practices (Albinger & Freeman, 2000; Rupp et al., 2013b; Gully et al.,

2013; Tsai et al., 2014).

In addition, current employees’ engagement in CSR activities experiences

a number of positive attitudes (Kim et al., 2010; Hofman & Newman, 2014). In

2010, Jones carried out a study and concluded that organizational participation

in CSR activities is associated to a strong intention to be attached with the firm. However, not in all findings of the studies which examined the impact of

perceived CSR has shown a uniform positive effect on employees’ attitudes and

behaviours. Similarly, De Roeck et al. (2014) concluded that employees’ perceptions towards organizational

CSR activities not only influenced by CSR practices related to external

stakeholders but also it has also influenced by the treatment that how the internal

stakeholders are being treated by the organizations. More specifically, this result shows that employees’ perceptions of CSR develop on the basis of degree of

social responsibility of a corporation’ internal and external CSR practices.

During the past decade, the research studies on CSR have increased and

some scholars suggested that impact of organizational related CSR activities

34

on employees’ perception and its effects on employees’ attitude and behaviours

has not been examined (Kim et al., 2010). Some scholars have viewed that employees’ perception of CSR generates psychological, attitudinal and

behavioural reactions which may be useful for the organizations (Rupp et al.,

2006). If employees perceive that their organization cares for social causes and

employees are involved in all such activities, resultantly they may be inclined towards motivation which may enhance their work performance. Bhattacharya

et al. (2008) carried out a study and it was supported; when participant’s

employer was involved in supporting social cause, in response employees felt motivated, encouraged to work hard and their job satisfaction level was found

high. Lee et al. (2012) identified that CSR may influence the employees’ attitude

about their organization by developing a perception that their organization is an

appropriate workplace.

Research studies carried out by Rupp et al., (2006), Hickman et al.,

(2005), Bhattacharya et al., (2008) concluded significant positive influence of employees’ perception of CSR on their outcomes. However, there is need to

undertake further research to examine the factors which may develop and

generate the employees’ perceptions which may have influence on their attitudes

and behaviours. The present study builds its argument on the basis of previous work which examined the effects of employees’ perception of CSR on their

outcomes at workplace (Bhattacharya et al., 2008; Kim et al., 2010; Jones, 2010;

Lee et al., 2012; Lee et al., 2013). The notion of CSR is normally related to

corporations and business firms. It has been considered since long time, that the goal of higher education institutions or universities is not making profit such as

the corporations. Rossi (2014) suggested that similar to business organizations,

universities are passing through fundamental changes and now students are considered as their customers. He further suggested that universities are

behaving like big businesses and this cultural shift has turned the perspective to

view the university as a private identity rather than a public identity. This shift

change in universities’ goal and objectives has taken place due to change in economy, size of the class, scope of the universities and salaries of the faculty,

these are the main factors which have changed the entire philosophy behind the

universities (Ellin, 2006). In order to meet financial requirements, mostly universities are adopting such policies and strategies through which they can

attract students, introducing new academic programs, selling research projects,

which reflects their corporate approach. The economy of Pakistan is considered

in developing nations which has different socioeconomic challenges (Memon et al., 2014), such as poverty, shortage of pure drinking water, shortage of

production of energy, lack of availability of educational and health facilities

particularly in rural areas. Hence, to retain talented and motivated workforce in organizations, understanding of CSR and its impact on employees’ perceptions

has become important because it can be utilized as a strategic and useful tool in

35

the institutions of higher learning. Although, some research studies have been

conducted on importance of perception of CSR and its relationship with employees’ attitudes and behaviours, but a few studies have examined effects of

perception of CSR in higher education sector (Nadeem & Kakakhel, 2012).

More specifically, organizational commitment, employee engagement and

organizational citizenship behaviour are hardly investigated constructs in higher education sector with intervening role of organizational trust, job satisfaction

and organizational identification with relationship perception of CSR in

developing economies like Pakistan. Through this study, an attempt is made to fill this research gap in the context of employees of higher education institutions

in Pakistan. Thus, the aim of this research study is to examine the impact of

faculty members’ perceptions of CSR activities in Pakistani universities on

faculty members’ level of organizational commitment, employee engagement and organizational citizenship behaviours.

2.1.4 The Shifting of Role of Universities - CSR and Universities

In order to fulfil the educational research and development needs of the

society universities have been engaged in performing specific functions as per the mandate given by the society. However, recent developments have

implicated broad changes in the role of the universities therefore, to come up

with the societal needs, universities have to be transformed to fulfil the

requirements of the society in the present time. Enders (2004), identify that in the past universities “have performed basic functions which result from the

particular combination of cultural and ideological, social and economic,

education and scientific roles that have been assigned to them” (p. 362).

In this context, Benneworth and Jongbloed (2010) argued that these

developments have influenced on social agreement between higher education

institutions (HEIs) and the society. In addition, Benneworth and Jongbloed (2010) also described that this discourse on the role of universities’ in society

has moved towards market oriented position which emphasis on

commercialization and re-defining of responsibilities of the university in broader context of stakeholders. Considering the current developments in the

21st century, it is safely said that the role of universities in society is changing.

In fact, in the modern era, the role of the universities has become more important

because universities are the most important academic and educational institutions. In the global world, scientists and faculty members are considered

the heart of the universities, their intelligence, knowledge and energies are the

main factors which differentiate them from their competitors. Moreover, according to some scholars “educational institutions have a special place in the

society they provide services related to the transfer of knowledge to their

36

customers– individuals, public, private organizations and the society in general”

(Gourova, Todorova & Gourov, 2009 p. 26).

The university’s social responsibility embodies its superstructure about

statutory responsibilities, in which the university managers and their staff

perform in a different way to not only fulfill the financial and social objectives of the university but they also provide facilitation to the stakeholders to meet

their expectations and objectives (including employees). Accordingly,

universities are recognizing their responsibilities and playing their role in national and international education systems, considering the interest of all

stakeholders, managing the multiple effects of their activities such as economic,

social and environmental, joining the business in community to address the

social needs. The aim of the social responsibility in a university is to support development of environment in a university, which will consequently develop

interest in its services which will reflect well on its economy. In case of

universities, the importance of the conception of social responsibility is because of their specific institutional characteristics and mission, distinctive in nature as

compare to other economic entities.

In this perspective, Nejati et al. (2011) carried out a study on top ten world universities in UK and examined their websites to understand how these

universities are involved in CSR practices. Findings of this study revealed that

all universities are emphasizing on issues like human rights, organizational

governance, environment, labour practices, fair workplace practices etc. In short, it can be believed that due to changing the role of universities in the

society after their traditional role of teaching, research and transfer of

knowledge “a greater weight is placed upon universities” commitment to community service in terms of providing training and research, investigation

and advice, as well as services as consultancies, technology transfer, lifelong

learning and continuing education” (Jongbloed et al., 2008, p. 312). Similarly,

Kaul and Smith (2012) emphasized the role of university in understanding and communicating CSR concept among students, employees and business leaders.

The above deliberated developments indicate, the success of universities is

evaluated by their key stakeholders i.e. international and local levels of scientific community (i.e. employees), industry, public sector and the public (Benneworth

& Jongbloed, 2010). In general perspective, key university stakeholders may

include all such entities and individuals who can affect the universities success

and future existence significantly which includes employees.

Although, in a university, the primary stakeholders are the students,

prospective students, the employees (faculty and non-faculty), regulatory bodies like higher education commission, funding agencies, associated industry,

owners, investors and community at large. Therefore, views of the employees

37

especially faculty members may be proactively listen and share information on

the status of the organization’s achievement of academic objectives. This may be done in different ways, hence, it has become important to ascertain and

examine such factors which can influence the attitudes and behaviours of faculty

members at their workplace. Idowu (2008) emphasized that universities having

central position to affect the acceptance and practice of CSR in society through their teaching and research activities. Researchers and scholars identified that

considerable research on CSR has focused in private business perspective

(Aguinis & Glavas, 2012; Smith, 2003). Thus, examining the involvement of universities employees in CSR practices is seemed important for society in

broader perspective.

2.2 REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE

In the literature, research evidences reveal that CSR is beneficial to organizations in many ways: it enhances the employee attitude and behaviour,

improves the productivity and eventually contributes the corporation’s

profitability. Yet, different empirical studies have so far been able to establish

association between perceptions of corporate social responsibility and financial performance of organizations (McWilliams & Siegel, 2001; Margolis & Walsh,

2003). Not many studies have been carried out to spotlight on employees'

discernment to CSR which identifies with fundamental stakeholder group which

is important for organizational performance and long term existence (Turker, 2009a; Jones, 2010). To explore the impact of perception of CSR on employees’

attitudes and behaviours, limited research has been carried out particularly in

two respects (Peterson, 2004; Brammer, Millington & Rayton, 2007; Turker, 2009a). Firstly, impact of CSR activities centered to employees’ attitudes i.e.

organizational commitment whereas other important employee’s outcomes

ignored like job satisfaction and turnover of employees (Peterson, 2004).

Secondly, just constrained components of external CSR have been focused in these studies without extending consideration towards internal CSR (Maignan

& Ferrell, 2001; Cornelius et al., 2008).

However, there is need to further explore the impact of employee’s

perceptions of CSR which underlying the psychological mechanism to drive

employees’ outcomes (Bhattacharya et al., 2009; Jones, 2010). Blau (1964)

indicated that individuals are engaged in exchange relations with other individuals in view of their expected benefits and loss. Thus, employees

contribute towards their organization in return to organizational support which

is provided in various forms like economic and socio-emotional (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). Therefore, one might expect that employees’ perception

38

towards organizational commitment to corporate social responsibility may

reciprocate with positive outcomes.

2.2.1 Theoretical Support of Employees’ Perceptions of CSR

As described by Freeman (1984), CSR is a concept which is based on a

phenomenon that corporations should be responsible for all its stakeholders in

their business processes for the well-being of the society. This responsibility is considered as ongoing apart from traditional obligations by fulfilling the legal

requirements and taking voluntary steps which provides overall positive impact

on the society. Guarnieri and Kao (2007) suggested that World Business Council

for Sustainable Development (2000) defined that “CSR is commitment by the business to behave ethically and contribute to economic development while

improving the quality of life of employees and their families and the society at

large” (p. 35). In OB literature, researchers have conducted a number of studies to view the CSR from different perspectives in order to understand the

effectiveness of CSR on different stakeholders including employees.

In order to understand why CSR affects stakeholders particularly employees need to further examine the theoretical foundation that why CSR

attracts different stakeholders. In last two decades, different theories have been

presumed to analyze that why CSR attract to individuals. Some of the theories

are explained below which already used to empirically test the proposed causal mechanisms. Therefore, perception of CSR is grounded on different theories

presented by various theorists and most of the frequently used theories including

signaling theory, organizational identification theory, cognitive categorization theory, relationship management theory, engagement theory, theory of justice,

social exchange theory and social identity theory. However, in present study, in

order to test suggested causal mechanism and to provide theoretical

underpinning, social exchange theory and social identity theory have been used. Both the theories have been debated in the following section.

Social Exchange Theory (SET) amalgamates finances, psychology and sociology to suggest that individuals participate in various types of exchange

relations on the basis of their evaluations of possible loss and benefit. Blau

(1964) states that exchange relationship with an individual or group, it is likely

that positive feelings are developed toward the second party which lead to emotional state of trust, commitment and common benefits. In addition, few

researchers also suggested two types of exchange relations in firms: economic

and social (Homans, 1958; Gouldner, 1960; Blau, 1964; Settoon et al., 1996). Economic exchange between the employees the firms is normally open and

contractual on certain terms and conditions with monetary rewards. However,

39

the social exchange has unclear obligations which have indirect exchange and

apprehensions (Blau, 1964; Deckop et al., 2003). Discretionary actions and extra role behaviours have direct relationship with social exchange (Organ, 1988). If

employees feel happy with their organization, it is likely they extend their

support as a mutual social exchange. Sometime employee may engage to

provide support in extra role behaviour on the basis of reciprocity (Moorman, 1993; Tepper & Taylor, 2003). The reason for positive response from employees

to firms’ voluntarily activities is that some employees respond positively in

return to the benefits they receive from the voluntarily programs.

In exchange relationship, employees who feel that they are benefitted by

the employer’s’ discretionary and benevolent action they normally feel obliged

and reciprocate. Cropanzano and Mitchell, (2005) indicate that relationship exchange take place on the basis of mutual trust and expectations which benefits

to both the parties over the time. Some research evidences show that employees

reciprocate the employers’ discretionary and voluntary activities which benefit them such as the activities which genuinely serve the purpose of welfare of the

employees (Eisenberger et al., 2001). However, employees differ in their

exchange ideologies or the extent they believe to reciprocate “that work effort

should depend on treatment by the organization” (Eisenberger et al., 1986, p. 503). In organizational context, a balanced exchanged process between firm and

employee likely leads to social exchange on long term basis which are

established on the basis of trust.

In literature, most of the research studies were grounded on social

exchange theory which examined and analyzed the social exchange by adopting

variables such as organizational identification, organizational trust and affective organizational commitment. In case of organization’s participation in CSR

activities, the main impact of organizational engagement is that it is perceived

as a socially responsible and trustworthy organization in the cognition of its

employees which lead towards enhanced employee’ identification, strong attachment and organizational commitment (Farooq et al., 2013). Findings of

some of previous studies also indicated that when firm provide economic

opportunities, social and physiological resources, the employees are expectedly respond with positive attitudes including organizational commitment (Al-bdour

et al., 2010; Blau, 1964). This theory also suggests that employees who believe

that they are benefitted from the voluntarily programs of the organization and

they value to these programs, they would feel obligated and they could reciprocate through such behaviours which can be benefitted to the firm.

However, the extra role behaviours from employees are highly voluntarily or

discretionary which provide an effective way to reciprocate (Organ, 1988).

40

More specifically, if the employees feel happy during their course of work

in their organization, it is likely they support their organization as a reciprocal social exchange process. Some researchers described that the employees

reciprocate the benefits which they receive from their firm, for example, when

their implicit promises are fulfilled by their organizations (Coyle- Shapiro,

Jacqueline & Neuman, 2004). For instance, employees may even contribute and support their organizations in their extra role behaviours in response to the

behaviour which they receive from their organizations (Organ, 1990). In

literature, some of the previous studies have also emphasized for the use of social exchange theory (SET) to explain and clarify the reciprocal relationship

between organizational CSR initiatives and employees’ attitudes and behaviours

(Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005; Loi, Hang-yue, & Foley, 2006). Hence, on the

basis of SET, a significant association between organizational CSR practices and employees’ attitudes and behaviours is anticipated.

Tajfel and Turner (1985) presented the Social Identity Theory (SIT), according to this theory, individuals categories or identify themselves as a

member of a specific class, group, political party or country and this particular

identification increases one’s self-esteem. Ashforth & Mael (1989), also argued

that this theory suggest that individuals made distinctive classifications or categorizations of themselves with others, and afterwards they use it to develop

and maintain their classification or their self- conceptualization. This self-

categorization of individuals permits them to distinguish and delimit other

individuals and to find themselves in social environment in society. Hogg (2011) describes that this theory explains the mechanism through which an individual

decides where he/she belongs to in comparison to members of in-group and out-

groups. It explains the impact of individual perception, group distinctiveness and social categorization on individuals’ attitudes and behaviours (Cinnirella,

1998). Further, Tajfel introduced self-conceptualization in intergroup

perspective to see how a person defines and creates his/her place which he/she

owned in the society, further the addition of social categorization element makes this theory more relevant (Hogg, 2001).

Although, organizations practicing in CSR activities are perceived as highly esteemed by their employees and they feel proud to work with socially

responsible organization which contributes for the well-being of the society.

Employees’ loyalty towards socially responsible organization increases which

develops social identity among the employees. Hence, the relationship between perceived CSR and identification is considered significant because the

employees may likely identify themselves with the firms which are involved in

socially responsible practices. The emotionally attached employees are most likely support their organizations to achieve its objectives concerning to CSR.

Although, the socially responsible practices of an organization are normally

41

open organizational practices which generates emotions of attachment and

affection among the public towards the organization and such emotions also generates the sense of pride among the employees (Maignan et al., 1999). This

theory was also applied in a study conducted by Glavas and Godwin (2013) and

examined the influence of CSR on employees’ identification. Organizations

having good reputation enhances employees’ self-esteem (Bashir, Hassan & Cheema, 2012) which in response create feelings of attachment or identification

with the organization. Lee et al. (2012) asserted that organizational CSR

practices may affect employees’ attitude towards the firm which may also create perception that the firm is good working place. In this study, employees as

individuals attain positive social identity because their perceptions of CSR

which may lead them to positive response to CSR practices of the organization

(O’Reilly & Chatman, 1986; Rodrigo & Arenas, 2008). Hence, individuals’ position themselves and other individuals into in groups or out groups, which as

a result expect perceptions about individuals’ attitudes and behaviours.

2.2.1.1 Perception of CSR: Theoretical Perspective

The following section covers the details about perception of CSR, in addition, it also discusses the theories and importance and which provide further

support to the concept of employees’ perceptions of CSR.

2.2.1.2 The Concept of Employees’ Perceptions of CSR

Carroll presented an early conceptualization and definition of CSR as “the economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary expectations that society has of

organizations at a given point in time” (1979, p. 500). Basically, the definition

presented by Carroll (1979) is the combination of different responsibilities which the firm has towards society. Though, Carroll’s definition of CSR is

mostly used conceptualization of CSR however, some other scholars have also

re-assessed CSR from their own perspective such as (Davis, 1973; Jones, 1980;

Wood, 1991; McWilliams & Siegel, 2001; Waddock, 2004; Peloza, 2009).

CSR is a construct which has been studied across many areas as a field of

research and practice. Recently, Islam et al. (2016) concluded in their study that CSR has behavioural and psychological effect on employees’ outcome.

However, this is the question whether participation in CSR initiatives which

enhances need satisfaction, or mere something offered by the presence of CSR

not actual participation. Perception of CSR represents the individual cognition of the importance of CSR compliance and employees’ perception of CSR as part

of their cognitive processes may have different view point about their

organizational CSR programs. Further, both science and practice of CSR, there is need to consider the psychological impact of carrying out CSR activities by

employer from employees’ perspective. The employees’ perception of CSR is

42

based on the results of employees’ day to day operations and dealing on

workplace. Employees execute the socially responsible activities and witness all such activities which are performed inside the organization. Employees being

members of the organization observe, participate, contribute and respond to their

firms’ position on social responsibility.

Thus, in a firm, perception of CSR indicates the personal evaluation and

interpretation of organizations’ CSR practices at the individual level, however,

actual CSR refers to the CSR practices by a business firm. Similarly, some scholars define that perception of CSR distinguished from external perspective

of CSR which includes organizational image, organizational reputation etc.,

which are evaluated by the community outside the organization (Brammer,

Millington & Rayton, 2007). Therefore, employees’ perception of CSR can be defined that it is actually employees’ own internal cognition about their

organization, this cognition of employees about organizational involvement in

CSR activities serves the reference point of evaluation of organization by the employees. Moreover, Breckler (1984) and Crites et al. (1994) suggested that

the development of employees’ attitudes and behaviours is suggested to derive

from such cognition process. In addition, De Roeck et al. (2014) also suggested

that employee’ perception of CSR not only include perception of external CSR but also consider that how the firm look after its employees as internal

stakeholders.

2.2.2 Importance of Employees’ Perceptions of CSR

Some researchers suggested that employees, as a key stakeholder’ of an

organization are interested to contribute, evaluate and to respond to their organization’ CSR programs (Rupp et al., 2006). In addition, Aguinis and

Glavas, (2012) also asserted that employees’ responses are primarily based on

employees’ perceptions of CSR activities. Similarly, Rupp et al. (2013) emphasized on importance of employees’ perceptions of CSR that “although

employees’ perceptions of CSR may have more direct and strong impact on

employees’ subsequent reactions that actual organization’ behaviours towards

CSR activities which the employees may or may not be aware” (p. 897). In the literature, most of the previous studies were conducted to focus how potential

employees view the prospective employers. Findings of these studies indicated

positive perceptions of corporations’ CSR programs which enhance employees’

attraction towards the corporation (Albinger & Freeman, 2000; Sen et al., 2006; Tsai et al., 2014). However, it can be possible that a firms’ CSR programs

may be considered completed on fulfillment of set objectives but same may

not be accepted by the employees. Ellis (2009) describe the same situation that employees may view the situation as a waste of resources and other

43

may consider these initiatives to match their personal values. Hence, in this

study, CSR is examined as a psychological and perceptual phenomenon and a subjective measure is used to gauge the employees’ perceptions of CSR rather

than actual organizational CSR programs.

Theories based on organizational behaviour have suggested that CSR perception of employees effect their attitudes and behaviours and those

employees measure their actions towards CSR program based on essential

ethical authority of “normative treatment” (Folger, Cropanzano & Goldman, 2005). Extending the normative treatment theory in the context of CSR suggests

that if an employee’ perception is developed that his organization does not

behave in socially responsible way (such as do not care the environment; believe

on victimization and unfair treatment) he will likely exhibit the perceive that his firm is practicing high order of social responsible programs both negative

attitude and behaviour at his workplace. On the other hand, if an employee

inside and outside the organization, he has likely demonstrated positive attitudes towards the organization and contribute more effectively towards his/her

organization (Rupp et al., 2006; Hansen et al., 2011). In addition, some

researchers also suggested that normally employees’ responses are based on

employees’ perception of CSR activities which may be inaccurate if the organization do not behave socially as it perceives by the employees (Aguinis

& Glavas, 2012; Glavas & Godwin, 2013). However, in an organization, CSR

activities towards employees might be offered in different ways such as

flexibility in workplace, reasonable financial rewards, career growth opportunities and fair treatment (Turker, 2009a). If employees perceived that

their organization is meeting their needs and engaged in activities for the welfare

of employees. It is more likely that the level organizational attachment or identification is developed among the employees towards their organization.

However, some scholars concluded that employees’ perception of CSR

which may be positive or negative can influence the employees’ attitudes and behaviours (Turban & Greening, 1997; Rupp et al., 2006). In addition,

Lefkowitz (2013) suggested that in the field of organizational psychology, there

is still need to consider and examine how CSR influence the employees’ attitudes and behaviours towards organization. Therefore, it has been

established and well known phenomenon that CSR can affect the employees’

relationships at their workplace (Glavas & Piderit, 2009). Hence, relatively a

fewer number of research studies contributes to the literature to focus on individual level CSR, empirical evidences with less than 4% of the CSR

literature investigated on employees as unit of analysis (Aguinis & Glavas,

2012). Therefore, this dearth of research in CSR literature warrants further examination of the impact of perceived CSR on employees’ attitudes and

behaviours through which they can assess how employees might expect to be

44

treated in their organization. Therefore, in this study, CSR as a psychological

and perceptual phenomenon has been considered to further examine its impact on employees’ attitudes and behaviours at their workplace.

2.3 ORGANIZATIONAL TRUST (OT)

Scholars and researchers recognized the construct of organizational trust as

an important factor for maintaining relationship on long term basis (Dwyer et al., 1987; Morgan & Hunt, 1994; Berry, 1995). In perspective of organizational

behaviour, organizational trust is acknowledged as employees’ readiness to face

the risk and become vulnerable to the actions of the organization because they

assume that the decisions of the organization will be made and implement in consideration of the interest of employees. Some scholars suggested that the

construct of organizational trust is the key factor to promote cooperation in

organization which contribute to enhance behavioural performance outcomes (Kramer, 1999; Dirks & Ferrin, 2001) In the literature, some empirical evidences

supported that the construction of organizational trust not only influences the

relationship outcomes (e.g. organizational commitment), but it also influences the

relationship process i.e. cognitive process (Moorman et al., 1992).

2.3.1 Definitions of Organizational Trust

Schoorman et al. (2007) describes that organizational trust means trust in

an organization which involves willingness of employees to be vulnerable to the

organizations’ policies or actions. Similarly, Mayer et al. (1995) defines that “trust as one’s willingness to be vulnerable to the actions of another party based

on the expectation that the other party will perform a particular action important

to the trustor irrespective of the ability to monitor or control that other party” (p.

712). Dhanesh (2014) also described that trust shows the level of confidence which the concerning parties have in each other and their readiness to expose

themselves. Bhattacharya et al. (1998) also presented a definition of trust and

stated that as the “expectancy of positive (or non-negative) outcomes that one can receive based on the expected action of another party in an interaction

characterized by uncertainty” (p. 462). The construct of trust can be defined that

it is trustee’s ability relates to the trustor’s confidence on the capabilities of the

trustee’s and know-how in a specific field which ensures that trustee will be able to get desired and expected outcomes. Trustee’s integrity normally corresponds

to the confidence of the trustor’s in trustee’s honesty, fairness, sincerity and

consistency. Similarly, Mayer et al. (1995) and Bhattacharya et al. (2009) described that trustee’s benevolence associated to confidence of the trustor’s

that the trustee’s actions are not influenced by self-centered or personal motives.

45

2.3.2 Development of Construct of Organizational Trust

The construct of trust has a long history and all-encompassing application

in the study of OB. In the literature, it appears that organizational trust is a useful variable which can act as a social glue in long-term relationships among

organizations and employees which establish employee’s long term connections

with their organization. Previous empirical evidences indicate that construct of organizational trust globally recognized variables (e.g. organizational

commitment, work engagement, and intention to leave) which ultimately impact

the performance of the organization (Tan & Tan, 2000; Chughtai & Buckley,

2007). However, three dimensions of concept of trust have been identified at across level and different scholars presented their viewpoints in this context.

Rousseau et al. (1998) stated that “trust in a firm at the individual level refers to a psychological state involving readiness to accept vulnerability based

on positive expectations of an organization, and trust in an organization at the

group or team level refers towards a shared emotional state among group or team

members involving readiness to accept vulnerability on the basis of positive hopes of a firm” (p. 395). The organizational level of trust in an organization

refers a common psychological state among the members of an organization

involving readiness to receive vulnerability on the basis of positive expectations

of a firm. In organizational context, the level of trust is normally revealed by capacity of an organization to establish and maintain strong relationships with

organization’s stakeholders which in turn enhance inter and intra-organizational

cooperation and performance (Colquitt et al., 2007). In this perspective, trust can be regarded as stakeholders’ (e.g. employees) readiness to place

himself/herself to be vulnerable to actions of the firm because it assumes on their

part that the firm will decide and act on considering their interests and well-

being. However, some scholars viewed and explained the association between satisfaction and trust that “satisfaction influences trust, and not otherwise”

(Garbarino & Johnson, 1999; Bloemer & Odekerken-Schröder, 2002; Santos &

Rossi, 2002; Chen & Dhillon, 2003; Baptista, 2005; Veiga et al., 2014b).

2.3.3 Importance of Organizational Trust

For long-term stability of the corporation and employees’ welfare, the

element of trust between organization and their employees is important. In

literature, some empirical evidences show that organizational trust also has influence on international job constructs such as work engagement,

organizational commitment and intention to leave which have considerable

46

impact on entire organization (Tan & Tan, 2000; Chughtai & Buckley, 2007).

Similarly, highlighting the importance of trust, Tan and Tan (2000) signify that trust is the factor which may strongly affects employees’ behaviour. Although,

trust in an organization refers individual’s expectations and confidence towards

the actions of their organizations. More specifically, it reveals to the trustor’s

evaluation credibility of the exchange party, which also consists of the trustee’s integrity, benevolence and capability (Morgan & Hunt, 1994; Mayer et al., 1995;

Bhattacharya et al., 2009).

Recognizing the importance of the construct of trust, some researchers

suggested that trust has been acknowledged as an important element for

maintaining a long-term and successful relationship (Dwyer et al., 1987;

Morgan & Hunt, 1994; Berry, 1995). Supporting this view point, Chughtai and Buckley (2007) asserted that in organizational perspective, if the employees’

have trust in their organization then the organization can take competent

decisions, which in future can affect the feelings of the employees which also positively affect their willingness for their work engagement. Owing of the

factor of the organizational trust, it assumes that organization will discharge its

responsibilities as per its promise. If the employees’ feel that their organization

is unable to deliver as per its promise then it damages the organizational trust, which may lead towards disengagement of employees (Robinson, 1996).

A study conducted by Dhanesh (2014) showed that ethical engagement of

employees in organizations help to stimulate the trust of employees in their organizations. More recently, findings of a study conducted by Lee et al. (2015)

indicated positive and significant relationship between CSR and quality of work

life including organizational trust. This finding further reveals that the quality of work life (includes organizational trust) improves if internal practices of CSR

improves. Some researchers have also indicated that in order to promote

cooperation within organization, organizational trust as an important element

makes possible to improve employees’ outcomes related to behaviour and performance (Kramer, 1999; Dirks & Ferrin, 2001). Findings of some empirical

studies also provide evidences that organizational trust has positively associated

with employees’ connections and sense of belongingness to their organization (Hansen et al., 2011; Roeck & Delobbe, 2012; Lee et al., 2012; Lee et al., 2013).

This shows that CSR practices of an organization may have influence on

employees’ attitudes (Farooq et al., 2014; Lee et al., 2015) which also includes

organization trust, therefore, the construct of organizational trust was included in the proposed framework of this study to examine trust as mediator to know

the potential impact of employees’ perception of CSR on employees’ workplace

outcomes.

47

2.4 JOB SATISFACTION (JS)

In the entire organizational literature, the construct of JS has become most

extensively and widely-studied concept (Gruneberg, 1979; Currivan, 1999),

because it relates to the health (physical and emotional) of the employees

(Oshagbemi, 1999). Supporting this view, Lee et al. (2008) also states that in research of organizational behaviour, job satisfaction is the most commonly

investigated construct. Since, for a long time, the concept of job satisfaction has

been the topic of research of organizational psychology and this variable depends on multiple aspects of relationships between the employee and

workplace. Viteles (1932) suggested that the concept of job satisfaction is

originated from the notion of morale and later it is analyzed from different

perspectives to explore its antecedents and consequences.

2.4.1 Definitions of Job Satisfaction

Initially, Hoppock (1935) defined the construct of job satisfaction that

“job satisfaction is the combination of physiological, environmental and

psychological circumstances which enable employee to be satisfied with his/her job” (p. 47). However, Locke (1976) presented a commonly used definition of

job satisfaction, he defines that “it is a pleasurable or positive emotional state

resulting from the appraisal of one’s job experiences, this experience of job

satisfaction includes all characteristics of the job and workplace environment” (p. 1300). In addition, Cranny et al. (1992) also define job satisfaction and

considered it as an overall affective response to the set of work and work-related

factors by a person and feeling of workers towards the working environment and various dimensions of the work.

48

2.4.2 Development of Construct of Job Satisfaction

Essentially, it was considered that the construct of job satisfaction is

complex and it is divided into two dimensions i.e. intrinsic and extrinsic. The

intrinsic job satisfaction relates to factors such as recognition, achievements,

work itself and professional obligations. On the other hand, extrinsic job satisfaction relates to external job associated factors such as firm polices, salary,

financial reward, relationship with colleagues and supervisor etc. In this context,

Shabbir et al. (2011) suggested that job satisfaction is highly dependent upon factors like, pay-benefits, relationship with co-workers and working conditions.

Similarly, Robbinson et al. (2004) also asserted that the construct of job

satisfaction is supported on the basis of three theories such as (a) situational

theories (b) process theories (c) content theories. Content theories refer that fulfilments of basic needs of the individuals provide satisfaction and motivation

which motivate the employees. Maslow’s “Hierarchy of Need Theory” and

“Two Factor Theory” by Herzberg are categorized as content theories. However, porter and Lawler’s model and expectancy theory was presented by Vroom

which is categorized as process theory. Finally, goal setting theory by Locke,

equity theory and the concept of management through objective by Drucker are

considered as situational theories.

Schmidt (2007) suggested that there are several instruments which were

developed by researchers to measure the job satisfaction level of individuals

including Minnesota job satisfaction questionnaire, index for job description, survey for job satisfaction. Additionally, in order to measure the job satisfaction

level, five factors of job satisfaction were presented by Smith et al. (1983) which

includes supervisor, pay, promotion, colleagues and the work. In support of the previous work, Spector (1997) introduced nine factors for job satisfaction

including pay, supervisor, promotion, allied benefits, working environment,

communication, fair rewards, nature of work and colleagues. Further explaining

the nine factors, he also suggested that these nine factors are different keeping in view of the importance while considering the overall job satisfaction.

2.4.3 Importance of Job Satisfaction

In organizational psychology, the construct of job satisfaction has been

debated since long, however, it has been explored and examined in some other perspectives such as organizational performance and employees’ behaviours at

workplace (Koh & Boo, 2001; Valentine & Fleischman, 2008). The underlying

principle is that the activities of an organization have direct impact on attitudes and behaviours of its members, which includes employees and

other stakeholders who may response on the basis of their perception and

49

evaluation of their organization. Employee being the key stakeholder of the

organization care about the fulfilment of social obligations by his/her organization (Rodrigo & Arenas, 2008) which may lead to an influence on their

job attitudes and behaviours. Similarly, De Roeck et al. (2014) highlighted a

positive relationship between perceptions of employees towards organizational

involvement in socially responsible activities and job satisfaction, which is viewed as a significant predictor of employees’ behaviours and their job

performance.

This variable depends upon various aspects of employees’ relationship of

the employee and work. In this context, Brief (1998) explaining the importance

of job satisfaction and stated that if the employee’ job is interesting, he is being

paid fairly, he has sufficient promotional opportunities. His colleagues are friendly and his supervisor is supportive then this situation leads him to assume

he is satisfied with his job. In addition, Rupp et al. (2006) highlighting the

importance of job satisfaction noted that CSR can frame employee’ perception of fair treatment which stimulates emotional, attitudinal and behavioural

responses of the employee’ in the interest of the organization. The underlying

principle is that CSR take care not only the interest of the shareholders but also

the stakeholders. If an employee is treated fairly at his/her workplace, he or she feels positive towards his/her job. Leigh et al. (1988) highlighted the importance

of job satisfaction by asserting that this is the sense of justice at workplace,

which improve attitudinal response of employees which lead employees towards

positive job attitudes.

Supporting this view point, Rupp et al. (2006) further suggested that

employees are likely to respond positively to a fair act by the firm even if they are not themselves the beneficiary of this act. This shows that firm’ actions

towards both employees and external stakeholders are likely have impacts on

employees’ attitudes at their workplace. Similarly, Bauman and Skitka (2012)

concluded that CSR practices of a firm benefits to the firm by providing employees’ satisfaction, it fulfils the four psychological requirements of the

employees: security, belongingness, self-esteem and a meaningful presence.

Therefore, the importance of job satisfaction inspires the researchers to explore the construct time and again to have a thorough understanding of the concept

and to further examine its impact in the field of organizational behaviour,

specifically on employees’ attitudes and behaviours.

50

2.5 ORGANIZATIONAL IDENTITFICATION (OI)

Some scholars are of the view that employees’ perception of CSR

generate psychological, attitudinal and behavioural reactions which are

beneficial to the organizations (Rupp et al., 2006). The debate and argument

whether the perceptions of CSR can influence employees’ attitudes and behaviours has been started since long. Ashforth and Mael (1989) suggested in

their study that if the employees identify themselves with their organization their

feelings and beliefs are likely positive about their firm. In addition, some argued that organizational identity is considered on the basis of such characteristics

which members perceive as essential (i.e. fundamental) and exclusively

descriptive (i.e. distinct) to the firm and which continue over the time in the firm

(i.e. permanent) (Albert & Whetten, 1985).

2.5.1 Definitions of Organizational Identification

Cheney and Tompkins (1987) described identification that “it is the

appropriation of identity, either (a) by the individual or collective in question or

(b) by others, it includes the development and maintenance of an individual's or group's 'sameness' or 'substance' against a backdrop of change and 'outside'

elements". Debating this argument, organizational identification or something

else, this is an active process through which individuals associate themselves to

components in a social scene and the element of identifications provide support to make sense in the world and considerations which facilitating to make

decisions (Cheney, 1983). More specifically, some scholars identified the OI as

asset of a collective and to address the question ‘‘who are we as an organization?’’ the organizational identity has been considered as a construct of

organizational level (Ashforth & Mael, 1996; Gioia et al., 2013).

2.5.2 Development of the Construct of Organizational Identification

The construct of organizational identification is derived from the concept of social identity and theory of self-esteem presented by Tajfel and Turner

(1979) and Turner et al. (1987). The basic assumption is that people are inclined

to categorize themselves in terms of the groups, class, and organizations from

which they are attached or associated. In result of social categorization or identification, sense of psychological attachment develops with the organization

which can be an important factor and predictor to stimulate their behaviour

(Ellemers, 2001; Ellemers et al., 2004). Further debating, Ashforth and Mael (1989) suggested that although till the late 1980s, researchers did not have clear

understanding about organizational identification and mixed up this variable

51

with other relevant subjects (e.g. organizational commitment). For example,

Foote (1951) suggested that OI “is as the appropriation of and commitment to a particular identity or series of identities” (p. 17). He further noted that for

motivation of employees, identification was considered as the basic factor. He

advocated that only identified employees with their firm would feel motivated

and for the sake of improvement of their performance, they are ready to act on behalf of the firm. In order to establish differences between the organizational

commitment and organizational identification, empirical research studies have

been carried out to evaluate these two constructs. Some researchers including Bergami and Bagozzi (2000), Cheney (1983), Fuller et al. (2003), Gautam et al.

(2004), found that these constructs are correlated, whereas these constructs have

been well-defined distinctively. Contrarily, some scholars are of the views that

organizational identification comes first rather than organizational commitment, although others have proposed divergently. For example, some suggest that only

employee who identifies with the firm he/she is also committed to this firm.

More actively, some researchers accepted the challenge to re-conceptualize the variable and briefed that theoretically social identity theory which could

certainly re-establish the reliability of this construct and its application in the

domain of OB (Ashforth & Mael,1989).

During last two decades, the concept of organizational identity (OI) and

its related concept i.e organizational identification (OID) have become most

important notions from theoretical perspective. Both the concepts,

organizational identity (OI) and organizational identification (OID) have attained a central position in all such efforts which are made to understand firms

and their relations with the environment. In recent times, studies on different

issues such as climate change, global warming, economic crises, public savings, have frequently associated with the concepts of OI and OID which made both

the constructs key issues for the philosophers to theorize the concepts more

distinctively. The concept of organizational identification (OID) refers “the

mainstream conceptualization of this notion from social identity perspective” (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Haslam, 2004). In this context, Tajfel, (1978)

suggested that “an individual’s social identity refers to his/her knowledge of his

membership of a social group (or groups) together with the value and emotional significance attached to that membership” (p. 63). Although, remarkable

theoretical and empirical advancement is taken place with regards to

organizational identity and organizational identification but still there is

substantial potential for future developments.

2.5.3 Importance of Organizational Identification

52

The construct of organizational identification (OI) is growing importance

as an area of research for scholars and an important topic for managers (Corley, et. al., 2006; Brown, 2006; Cheney, 1991). In literature, OI has an important

place because researchers have found that levels of identification of employees

have influence on effectiveness of an organization (Ashforth & Mael, 1989).

This construct is recognized as an important factor to understand decision-making (Riantoputra, 2010), strategic change (Ravasi & Phillips, 2011),

communication (Fombrun, 1996), internal conflicts (Humphreys & Brown,

2002), issues related to explanation and reaction (Dutton & Dukerich, 1991; Gioia & Thomas, 1996), and matters which are essential to theorize of the issues

related to legitimacy (Sillince & Brown, 2009; He & Baruch, 2010). However,

Albert, Ashforth, and Dutton (2000) suggested that “eventually, this consensus

is growing that identity is challenging- and has become critical that’ why the dynamics of identity need to be truly understood” (p. 14).

Similarly, some scholars suggest that HR practices should be utilized by

the organization which may lead to employees towards identification because

they would be committed to their work only through identification (Mir, Mir, &

Mosca, 2002). Supporting this point of view, Fuller et al. (2006) described that “HR practices such as recognition of work, opportunities for training &

development, involvement in decision making process and contribution in

problem solving, and reward for performance are best predictors of perceptions of internal status and organizational identification”. Above reviewed literature

provides the basis to build the present study and it proposes that employees may

show psychological attachment at different levels with their firm. Employees’

level of psychological attachment is categorized by level of identification. Employees are considered as identified with the corporation when they consider

that their beliefs and objectives are similar with the corporation (Kelman, 1958;

O ‘Reilly & Chatman, 1986; Angle & Perry, 1981). Among employees and organizations an emotional bond develops whom they identify with. As the

employee internalizes the organizational objective and belief, this bond becomes

stronger and he/she considers himself/herself in the position of the organization.

Thus, if the organization encourages and provides cooperative and

supportive working environment to its employees, then employees are more likely respond in the same manner and feel attachment with the organization.

Supporting this argument, Dutton et al., (1994) suggest that if a firm engages in

CSR related activities, employees of that firm are identified with the firm, and

they are likely to believe that their firm contributes toward social well-being. However, findings of some previous studies indicated that organizational CSR

activities have significant positive influence employees’ performance (Hickman

et al., 2005). Social identity theory provides theoretical support to this premise and suggest that individuals tend to categorize themselves in different groups

53

such as gender, politics, religious attachments and sports team (Tajfel & Turner,

1985). Ashforth and Mael (1989) claimed that “organizational identification is a specific category of social identity where the individuals categorize

themselves in terms of their membership in a specific group or organization”

(p.105). In addition, the academicians and managers also accepted their

framework which they developed for OI. In this context, Ashforth and Mael could able to clarify the applicability of this construct and offer a precise

definition by using social identity theory as a foundation for organizational

identification. In a research study, Farooq et al. (2014) suggested that CSR is a strong predictor of employees’ attitudes in terms of organizational

identification.

2.6 ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT (OC)

The construct of organizational commitment has become the emerging area for researchers since last two decades, it does not only relate to the

individuals’ performance, it also has impact on organizational performance

(Allen & Meyer, 1996; Mowday, 1998; Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001). Although,

it is a multidimensional construct and each of its dimensions has its different antecedents and consequences (Meyer & Allen, 1997). Supporting this view

point, they described that if an employee is committed with his organization, he

(a) has a firm belief in the goals and objectives of the organization (b) has a

strong desire to attach and keep continue relationship with the organization (c) willingness to make great contribution to the organization. Primarily,

organizational commitment is an attitudinal construct which indicates the

psychological attachment of employees to an organization (Meyer & Allen, 1997).

2.6.1 Definitions of Organizational Commitment

Porter et al. (1974) suggested that “organizational commitment is the

strength of an individual’s identification and involvement in a particular organization” (p. 604). In particular, three basic elements included in the

definition of organizational commitment i.e. (a) willingness to work for the firm

(b) bearing in mind the firm’ objectives important (c) willingness to work with

the firm (Allen & Meyer, 1990; Chen et al., 2002; Uygur, 2004). The model presented by Meyer and Allen (1991) assumed a multi-dimensional

approach and incorporated attitudinal and behavioural approach to define and

explain organizational commitment. This model proposed three different dimensions of OC (i.e. affective commitment, normative commitment and

continuance commitment), which so far generally considered as the best

54

model (Vandenberghe & Tremblay, 2008). All these three dimensions of

organizational commitment are viewed by Allen and Meyer (1990) as diverse psychological mechanisms and each category can be experienced by different

degrees. Snape et al. (2000) describe that organizational commitment denotes

three different levels named “affective, normative and continuance

commitment”. Employees’ commitment towards organization is the focus in the current study.

2.6.2 Development of Construct of Organizational Commitment

Since its origin in 1960, organizational commitment has been most

focused topic of the researchers as compare to other two categories of commitment. The construct of organizational commitment is normally

considered a psychological and emotional relationship between individual and

the firm due to which employee may not likely to leave the organization voluntarily. Similarly, Porter et al. (1974) categorized that “OC as psychological

state of mind and called it ‘affective dependence’ model rather an economic

construct”. They further explained that “the committed employee: (a) has firm

belief to accept the required organizational values and outcomes, (b) enthusiastic to exert effort to achieve these goals and (c) readiness to be associated with the

organization” (p. 604). In addition, Porter and his associates also able to develop

the questionnaire to measure the commitment. More specifically, findings of

early studies indicated that this construct is often conflicting, and extensively viewed uni-dimensional as work attitude as noted by O’Reilly & Chatman

(1986), Mayer & Schoorman (1992), Becker (1992) and Morrow (1993).

In addition, Meyer and Herscovitch (2001) have re-defined the construct

of organizational commitment “as a force that binds an individual to a course

of action that is of relevance to a particular target” (p. 301). Three-dimensional

model of organizational commitment which was presented by Allen and Meyer (1990) is frequently used to conceptualize the construct in academia and

business (Jaros, 2007; Macey & Schneider, 2008). According to this model,

affective commitment is “an employee’s connection through an emotional bond, linkage to and engagement with the organization”. However, normative

commitment is defined as “an employee’s sense of indebtedness towards the

relevant organization; accordingly, employees may feel obligated to stay at

their organization”. The third dimension is continuance commitment discusses the “employee’s observations of the benefits and advantages that

may be lost when one leaves the relevant organization” (Allen & Meyer,

1990, p. 21). Although, consistent efforts have been made by the researchers to refine the measurement of the construct and consequently some

conceptual changes have occurred in the study of organizational commitment.

55

For instance, (Allen & Meyer, 1990) presented a conceptual and measurement

work which has resulted in a three-dimensional model of commitment.

2.6.3 Importance of Organizational Commitment

During last few decades, the concept of organizational commitment has

become an important topic for researchers and managers, it has been placed in

central position in the study of work attitudes and behaviours (e.g. Meyer & Allen, 1991; Morrow, 1993). The importance of this construct is reflected from

the established association with two important variables in the field of

vocational behaviour i.e. turn over intentions and actual turnover. However,

some empirical evidences reveal that commitment is linked with other forms of work and non-work behaviours (e.g. Meyer et al., 1989; Wahn, 1993; Hackett,

Bycio & Hausdorf, 1994). Organizations which are perceived as socially

responsible citizen, provide resources to enhance employees’ self-concept. Employees who are benefited from the enhancement of self-concept are more

likely to develop greater organizational commitment.

Thus, it appears that employees’ perception of CSR and organizational commitment might be positively associated. Maignan and Ferrell (2000)

described that perceived CSR includes all such activities which are undertaken

to ensure the compliance of rules and regulations, reducing pollution and waste,

fair treatment with employees and other stakeholders and their engagement in community development. This line of argument suggests that if an organization

engage in CSR activities and it performs well, employees will feel pride on their

organization and will like to identify with the organization. This favorable attitude of employees will lead them positive job attitudes towards their

organization. Previous research evidences also reflect that organizational

commitment is higher in organizations that are ethical in their practices

(Eisenberger, Fasolo & Davis, 1990). Previous empirical evidences also contributed towards CSR and organizational commitment such as “the

contribution of CSR to organizational commitment is at least as great as job

satisfaction, corporate social responsibility is positively correlated with organizational commitment” (Brammer et al., 2007 p. 1701). The scholars and

researchers suggested that organizations make sure that the key stakeholder i.e

employees remain motivated and committed for corporate efficiency and

effectiveness (Tse, 2011). Moreover, findings of some studies indicate that employees who are involved in CSR strategies with the organization on their

workplace are found more satisfied, committed and remain attached with their

organizations (Viswesvaran et al., 2004; Aguilera et al., 2007).

56

However, previous research evidences indicated that normative

commitment may have some limitations in certain conditions and may not be effective as the dimension of affective commitment or continuance commitment

(e.g. blood donation) particularly in situations where business relationship are

involved (Fu et al., 2009; Tett & Meyer, 1993). Therefore, the use of two

dimensions of organizational commitment is theoretically appropriate for this study i.e. affective commitment and continuance commitment. This study

focuses to examine the employees’ level of organizational commitment which

may be effected by the CSR activities of the organization, which develop the employees’ perception towards CSR activities of the organization. Some

researchers argued that employees’ perceptions of CSR drive through the

process of organizational identification, which in turn enhance the levels of

organizational commitment (Kim et al., 2010). This value alignment between employees and their organization may lead towards affective commitment and

continuance commitment bond which in response leads towards attitudinal and

behavioural outcomes at their workplace. Therefore, it is most likely that employee’ attitude is positively influenced by employee perception of CSR. If

the organizations address the social issues, employees may likely to identify

with their organizations and their level of commitment towards the

organizations may also be enhanced.

2.7 EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT (EE)

William A. Kahn in 1990s first defined the term of “employee

engagement”. Kahn (1990) characterized and linked engagement with the role

being performed by the individual which shows the extent of psychological presence of an employee in a particular organizational role. Therefore, there are

two main roles of an employee being the member of an organization i.e. work

role of an employee and employee’ role as a member of an organization. He

defines that job engagement and organization engagement are different, moreover their scores are different and their relationship with their antecedent

and consequences are also distinctive. Similarly, some researchers argued that

employee engagement (EE) is involvement of employees with commitment, satisfaction in their work (Harter, Schmidt & Hayes, 2002). Moreover,

Robinson et al. (2004) defined that EE is a positive attitude of employees about

the firm and its value, goals and environment. In view of the importance of

employee engagement, several empirical studies grounded on interviewing and surveying by managers and employees across the world.

2.7.1 Definitions of Employee Engagement

57

In the literature, there is no commonly accepted definition of employees’

engagement available. Instead of academics, most of the literature on employee engagement comes from researcher and consultants (Sridevi & Markos, 2010).

In academic literature, engagement first defined by Kahn (1990), he states that

“personal engagement as the simultaneous employment and expression of a

person’s ‘preferred self’ in task behaviours that promote connections with work and with others, personal presence, and active full role performances” (p. 700).

Afterward some other scholars have also contributed to further clarify the

definition of employee engagement including Maslach et al. (2001), Harter et al. (2003), Saks (2006), and Czarnowsky (2008). Bakker et al., (2008) provided

a preferred definition of work engagement they state that it can be defined as a

positive fulfilment, effective motivational situation and work related well-being.

2.7.2 Development of Construct of Employee Engagement

In last 20 years, the notion of employee engagement has gained

considerable popularity however, inconsistent efforts made to define and little

rigorous academic research carried out (Shuck & Wollard, 2010). Gallup Group

first time introduced the employee engagement concept as cited by Dernovsek (2008), it is positive and emotional employees’ attachment and commitment

with the firm. Some scholars viewed that the construct of employee engagement

seems similar to other well defined constructs in literature such as

“organizational citizenship behaviours” and “organizational commitment” (Robinson, 2004; Kular et al., 2008). However, Robinson viewed that employee

engagement as “one steps up from commitment”. However, Rafferty, et al.,

(2005) made distinction in employee engagement from organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behaviours on the basis that

employee engagement is a reciprocal process which requires two-way

determination between employees and organizations (Sridevi & Markos, 2010).

Robinson asserted that “employee engagement involves some other elements of commitment and OCB but engagement has no match with either”. Moreover,

two features of engagement neither explained by commitment nor OCB, it has

two ways process or degree to which it is supposed to have business awareness in engaged employees (Kular et al., 2008).

Employee engagement is relatively a recent concept and two dimensions

of employee engagement have been characterized i.e. work engagement and organizational engagement. In this context, Saks (2006) differentiate between

these two dimensions of employee engagement. Mone and London (2010)

asserted that EE is a state of employee in which he feels complete involvement, commitment, passion with authority to exhibit these feelings in his behaviour at

workplace. Apart from theoretical backdrop, development and definition of the

58

construct of employee engagement, there are several studies which determined

the directions of development of the construct of employee engagement. Understanding the recent developments and characteristics which determined

employee engagement facilitated the researchers and managers for the better

understanding of the significance of the impact of CSR on employee

engagement.

2.7.3 Importance of Employee Engagement

As a good business practice, organizations are realizing the importance of

the employee engagement; to achieve the high level of employee engagement

organizations are pushing the employees. In the recent years, researchers and managers have paid their great deal of attention on employee engagement. Some

suggests that employee outcomes, organization success and financial

performance are predicted by employee engagement (Bates, 2004; Richman, 2006; Kaur, 2016). Therefore, organizations are making investments to maintain

and stimulate level of employee engagement, this is the main factor that a

number of research studies started to explore and analyze the different

characteristics of this construct. This resulted involvement of wide ranging features in terms of employee engagement: the recent development of employee

engagement; among general workforce, the percentage of engaged and

disengaged employees in a certain organization; the benefits of high level of

engagement of employee and disadvantages of low level of engagement of employee; application of best practices for enhancement of the level of

engagement of employee; methods for measuring the level of employee

engagement (Kular et al., 2008).

Most significantly, different studies have been conducted to recognize the

top drivers for employee engagement such as a study conducted by Melcrum

(2008) which indicates that 81% of the companies have included the employee engagement on their agenda, whereas 54% firms have added as their philosophy

and incorporated in overall HR practices. An article published in Right

Management (2009) having title: “Employee Engagement: Maximizing Organizational Performance” which pointed out that level of employee

engagement varies from country to country. Findings of some of previous

studies indicated that organizational engagement in CSR programs contribute

an important role to increase employee level of engagement at their workplace (Ferreira & Oliveira, 2014; Zientara et al., 2015). In this context, Saks (2006)

suggested that employee engagement is one way for employee to respond to the

support of his organization through his engagement in work. If employees perceive that their firm is committed and involved in activities of social

59

responsibility, employees may respond high level of feeling of engagement to

their firm.

2.8 ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOUR (OCB)

In the field of OBs, the topic of citizenship behaviour has been able to

draw attention of researchers since its origin. In recent times, it has emerged as

an important area of research in the field of OB. Some researchers are of the view that work performance is an outcome of employees’ in role and extra role

behaviours. Organ (1997) defined that organizational citizenship is the

behaviour of individuals which they demonstrate beyond their normal duties.

2.8.1 Definitions of Organizational Citizenship Behaviour

In the past decades, OCB as an extra role behaviour has received much

attention and this construct has been explored extensively. Organizational

Citizenship Behaviour (OCB) contributes to the performance of an organization,

these are extra-role behaviours of employees not in-role behaviours. Cha, Chang and Kim, (2013) defined OCB as the voluntary activity by an employee to

improve the performance, functioning and quality of settings of workplace. In

addition, OCB is also defined by Organ (1988) “as individual behaviour that is

discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization”

(p. 4). Some other scholars have also conceptualized and defined OCB as an

initiative started by an employee beyond his/her assigned job description which inspire for further success of their organization (Moorman, 1993; Van Dyne,

Cummings & Parks, 1995; Chen, Hui & Sego, 1998).

2.8.2 Development of Construct of Organizational Citizenship Behaviour

Katz (1964) asserted that in 1960s distinction was started between these two types of work performances. However, difference between in role and extra

role behaviours was not fully reflected in research studies in the past. Hence,

both the managers and the employees are confused with the concept of extra-

role behaviour and in-role behaviour. MacKenzie et al. (1998) argued that in previous studies both types of behaviours are intertwined and interrelated. Some

scholars argued that the boundary between both the extra-role and in-role

behaviours is not so much clear and it varies with respect to organizations, situations and cultures (Blakely, Blakely & Moorman, 1995; Paine & Organ,

2000). In addition, some researchers define that the out role or extra role

60

behaviour is an individual’ discretionary behaviour which is considered beyond

formal reward system and it promotes effectiveness of organization (Bateman & Organs, 1983; Van Dyne et al., 1994). It refers to employees’ undertaking of

unassigned activities out of needed task and symbolizes a sublet affiliation

between employee and the organization.

Researchers are agreed that OCB is a multi-dimensional construct, as

Williams and Anderson’s (1991) presents two-dimensions of the construct.

However, Organ (1988) presents that OCB denotes discretionary behaviour of employee which directly or indirectly is not accepted by the prescribed or formal

reward system, and collectively these behaviours encourage the effective

working of the organization. In addition, Organ (1988) briefly discussed the

construct of OCB and presented five dimensions of this construct, i.e. altruism, conscientiousness, sportsmanship, courtesy, and civic virtue which are

deliberated as: (a) Altruism is primarily corresponding with “employees’

discretionary behaviors that have an effect helping another specific person with an organizationally relevant task or a problem”

(b) Conscientiousness is mainly related to “discretionary behaviors on the part

of the employee that go well beyond the minimum role requirements of the

organization in the areas of attendance, obeying rules and regulations, taking breaks, and so on”. (c) Sportsmanship is corresponding to “willingness of the

employees to tolerate less-than-ideal circumstances without complaining to

avoid grumbling about petty grievances and railing against real or imagined

slights”. (d) Courtesy refers to “discretionary behavior on the part of an individual aimed at preventing work-related problems with others from

occurring”. (e) Civic virtue denotes that “behavior on the part of an individual

indicating that she or he responsibly participates in, is involved in, or is concerned about the life of the company” (p. 4).

Organ and Konovsky (1989) argued that OCB relates to the employees’

cognitive approach, if employees thought that equal and fair treatment is provided by their organization then level of OCB will enhance. This proves that

the construct of OCB is based on cognition, premediated and controlled

behaviour, which shows that the concept of OCB is relates to social exchange theory (Lee & Allen, 2002). After few years, Williams and Anderson (1991)

presented three dimensions of the construct of OCB i.e. In Role Behaviour (IRB,

Organizational Citizenship Behaviour related to Individuals (OCB-I) and

Organizational Citizenship Behaviour related to Organization (OCB-O), which may be explained as detailed below:

1. In Role Behaviour (IRB) denotes employees’ responsibilities towards his/her organization which demands fulfillment of rules &

61

regulations of the organization, accomplishment of assigned tasks

within given time frame and observing punctuality at workplace.

2. Organizational citizenship behaviour related to individuals (OCB-

I) addresses the behaviour which specifically relate to individuals

such as helping behaviour with other colleagues for accomplishment of their assignment or performing duties on behalf

of the absent employee. These individual behaviours are beneficial

to the organizations.

3. Organizational citizenship behaviour related to organization

(OCB-O) includes all such behaviours which are beneficial to the

organization such as to provide useful information to manager for the accomplishment of organizational objectives.

Followed by Williams and Anderson (1991), Organ (1997) also converted his five-dimensional model of OCB into two dimensions i.e. altruism and

courtesy are organizational citizenship behaviours related to individuals OCB-I

whereas civil virtue, conscientiousness and sportsmanship are organizational

citizenship behaviours related to organizations OCB-O. He did not consider In-role behaviours as OCB and excluded from the dimensions of organizational

citizenship behaviours (OCB) by considering that OCB are individuals’ extra

role behaviours rather in role behaviours. Literature pertaining to OCB indicates

that no uniformity or agreement exists about the dimensions of OCB. All types of OCB are derived from the model which was presented by Katz (1964), which

states five dimensions of OCB i.e. (i) self-training (ii) cooperation and with

others colleagues (iii) productive and constructive planning or ideas (iv) positive attitude towards organization and (v) defending attitude towards organization.

2.8.3 Importance of Organizational Citizenship Behaviour

In traditional economic perspective, in role behaviour is not a new topic,

it only emphasizes the achievements of organizational objectives. However, it has gained considerable attention of researchers to examine this construct

because of its relationship with extra-role behaviour. Morrison (1994) suggested

that the incentive to involve in-role behaviour is much better than that of extra-

role behaviour. The reason of motivation to employees for in role behaviour is higher than for extra-role behaviour because the in-role behaviour directly

relates to formal evaluation and reward system of employees. In the

organizational literature, employees’ perception of the work environment has drawn much attention of the researchers and the managers. Moorman (1991)

suggested that it is psychological explanation of organizational activities which

62

is considered as a predictor of performance of employee such as organizational

citizenship behaviour (OCB).

However, correlation between employees’ perception of CSR and

employees’ behavioural outcomes need to examine extensively. In this context,

Parker et al. (2003) suggested that individuals’ perceptions may have significant impact on individuals’ behaviours. Likewise, employees’ perceptions of CSR

are assumed to predict individual level outcomes such as work attitudes,

behaviours and work performance (organizational commitment, employee engagement, organizational citizenship behaviour). In addition, Hansen et al.

(2011) reported some benefits of employees’ related CSR policies among

corporations which also include enhanced organizational citizenship behaviour.

Moorman (1991) describes that if an employee has positive perception about an organization’s socially responsible activities, he may consider this organization

to be ethical and he may reciprocate by performing OCB.

In recent past, researchers have started to pay attention to investigate that

how perceived CSR influence employees’ outcomes at workplace. Some

empirical studies have also provided sufficient evidences which show

association between OCB and job satisfaction (Netemeyer et al., 1997; Alotaibi 2001; Gonzalez & Garazo, 2006). In this context, it is argued that perceived

CSR is likely to affect beyond individual’s attitudes (Wood, 1991). More

specifically, perception of CSR encourages behaviours to achieve the

organizational objective and goals, such encouraging behaviour which might be a formal role behaviour like job performance or informal role behaviour like

OCB.

2.9 DEVELOPMENT OF HYPOTHESES

The following section contains the details of hypotheses development of all the variables of interest of this study. In addition to, a comprehensive

examination of relationship between the perceived CSR as an independent

variable, other dependent and mediating variables are also presented.

2.9.1 Relationship between Employees’ Perception of CSR

and Organizational Trust

Stakeholders' trust is considered as one of the critical sources of an

organizational sustainability (Mostovicz, Kakabadse & Kakabadse, 2011). Stakeholder trust on those organizations to whom they perceive as fully

responsible regarding their actions (Gray et al., 1996). A firm's involvement in

63

CSR related activities reveal its sense of responsibility (Brown & Dacin, 1997).

For instance, following ethical standards by the organization while developing decision making strategies, build stakeholders’ trust (Hosmer, 1994) as they

believe it as a social performance of this organization. Continuing the debate,

Pivato et al. (2008) asserted that, firm's social performance consequent

stakeholders' trust and this considerably effect on stakeholders' work related outcomes in a positive manner (Osterhus, 1997). Organizations' involvement in

CSR activities is considered as their sense of responsibility to improve the

welfare and to protect the society.

Enhancing the understanding between organizational involvement in

CSR related activities and employees’ trust, Lee et al. (2012) simplified that

CSR positively impacts the employees’ perceptions and its economic and philanthropic dimensions enhances their level of trust on their organization.

Conversely, organization's involvement in internal CSR activities (i.e. related to

employees) not only promote a sense of being cared by their organization among employees, but also expectations of being treated the same in future (Robinson,

1996). Lee et al. (2013) argues that when employees of an organization perceive

that their organization is responsible towards others (i.e. society and

employees); they build trust in their organizations. In addition, Lee et al. (2012) also emphasized to examine the association between CSR and organizational

trust because CSR activities are important for achieving relationship

commitment between employee and organization. Based on above explained

arguments and followed by the research direction, this study proposes to examine the impact of employees’ perception of CSR activities on employees’

attitudes and behaviours in context of organizational trust. These arguments can

further be explained with the theoretical support of social exchange theory of Blau (1964) which explains that trust among parties is a basic factor for social

exchange of relations (Molm et al., 2000). Therefore, this study hypothesized

that:

H1: Employees’ perception of CSR activities of their organization is

positively associated to their Organizational Trust (OT).

64

Mediating role of organizational trust between the relationship of

employees’ perception of CSR and organizational commitment

Dirks and Ferrin (2001) described the characteristic of trust and suggested

that organizational trust is a readiness of employees to become at risk to the

actions of the organization. Rupp et al. (2006) supported this view by suggesting that organizational CSR activities transmitted important signals to its employees

towards the organizational ethical and social values and the level to which it can

be trusted. Comparably, some researchers also indicate that trust has indirect significant influence in relationship between employees and organizations

(Moorman et al., 1992). Whitener (2001) describes a similar situation by debating

on the context that how employee reciprocates organizational action by offering

commitment to their firm which results in mutual commitment between employee and organization. More specifically, trust has been widely investigated construct

and based on previous empirical evidences, it found a key mediator of other

antecedent-employee level outcome relationships including organizational citizenship behaviour (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002; Colquitt et al., 2007).

Considering the importance of trust, a number of empirical evidences

reflect positive influence of trust on different indicators of motivation of employees including organizational commitment (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002; Wat &

Shaffer, 2005). Recently, Vanhala et al. (2016) conducted a study reporting that

organizational trust mediates between employees’ perceptions of CSR and

employees’ attitudes and behaviours. These relationships are better studied by considering social exchange theory which suggests that trust might provide a

basic mechanism through which CSR initiatives of an organization affect

employees’ attitudes and behaviours including organizational commitment. Blau (1964) noted that establishing of exchange relationships among the parties

involving investments which constitutes commitment on the part of other party to

reciprocate. He further noted that this results in “a focal exchange by partner’s

(i.e. organization) fair treatment of the other initiates a social exchange relationship with that partner (i.e. employee)”.

Continuing the debate, there is a need to empirically investigate and analyze the frameworks, mechanisms and the psychological processes which

may provide guidance to employees about their attitudinal responses towards

CSR (Bhattacharya et al. 2009; Jones, 2010). Similarly, Lee et al., (2013)

suggesting to explore the role of CSR activities in forming the employees’ attitudes and behaviours with other variables including organizational

commitment (OC) and organizational citizenship behaviours (OCB) and these

may be considered for further examine in future studies. Similarly, Vanhala et al. (2016) suggested that further studies might be carried out to investigate the

constructs of organizational trust and organizational commitment in diverse

65

cultural perspective as the issues associated with the construct of trust may differ

significantly from country to country. Therefore, on the basis of above explained arguments and following the research directions of different researchers, this

study argues that there is need to further examine the potential mediating

mechanism by investigating the construct of organizational trust as a mediator

between perceived CSR and organizational commitment as faculty members’ outcome in the context of Pakistan. The social exchange theory provides

theoretical explanation for the predicted relationship between perception of CSR

and employees level of organizational commitment. Thus, following is hypothesized:

H2: Organizational Trust mediates the positive relationship between

employees’ perception of CSR and Organizational Commitment (OC).

Mediating role of trust between the relationship of employees’ perception

of CSR and employee engagement (EE)

Literature showed that the investigation of trust explains why some

employees effectively complete their tasks and perform beyond their call of duty

without any reward or financial incentive. As suggested by Ellis et al. (1999) that trust is related to profit, innovation, organizational survival and a number

of important employees’ perceptions and behaviours. Explaining further,

Schaufeli & Bakker (2010) describes that this behaviour of employees is close

to the concept of ‘employees going the extra-mile’ which is a specific feature of engaged employees, which logically concludes that trust and engagement are

related concepts. Some researchers explained the reason that why employees are

ready to perform jobs above and beyond their call of duty. Bakker & Demerouti (2007) and Mauno et al., (2010) described the reason that organizational support

and work environment are positively associated with employee engagement,

which might encourage the employees to show positive attitudes and

behaviours. Considering the importance of the construct of organizational trust, it has been studied with other constructs including job satisfaction, employee

engagement and organizational citizenship behaviour. For instance, Mayer et al.

(1995) and Griffith & Lusch (2007) highlighted the role and importance of organizational trust as a mediator between the organizational CSR related

activities and employees’ outcomes (e.g. employee engagement). Since

engagement behaviour by the employee with work is considered as a

relationship which evolves over a period of time on the basis of trust and mutual commitments (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). This shows that treatment of

organization sends implied signals and indications to employees about the level

to which they are valued, and ultimately determines their levels of trust (Alfes et al., 2013). Some other researchers also supported this argument by indicating

that employees’ CSR perceptions can predict employees’ engagement (Rupp

66

et al., 2006; Glavas & Piderit, 2009; Caligiuri et al., 2013; Rupp et al., 2013a)

and organizational citizenship behaviour (Jones, 2010; Lin 2010; Rupp et al., 2013b; Cha et al., 2013).

Theoretically, social exchange theory can be well explained the

relationship between employees’ perceptions of CSR and employee engagement. This theory is premised on the principle that social perspective of

the firm including the employee’ perceptions of CSR forms the relationship

which exists between employees and the organization. The element of trust is considered essential to maintain social exchange relationship between the

parties because trust creates sense of responsibility within employees to respond

the firm and employees can do this by exhibiting more engaged in their work.

Blau (1964) suggested that employees likely to reciprocate the organizational actions in a manner they perceive it to be fair. In this context, Ferreira & Oliveira

(2014) emphasized the need for further attention to investigate the construct of

employee engagement. In addition, Vanhala et al. (2016) noted that there is need to investigate the new notions including work engagement as a consequent of

trust. Based on above explained arguments and followed by the research

direction of various researchers, this study contends that perceived CSR may

have positive impact on employee engagement and trust mediates this relationship. Therefore, following is hypothesized:

H3: Organizational trust mediates the positive relationship between

employees’ perception of CSR and Employee Engagement (EE).

Mediating role of trust between the relationship of employees’ perception

of CSR and organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB)

Although, the construct of organizational trust has repeatedly been

examined showing positive correlation with employees’ organizational

citizenship behaviours (Dirks & Ferrin, 2001). More specifically, during recent years, researchers have focused to start examining how employees’ perceptions

of CSR influence their attitudes and behaviours such as organizational identity,

organizational commitment, extra role behaviours and employee engagement (Islam et al., 2016; Azim et al., 2016). In this context, explaining the relationship

between CSR and organizational trust, Balmer et al. (2007) suggested that

“organizational engagement in CSR related activities perform as ‘trustees’ in

the benefits of all stakeholders including employees” (p. 10). In addition, supporting this point of view, Pivato et al. (2008) also suggested that “trust is

the immediate or closest outcome of CSR activity such as attitude, behaviours,

however, the financial performance is more proximal CSR outcomes” (p. 3). More specifically, OB theories suggest that employees’ trust is a direct result of

organizational CSR perceptions which may form employee attitudes and

67

behaviours. In addition, some researchers concluded that organizational trust is

an important mediator between the antecedents and employee’ level outcomes (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002; Colquitt et al., 2007; Farooq et al., 2014). Employees,

when assumed of equal and fair treatment from their organization they might

show exchange relationship with their organization depicting more OCB.

Literature reveals some empirical evidences indicating a significant role of

trust and its impact on employees’ outcomes such as organizational citizenship

behaviours (Mayer & Gavin, 2005; Walumbwa et al., 2011). In this context, Hansen et al., (2011) suggested that if employees perceive about their

organization to be more socially responsible they are likely to engage in OCB,

and this relationship partially mediates by trust. Recently, Islam et al. (2016)

conducted a research in hotel industry of Malaysia using 486 employees’ data and positive relationship was found between CSR and OCB. In addition, Azim (2016)

conducted a research study in banking sector of Saudi Arabia using data of 266

employees depicting positive influence of CSR on OCB. The relationship between perception of CSR and employees’ attitude and behaviour including

OCB can be explained using social identity theory (Peterson, 2004; Brammer et

al., 2007; Turker, 2009). This theory suggests that employees develop self-

concept and through identification of themselves within a group in comparison with the other groups (Peterson, 2004). Moreover, Turker (2009) describes that

employees always prefer to have positive social identity in order to distinguish

themselves from other and firm is one of the social categories where employees

share their success and failures and exhibit their emotions. In particular, theoretically social identity theory can well explain the relationship between

perceived CSR and organizational citizenship behaviour. Previously, Hansen et

al., (2011) also noted that there is a need to investigate other possible mediating mechanisms (i.e. attitudes and perceptions etc.). In addition, Lee et al. (2013)

called for a future study and noted that there is need to incorporate more variables

to evaluate CSR effectiveness and efficiency. They further suggested that more

variables may be considered (e.g. organizational citizenship behaviours) to investigate the role of CSR in forming employees’ attitudes and behaviours.

Based on above explained arguments and followed by the research directions of

different researchers, this study contends that perceived CSR may have impact on employees’ level of OCB and trust mediates this relationship. Thus, following is

hypothesized:

H4: Organizational trust mediates the positive relationship between employees’ perception of CSR and organizational citizenship behaviour

(OCB).

68

2.9.2 Relationship between Employees’ Perception of CSR

and Job Satisfaction (JS)

Saari & Judge (2004) suggested that “although, employees have different

attitudes about various aspects of their jobs, careers and organization, the most

important attitude of employees’ is job satisfaction” (p. 346). In literature, a number of constructs as predictor of job satisfaction has been identified by the

researchers which can be explained with multiple job related characteristics

(Lowry et al., 2002; Schmidt, 2007; Pepe, 2010). Since, job satisfaction is most studied phenomena and it positively influences different employees’ work

related outcomes such as OC and OCB (Valentine & Fleischman, 2008; Shen &

Zhu, 2011). Considering the importance of job satisfaction, researchers

encourage to investigate the concept repeatedly. Koh and Boo (2001) emphasized that employees prefer that their organization promote ethical belief

and norms and expect that their organization adhere to the organizational ethics,

being an important dimension of CSR, through which organizations are likely to improve satisfaction of employees towards their job.

Some researchers supported this argument by reporting that employees’

job related experiences provide job satisfaction when they consider that their organization behave ethically (Vitell & Davis, 1990; Deshpande, 1996;

Singhapakdi et al., 1996; Viswesvaran et al., 1998). Supporting this argument,

Valentine and Fleischman (2008) viewed that by adopting CSR activities,

organization attempts to meet the stakeholders’ requirement by focusing society related issues which is a natural extension of organizational ethics. This is

because the activities of organization have impact on employees’ attitudes and

behaviours who may respond on the basis of their perception and assessment of the organization. Employees, being one of the key stakeholder groups of the

organization consider of organization’s social requirements which may

influence job attitudes at their workplace (Rodrigo & Arenas, 2008). More

specifically, CSR scholars such as Bhattacharya et al. (2009), Shen & Zhu (2011) indicated that CSR initiatives benefit and meet the needs of the

employees (e.g. work life balance, training and development, self-esteem and

participation at workplace, career growth and advancement) which ultimately impacts job satisfaction.

In this context, De Roeck et al. (2014) carried out a study on 181 hospital

employees in the context of Belgium. The findings of this study concluded that employee’ perception of CSR positively relates to job satisfaction level of

employees which appear to use CSR practices to evaluate their organization’

attractiveness and decide to identify with their organization. Similarly, Senasu and Virakul (2015) and Chepkwony et al. (2015) reported a significant positive

correlation between the relationship of employees’ perception of CSR and their

69

outcomes (e.g. job satisfaction), because workplace requirements are met which

can be influenced by employees’ perceptions of CSR. Recently, Suh (2016) conducted a study using a data set of 1,249 employees of 40 firms in the context

of Korea, results indicate significant positive effects of CSR on employees’ job

satisfaction. These findings further indicate that CSR has a positive influence on

employees’ attitudes, even in an Asian context, which suggests that CSR may be universally beneficial to firms. Based on above explained arguments and

followed by the research directions of different researchers such as Dhanesh

(2014) noted that future research may be initiated to make further assessment about the effects of CSR on employee - organization relationships. In addition,

Wong & Gao (2014) also called for the investigation of the potential effects of

macro-level variables on individual-level effects. This phenomenon is strongly

supported by social identity theory which explains the potential influence of employees’ perceptions of CSR on attitudes of employees (i.e. job satisfaction).

Hence, this study contends that perceived CSR have positive impact on

employees’ job satisfaction level at their workplace. Thus, it is hypothesized:

H5: Employees’ perception of CSR activities of their organization is

positively associated with their job satisfaction (JS).

Mediating role of job satisfaction between the relationship of employees’

perception of CSR and organizational commitment (OC)

Literature of organizational behaviour revealed that job satisfaction is

generally accepted as an affective variable showing a significant predictor of employees’ attitudes and behaviours including job performance, organizational

citizenship behaviour, absenteeism and turnover, (Wegge et al., 2007).

Considering the importance of organization commitment, some researchers emphasized that the construct of commitment has considered as an essential

construct in studying the employees work related attitudes and behaviours (e.g.

Meyer & Allen, 1991; Morrow, 1993; Reichers, 1985). In addition, some

scholars recognized that the construct of organizational commitment is employees’ psychological liking to an organization (Leong et al., 1996).

Based on theoretical support of social identity theory (SIT), some

researchers such as Turker (2009), Brammer, Millington and Rayton (2007)

examined the association between perceived CSR and organizational commitment. More specifically, Brammer et al. (2007) suggested that positive

relationship exist between CSR and OC. In addition, Peterson (2004) explains

that individuals have the inclination to classify themselves and others into different groups, and this classification influences the self-concept of the group

70

members. If employees, consider that their organization is better performing in

comparison to other organizations with regards to employees’ relationship. This recognition by the employees improve their self-esteem which has positive

influence on employees’ attitudes and behaviours towards their organization

(Smith et al., 2001).

Empirical evidences suggest that CSR indirectly foster employees’ level

of commitment (Maignan & Ferrell, 2001; Brammer et al., 2007; Turker,

2009b), because CSR might foster social forces of work which in turn increase employees’ feeling of association and attachment with their organization. For

instance, Aguinis & Glavas (2013) provided a supporting argument by reporting

the finding that organizations that cares and exhibit socially responsible

behavoiur, this experience considered fit as a value between employees’ and organizations, which may further lead towards positive work attitudes. Thus, if

an employee perceives that his organization is socially responsible, he may have

good feelings about his organization. In this perspective, Dhanesh (2014) proposed that CSR is a relationship maintenance strategy through which

relationship could be strengthen between employees and organizations in terms

of satisfaction, trust and commitment. Conversely, Zientara et al., (2015)

conducted a study using data set of 412 employees of polish hotel industry. The findings showed contrary to priori assumptions of the study and prior research,

it indicates that job satisfaction of employees in polish hotel industry is not a

predictor of commitment.

Although, research on CSR has been gaining attention and the key role of

employee as an important stakeholder (McWilliams & Siegel, 2001), however,

research addressing the influence of CSR on employees’ attitude and mediating influence has received little attention (Jones, 2010; Aguinis & Glavas, 2012; De

Roeck et al., 2014). In view of reviewed literature, explained arguments and

followed by the research directions of different researchers such as Lee et al.

(2013) noted that some other variables (e.g., organizational commitment) may be considered in future while exploring the role of CSR in forming employees’

attitudes and behaviours. Thus, the purpose of this predicted relationship

between perceived CSR and OC with mediating effect of JS is to examine how CSR may contribute positively towards employees’ attitudes by focusing

mediation effects of JS in the context of employees (i.e. faculty members) of

higher education institutions (HEIs). Therefore, this study contends that

perceived CSR may have impact on their level of commitment with their organization in presence of job satisfaction being mediator. Hence, following is

hypothesized:

H6: Job Satisfaction mediates the positive relationship between employees’

perception of CSR and their level of organizational commitment (OC).

71

Mediating role of job satisfaction between the relationship of employees’

perception of CSR and Employee Engagement (EE)

Employee engagement is considered as an emotional attachment and

commitment with the organization, it is a two-way relationship between employee and organization (Baumruk, 2004; Shaw, 2005; Richman, 2006).

More specifically, employees decided to engage in varying degrees responding

to the support they receive from their organization. In this perspective, Robinson et al., (2004) define that EE is a positive attitude of employees towards the

organization values, goals and work environment. This relationship

demonstrates strong engagement with work which develops over the time based

on trust, loyalty and mutual commitments. Employees valued CSR activities because all such activities are also related to the interest of the employees, and

these activities also meet the employees’ emotional needs which in turn serve

the interest of the organization.

Literature supported number of studies suggesting CSR activities provide

several benefits and outcomes to the organization, such as reputation of the

organization (Skudiene & Auruskeviciene, 2012), attraction and retention of employees (Brammer, Millington & Rayton, 2007; Ghosh & Gurunathan,

2013), financial growth (Keinert, 2008) and increased level of engagement

(Robertson-Smith & Markwick, 2009). To investigate the CSR influence on

employee engagement and specifically examination of impact of different forms of CSR on employee engagement, Ferreira and Oliveira, (2014) conducted a

study by using data of 236 middle managers of several major multiple private

sectors companies in Portugal, including finance, telecoms, food and beverages, and retailers. The findings of this study suggested that although engagement

level is generally high among respondents and there is no significant difference

between different forms of CSR (i.e internal and external). Similarly,

emphasizing the importance of CSR for organizations, Santhosh and Baral (2015) suggest that firms are making efforts to performing CSR but unable to

link their efforts to employees’ attitudes. They further emphasize that success of

firms lies in the changing patterns in the employees’ attitudes through CSR performance focusing both internal and external stakeholders of the firm.

In OB literature, job satisfaction is considered to be a key construct,

therefore, considering the importance of job satisfaction, Hallberg & Schaufeli (2006) argued that job satisfaction is an antecedent or predictor of organizational

commitment and work engagement. Peterson (2004) and Brammer et al. (2007)

suggested that the relationship between perceived CSR and employees’ attitudes and behaviours (e.g., employee engagement) can be examined by using social

identity theory. Based on the principle of SIT, employees classify and identify

72

themselves with a specific group or class. Moreover, employees always believe

in positive social identity to self-categorize themselves from other, share their success, failures and demonstrate their emotions towards their organization

because organization is one of the social categories (Turker, 2009). In literature,

findings of some previous empirical studies revealed that self-conceptualization

of employees is influenced by activities and policies of the organization (Kreiner & Ashforth, 2004). More specifically, self-concept of an employee is more

likely to be boosted in a firm engaging in CSR practices (Maignan, Ferrell &

Hult, 1999; Peterson, 2004).

Hence, as per SIT, if employees feel proud of their firms’ social

performance towards different stakeholders which may lead to positive attitudes

at workplace (Peterson, 2004; Turker, 2009). In particular, satisfied employees with their organization’s social performance may likely display positive

emotions, attitudes and behaviour, such as, engagement (Pivato, Misani &

Tencati, 2008; Rupp et al., 2006). On the basis of reviewed literature, explained argument and followed by future research direction by Albdour and Altarawneh

(2012) suggesting to examine the influence of CSR practices (i.e internal and

external) on attitudes and behaviours of employees including employee

engagement. In addition, Ferreira and Oliveira (2014) noted that it would be interesting to use a different approach to measure employees’ perception of their

organization’s CSR and its effects on employee engagement which is still need

to further examine. Moreover, best knowledge of the author, first ever in this

study, the role of job satisfaction as mediator between perceived CSR and employee engagement has been examined especially in the context of higher

education sector. Considering the research gap and call for study, the present

study contends that perceived CSR may have positive impact on employees’ attitudes including employee engagement and job satisfaction mediates this

relationship. Thus, it is hypothesized:

H7: Job Satisfaction mediates the positive relationship between employees’ perception of CSR and Employees’ Engagement (EE).

Mediating role of job satisfaction between the relationship of employees’

perception of CSR and organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB)

Job satisfaction is an important predictor of employees’ behaviours

(Organ & Ryan, 1995; Saari & Judge, 2004; Wegge et al., 2007). Specifically, Job satisfaction positively influence organizational commitment, organizational

citizenship behaviour (OCB) and reduce employees’ leave intentions to the

organization (Zeinabadi, 2010; Pepe, 2010; Calisir et al., 2011). The research in the field of organizational behaviour has changed the researchers’ intention

towards CSR that how it effect on employees work outcomes including in-role

73

and out-role behaviours (Gonzalez & Garazo, 2006; Islam et al. 2015). More

specifically, this shows organizational engagement in CSR may likely provide favorable working environment to employees at their workplace, which may

attach employees with their organization and enhance their level of job

satisfaction. Brammer et al. (2007) maintained above view by declaring job

satisfaction as a subsequent attitude from the contribution of organizational CSR.

In literature, some empirical evidences showed positive relationship between CSR and OCB such as Fu et al. (2014) conducted a study in hotel

industry in the context of China using data of 450 employees. The findings of

this study revealed that CSR influences OCB through mediating role of

organizational identification and commitment. For the sake of examination of the mediation role of job satisfaction between employees’ perception of CSR

and organizational citizenship behaviour, Islam et al. (2015) conducted a

research study in banking sector of Pakistan using data set of 380 employees. Results of this study indicated that employees’ perceptions of CSR towards their

organizations’ involvement in CSR activities positively influence their level of

job satisfaction and exhibit citizenship behaviour towards their organization.

Conversely, Newman et al. (2015) conducted a study in Chinese context using data of 184 supervisors and subordinate employees. Results of this study

indicated that employees’ perceptions of CSR concerning social and non-social

stakeholders strongly influenced their level of OCB.

This relationship can also be explained using theoretical underpinning of

social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), which states that exchange relationships

exist among the individuals. If employees receive something from organization, he tries to reciprocate with a similar way. When employees feel that their firm

is performing socially responsible activities, this action of their organization

make them satisfied and ultimately enhance their identity with their firm, in

return employees reciprocate by exhibiting positive attitudes (e.g. job satisfaction) and behaviours (e.g. organizational citizenship behaviour).

Based on reviewed literature, explained argument and followed by the call for future studies such as Barrantes (2012) noted that it can be possible that

“employees’ perceptions of CSR about their organizations’ CSR activities

towards society is better predictor of behavioural involvement rather than

employees’ cognitive awareness, there is a need to conduct more empirical studies related to organizations to examine the impact of CSR on employees’

extra role behaviours”. Additionally, Hansen et al (2011) reinforced that future

research might be considered and examined with other multiple mediators simultaneously (i.e. attitudes, perceptions, image, identity, etc.). Based on the

above argument and future calls, this study contends that employees’

74

perceptions towards organizational CSR activities enhance employees’ level of

job satisfaction which ultimately enhances their organizational citizenship behaviour towards organization. This predicted relationship is grounded on the

tenet of SET. Thus, following is hypothesized.

H8: Job Satisfaction mediates the positive relationship between perceived

CSR and Organizational Citizenship Behaviour (OCB).

2.9.3 Relationship between Employees’ Perception of CSR

and Organizational Identification

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has become a globally accepted

societal norm and employees evaluate their organization by its contributions

towards stakeholder’s (e.g. employees) well-being. Bhattacharya and Sen

(2003) supported this view by asserting that CSR initiatives of an organization plays an important role in identification of stakeholders because organizations’

involvement in social activities builds its good reputation, image and prestige

that ultimately effect employees identification (Peterson, 2004). Additionally, considering this perspective, Riketta, (2005) suggests that organizational

identification (OI) has considered to be linked with a number of employee’s

workplace outcomes which reinforced the investigation of antecedents of

organizational identification as an important agenda. The association between identification and socially responsible activities is considered to be a key factor

because employees who are participating in socially responsible activities in

their organizations are more likely to identify with them (Peterson, 2004). Conversely, if organization builds its negative reputation in social performance,

as per social identity theory, an adverse impact is assumed on work related

attitudes of employees because their self-esteem may be unpleasantly affected

by their attachment with their firm (Peterson, 2004).

Although, recent empirical studies have started to increase research on

CSR context, however, less attention has been given to examine the possible impact of CSR activities on employees’ attitudes and behaviours (Kim et al.,

2010). However, in literature, some empirical evidences indicated positive

association between perceived CSR and employees’ identification with their

organization (Park & Levy, 2014; Glavas & Godwin, 2013; Brammer et al., 2015). More recently, De Roeck et al (2016) conducted a study using sample of

461 employees in European context. Findings of this empirical study indicated

the importance of perceptions of CSR and revealed that mere presence of CSR

(i.e. without actual participation) is sufficient for feelings of organizational pride and identification among employees which is based on its impact on perceived

external image and prestige. Similarly, Barrantes (2012) conducted a study

75

using sample of 515 employees of sport and non-sport organizations in the US

context. Findings of this study revealed that perceived CSR motivate employees which have further positive impact on employees’ organizational identification

with the organization.

Social identity theory explains the relationship between employees’ perceptions of CSR and its influence on employees’ identification with their

organization. The individuals’ self-enhancement guides them towards social

identification, individuals have a tendency to affiliate themselves to use social groups as a reference point such as nation, political party, organization and

country. Individuals consider their groups highly attractive and distinctive and

this feeling enhance their perception in a positive way which provide them

satisfaction and it fulfils their need for self-esteem (Bergami & Bagozzi, 2000; Smidts et al., 2001; Ashforth et al., 2008). Boons et al. (2015) suggested that if

employees feel proud of their organization because of the high status of their

organization and they being member of their organization is likely to enhance their self-concept. In this context, SIT suggest that CSR practices positively

influence the employees’ self-categorization process which integrate the

common attributes to strengthen their self-concept. It assumes that CSR

programs normally reflects firm values and norms and impact employees’ identity with the firm, which stimulate employees’ attitudes and behaviours

providing support to achieve the firms’ objectives including organizational

identity (e.g. Mael & Tetrick, 1992; Dutton et al., 1994).

Therefore, it is predicted that positive relationship may exist between

employees’ perception of CSR and employees’ organizational identification in

the context of higher education institutions of Pakistan. Hence, there is need to examine the mechanisms through which employees may understand and

respond to CSR initiatives of organizations in a way which strengthens

organizational identification of employees (Bhattacharya et al., 2009; Jones,

2010). Thus, on the basis of reviewed literature, explained arguments and followed by the future research direction by Park and Levy (2014) noted that in

order to improve understanding to examine the internal mechanisms of how

CSR activities work among employees. Thus, in future studies should examine potential relationships among other variables relevant to OI, in the contexts of

other service industry. In addition, Barrantes, (2012) also noted that in order to

examine the influence of employees’ perceptions of CSR, there is need to carry

out more research through which impact of CSR can examine on employees’ attitudes (e.g. organizational identity). Therefore, this study contends that

employees’ perception of CSR may have impact on employees’ attitudes and

behaviours including organizational identification. Hence, following is hypothesized:

76

H9: Employees’ perception of CSR activities of their organization is

positively associated with their Organizational Identification.

Mediating role of organizational identification between the relationship of

employees’ perception of CSR and organizational Commitment (OC)

In this competitive era, employees’ commitment towards their

organization has become important to retain human resource for the success of

the organization. In order to understand the factors which might contribute in enhancing commitment of employees, researchers have identified different

environmental and work related variables such as organizational climate,

working conditions, job satisfaction, training, justice, rewards, exchange

relations etc. (Islam et al., 2012; Najafi, et al., 2011; Ahmad & Bakar, 2003). The identified employees have a strong and long-term association with their

organizations because feeling of oneness is developed with their organizations

(O’Reilley & Chatman, 1986; Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Bhattacharya et al., 2009). Considering this perspective, van Dick et al. (2004) and van Dick et al.

(2006) suggested that normally identified employees exibit more positive

attitudes and behaviours at workplace including job satisfaction, organizational

commitment (Marique & Stinglhamber, 2011), organizational citizenship behaviours (Tyler & Blader, 2003). It is argued that perceived CSR enhances

employees’ identification because it sends signal to attract employees

distinctively and shared identified characteristics which strengthen their self-

concepts.

Although some previous empirical evidences indicated that CSR

activities can help employees to view their organization which share their moral values (Bhattacharya et al., 2009). In general, research demonstrates that CSR

has positively influence on different employees’ attitudes and behaviours,

including job satisfaction (Valentine & Fleischman, 2008), identification

(Berger et al., 2006), commitment (Carmeli, 2005; Collier & Esteban, 2007), trust (Vlachos et al., 2010; Hansen et al., 2011; Hillenbrand et al., 2013). More

specifically, Zheng (2010) concluded in their study that perceived CSR have

significant positive influence on employees’ attitudinal variable i.e., job satisfaction, organizational commitment in the context of China. Nejati and

Ghasemi (2013) also concluded and established a direct positive association

between employees’ perceptions of CSR and organizational commitment in the

context of Iran. Similalry, Farooq et al. (2014) conducted a study on 378 employees of local and multinational companies in South Asia and found a

significant stronger positive influence of organizational identification and

organizational trust as mediator between the relationship of perception of CSR and organizational commitment. More recently, Islam et al. (2016) conducted a

study on 486 employees of hotel industry of Malaysia and found a positive

77

significant influence of organizational identification as mediator. Thus, in this

study, it is assumed that perceived CSR may have positive impact on employees’ level of commitment and organizational identification mediates the relationship

between perceived CSR and OC.

The relationship between employees’ perception of CSR and organizational commitment with mediation effects of organizational

identification can be explained using Social identity theory. This theory suggests

that organizational activities related to CSR has direct impact on employees’ level of organizational identification. In this respect, Aberson et al. (2000)

suggests that individuals make efforts to achieve and maintain their positive

social identity, through which they can identify their distinctiveness from other

groups (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). In this context, Hogg & Terry (2000) suggested that membership of corporate firms may be considered as the most

important element among these groups. In the perspective of social identity,

organizational commitment is an important outcome which relates to identification. Allen and Meyer (1990) defined that ‘‘an employee’s emotional

attachment to, identification with, and involvement in the organization’’ (p. 1).

Although, identified and committed employee has psychological relationship

between the employees and the firm. The organizational identification is normally assumed as an antecedent of the organizational commitment.

Supporting this view, Pratt (1998) suggested that organizational identification is

a cognitive and perceptual variable which provides a source of attitudes such as

organizational commitment. Thus, CSR may affect organizational commitment through mediating effect of organizational identity, this proposed relationship

has supported from some of previous studies which revealed positive correlation

between OI and OC (Carmeli et al., 2007; Kim et al., 2010).

Based on reviewed literature, explained arguments and following the

future research direction of Farooq et al. (2014) noted that CSR may have

indirect influence on various employees’ attitudes and behaviours which may also include organizational commitment. Similarly, Park and Levy (2014)

supported that in order to enhance understanding related to internal mechanisms

of how CSR activities work among employees, therefore, future studies may examine the potential relationships among other variables relevant to

organizational identification. Hence, this study contends that faculty members’

perceptions of CSR may have impact on their level of commitment with

mediation effects of organizational identification. Therefore, it is hypothesized:

H10: Organizational Identification mediates the positive relationship between

perceived CSR and Organizational Commitment (OC).

78

Mediating role of Organizational Identification between the relationship of

employees’ perception of CSR and employee engagement (EE)

Employees feel proud of their organizations’ social responsibility towards

different stakeholders which lead positive work attitudes (Peterson, 2004;

Turker, 2009). Specifically, satisfied employees with their organization’s social responsibility will demonstrate positive attitudes such as engagement (Rupp et

al., 2006; Pivato et al., 2008), affective commitment (Grant et al., 2008; Hoeven

& Verhoeven, 2013) and OCB (Cha et al., 2013). In particular, working of employees for such organizations which participate in socially responsible

activities, they may feel more attracted to the organizations which improve their

self-esteem and fulfil their requirement of self-enhancement (Tajfel & Turner,

1985). Social Identity Theory (SIT) can explain the relationship between perceived CSR and employee engagement (Brammer et al., 2007; Turker, 2009).

In adition, Peterson (2004) suggests that individual develop self-

conceptualization by classifying themselves within a group and comparing themselves with other groups This theory also provides help to understand

individual employee perceptions of his engagement and to examine the concept

of self-conceptualization in the context of CSR. In organizational context,

employee always assume positive social identity to differentiate himself with others (Turker, 2009).

In organizations, employees share their success and failures and exhibit

their emotions because they consider it a one of social category (Turker, 2009). Accordingly, contented employees with their organization’ social responsibility

will display positive reactions, attitudes and behavoiur including employee

engagement (Pivato, Misani & Tencati, 2007; Rupp et al., 2006). In organizational perspective, supporting the importance of CSR, some researchers

suggested that according to Social Identity Theory (SIT), if organization is

performing its social responsibilities towards different stakeholders in a good

manner, employee feels proud of his/her firm which may lead to positive work attitudes (Peterson, 2004; Turker, 2009). In addition, Caldwell (2010) stated that

CSR is one of the factor which enhance the firm’ level of employee engagement

and its performance. More specifically, CSR is considered one of the top derivers of employee engagement (Perrin, n.d.; Right Management, 2009), this

indicates that CSR is associated with the interests of employees’ and it can

influence employees’ level of engagement.

CSR is argued to contribute to higher levels of employee engagement,

such as Glavas and Piderit (2009) evaluated and found a positive effect of

employees’ perceptions of CSR on work engagement. In this context, some studies investigated the association between CSR and employee engagement

such as Elmotaleb et al. (2015) examined this relationship and found significant

79

positive impact of perceived CSR (i.e., both internal and external practices of

CSR) on EE in presence of OI being an effective mediator. In addition, Azim (2016) reported in a study on banking sector of Saudi Arabia on 266 employees

and found significant positive relationship between perceived CSR and

organizational commitment, employee engagement and organizational

citizenship behaviour related to organization. More recently, Glavas (2016) conducted a study in a large professional service firm of USA using data of

15,184 employees. Findings of the study showed positive significant influence

of CSR on employee engagement. On the basis of above reviewed literature, explained arguments and answers the call of study of Aguinis and Glavas (2012)

noted that there is need to further micro level research on CSR and some other

models which may include multiple mediators. Therefore, this study argues that

employees’ perceptions of CSR may have a positive impact on employee engagement in the context of higher education in Pakistan. Thus, based on the

above discussions, following is hypothesized:

H11: Organizational Identification mediates the positive relationship between

perceived CSR and Employees’ Engagement (EE).

Mediating role of Organizational Identification between the relationship of

employees’ perception of CSR and organizational citizenship behaviour

(OCB)

The concept of organizational identification “is a type of social identification of employees which refers to the degree to which a member

defines himself- or herself by the same attributes that he or she believes define

the organization” (Dutton et al., 1994 p. 239). Similarly, Gautam et al. (2004) suggested that employees who identified themselves with their organizations

perform to achieve the goals, objectives and norms of the organization because

they have adopted as their values. Continuing this view, Ashforth and Mael

(1989) suggested that organizational identification develops when employees perceive feeling of cohesion or oneness with their organization and feel that they

belong to it. Specifically, Bartels et al. (2010) advocated this argument and

asserted that if increased level of organizational identification is developed in employees then they are more likely to take risks to help their co-workers.

Talking about the importance of employee identification with their organization.

Ashforth and Mael (1989) suggested that strongly identified employees are more

likely to show extra role behaviour for the interest of the firm, and make extra efforts (Amabile, 1996; Ryan & Deci, 2000). In this perspective, Koopmans et

al. (2011) argued that it is necessary for employees to perform beyond their

assigned tasks (i.e. OCB) and extend their support and cooperation to their co-workers specifically due to complications at their modern workplace. Some of

the OB theorists proposed that organizational involvement in CSR activities

80

transmits important signals to employees towards organizational ethics and

values (Rupp et al., 2006).

In the literature, few studies have examined the effects of employees’

perceptions of CSR on employees’ workplace attitudes and behaviours

including organizational identification and OCB (De Roeck & Delobbe, 2012), job performance and OCB (Rupp et al., 2013) and corporate social performance

and OCB (Zhang et al., 2014). Although, effectiveness of CSR is acknowledged

in providing social and financial benefits as well as its positive effect on employees work attitudes and behaviours, a limited research has been carried

out which can explicitly examine the mechanism that how CSR impacts these

work outcomes such as commitment, job engagement and OCB (Aguinis &

Glavas, 2012). For instance, Barrantes (2012) conducted a study on 515 employees of sports organizations in the context of US and found positive

impact of perceived CSR and organizational identity on OCB. Similarly, Zhang

et al. (2014) concluded a study in the context of China using data of 184 employees and found significant positive influence of employees’ perception of

CSR on their OCBs. Recently, Islam et al. (2015) conducted a study on 308

employees in the context of banking sector of Pakistan and results reveal that if

employees perceive that their firm is engaged in CSR programs they show more satisfaction and citizenship behaviour with respect to their firm.

The present study build its argument based on previous work and

examines the employees’ perceptions of CSR practices targeted the key stakeholder (i.e. employees). Social identity theory can be well explained the

relationship between perceived CSR and employee behaviours (e.g., OCB)

(Peterson, 2004; Brammer et al., 2007; Turker, 2009). Turker (2009) supported that employees prefer to have positive social identity to distinguish themselves

from others. Based on the above discussions, reviewed literature and followed

by research direction of Barrantes (2012) noted that “future studies could

consider examining the impact of employees’ perception of CSR on employees’ attitudes and behaviours” (p. 125). Therefore, this study argues and made the

effort to contribute in literature by examining the role that perceived CSR plays

in development of organizational citizenship behaviour with mediation effect of organizational identification in higher education sector. Thus, following is

hypothesized:

H12: Organizational Identification mediates the positive relationship between perceived CSR and Organizational Citizenship Behaviour (OCB).

81

2.9.4 Relationship between Employees’ Perception’ of CSR and

Organizational Commitment

Organizational commitment is one of the widely investigated construct

and most commonly evaluated forms of psychological attachment (Meyer &

Herscovitch, 2001). Supporting the importance of organizational commitment, Morrow (2011) and Rousseau (1998) commented that OC influence

organizations to make more efforts to increase employees’ loyalty, because

psychologically attached employees are more satisfied and more productive (Vandenberg & Lance, 1992; Hunter & Thatcher, 2007). Organizational

Commitment being a multi-dimensional approach by incorporating attitudinal

and behavioural dimensions i.e., affective commitment, normative commitment

and continuance commitment. Allen and Meyer, (1990, 1991) further explained that these dimensions of commitment are basically different psychological

components which can be experienced at different degrees. In addition, Tyler,

(1999) suggested that employees would likely to follow the organizations which can enhance their identification and it is likely that their high self-concept can

enhance employees’ commitment towards their organization. In this context,

Maignan et al., (1999) and Peterson, (2004) described that the self-concept of

an employee is more likely to be enhanced in an organization which involves in CSR activities.

To explain the relationship between employees’ perceptions of CSR and

organizational commitment, Social Identity Theory (SIT) provides the theoretical underpinning between perceived CSR and OC. This theory explains

that individuals need to classify and identify themselves within a social group

or class. It further elaborates that CSR is not only a social requirement but it also fulfills employee’s membership needs into a desirable group through

participation of organization in CSR activities. More specifically, supporting

this view, Turker (2009) described effects of CSR on OC based on the SIT and

declared that CSR (including social and non-social stakeholders, employees, and customers) declaring it as a key predictor of organizational commitment.

In literature empirical evidences indicated positive relationship between perceived CSR and organizational commitment level of employees such as

Brammer et al. (2007) tested that CSR contributes towards an organization.

Moreover, Closon et al. (2015) conducted a study on 621 employees of various

sectors in the context of Belgium and found significant positive influence of employees’ perceptions of CSR on employees’ affective organizational

commitment. Song et al. (2015) also carried out a study on 307 Casino

employees in the context of South Korea, results of this study revealed that economic, legal, and philanthropic dimensions of CSR had positive influence

on organizational commitment level of employees. However, insignificant

82

relationship was found between ethical dimension of CSR and OC which shows

that casino employees may less likely to perceive ethical effect as a basic factor of influencing OC. Conversely, Mory, Wirtz & Göttel (2016) conducted a study

on 386 employees of a German firm and examined how employees perceive

corporate social responsibility (CSR) within their organizations, and how

perception of CSR impacts their organizational commitment. Results of this study indicated that internal perceptions of CSR had strong impact on affective

organizational commitment and low effects on normative commitment. On the

other hand, Rahman, Rashid & Haque (2016) also conducted a research study on 502 employees and examined the relationship between employees’ CSR

attitudes and its effects on JS and OC in the banking sector of Bangladesh. The

findings of this study indicated positive relationship between CSR attitudes and

both JS and OC.

Based on reviewed literature, there is need to further examine the impact

of employees’ perception of CSR on employees’ level of organizational commitment which may likely have positive association with a unique

theoretical framework of this study because proposed mechanism of this study

is tested first ever in the context of higher education sector. Thus, based on

reviewed literature and following the research direction of Wong and Gao (2014) noted for a further research to explore the potential effects of macro-level

variables (e.g., perceived CSR) on individual-level effects (employees’ attitudes

i.e. organizational commitment). In addition, Lee et al., (2013) also noted that

in future by incorporating some additional important variables (e.g., organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behaviours), a more

comprehensive explanation of CSR activities' effectiveness and efficiency may

be achieved. Hence, this study contends that perceived CSR may have positive impact on employees’ level of commitment in higher education sector. Thus,

following is hypothesized:

H13: Employee’s Perception of CSR activities of their organization is positively associated to their Organizational Commitment (OC).

2.9.5 Relationship between Employees’ Perception of CSR

and Employee Engagement

In the community of HR professionals, the construct of employee engagement has become contemporary, specifically since the 1890s

(Welbourne, 2007; Macey & Schneider, 2008). Emphasizing the importance of

employee engagement, Vazirani (2007) suggests that employee engagement indicates the degree of his commitment and involvement towards his/her

organization and its values. Although, organizations have realized and

83

understand the significance of employee engagement, however, it seems that lot

of steps are needed to be taken to enhance the level of employee engagement. Debating on this view, Bakker et al. (2011) suggested that “employee

engagement has become imperative for the organizations because when

employees perceive that their organization offers a supportive, involving, and

challenging working climate, they may likely to respond by investing time and energy and by being psychologically involved in the work of their organization”

(p. 13). Previous empirical evidences indicated that there are several antecedents

and drivers of employee engagement such as employee development, employee communication, reward and recognition of employees services and extended

employee care (Vazirani, 2007). In addition, Rich, Lepine and Crawford (2010)

also suggested antecedents of employee engagement i.e. value similarity,

perceived organizational support, and core self-evaluations. However, it is contended that CSR is a practical antecedent of employee engagement, depicting

CSR as a beneficial antecedent for providing opportunities for employees to be

engaged.

Despite of the significance of CSR with relation to employees, few studies

have examined the emerging concept of employee engagement with CSR. For

instance, Caldwell (2010) described that in order to strengthen the organizational level of employee engagement, CSR should also be one of the

factors. In this context, Ferreira & Oliveira (2014) also conducted a research

study and examined the influence of different forms of CSR on employee

engagement. Findings of this study indicated overall significant impact of CSR on employee engagement, however, no significant difference between various

forms of CSR (i.e. internal and external) was found on employee engagement.

Similarly, Lee at al. (2015) conducted a study on 259 employees in the context of Malaysia and found a significant and positive correlation between employees

focused CSR practices and employees’ quality of work life including job

satisfaction, organizational trust and employee engagement. Most recently,

Obeidat (2016) conducted a study on 350 employees of Jordanian mobile telecommunication companies, concluding that CSR (internal and external) has

positive significant influence on employee engagement.

The relationship between employees’ perceptions of CSR and employees’

attitudes and behaviours such as employee engagement may be well explained

by social identity theory (Peterson, 2004; Brammer et al., 2007). More

specifically, SIT have also been adopted by some scholars to explain employees’ identification with their companies, which in turn may have an impact on

employees’ attitudes behaviour at their workplace including employee

engagement (Dutton et al., 1994; Blader & Tyler, 2009). The above reviewed literature warrants to examine the employees’ perceptions of CSR which may

have positive impact on employee engagement. This study argues that there is

84

possibility that employees’ perceptions of CSR may have positive impact on

employees’ level of engagement under certain conditions. Thus, employee engagement is considered as desirable attitude of employees which needs more

investigation to identify its antecedents particularly its relation with perceived

CSR in the context of higher education sector. Albdour and Altarawneh (2012)

noted that studies in future could explore the effects of CSR on employees’ attitudes and behaviours such as employee engagement. In addition, Ferreira and

Oliveira (2014) also noted that there is a need to measure the employees’

perceptions of their firms’ CSR and its impact on their level of engagement. Based on above discussion, reviewed literature and followed by the research

direction, this study contends that employees’ perceptions of CSR may have

positive impact on employees’ attitudes including employee engagement in the

context of higher education institutions of Pakistan. Therefore, it is hypothesized:

H14: Employee’s perception of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) to their organization is positively associated with Employees’ Engagement

(EE).

2.9.6 Relationship of Employees’ Perceptions of CSR and Organizational

Citizenship Behaviour

An emerging body of research indicates positive relationship between organizational CSR initiatives and employees’ workplace outcomes.

Considering this perspective, some previous studies suggested that

organizational, social and environmental programs are acknowledged by the employees (Carmeli, 2005; Kim et al., 2010). The major reason behind this

relationship is the activities of firm which may have direct impact on the

behaviours of its employees who may respond on the basis of their perception

and assessment of the firm. More specifically, it is argued that perceived CSR may have influence on employees’ behaviours to achieve the organizational

goals. In support of this argument, Cha et al. (2013) suggested that employees

perceived that their organization is engaged in socially responsible activities for the well-being of its stakeholders (e.g., employees). It also encourages them to

respond citizenship behaviour towards their organization.

Nevertheless, the acknowledgment of CSR provides social and financial returns, a limited research has been carried out which explicitly examines the

mechanism that how CSR influences employees’ work outcomes including

OCB (Aguinis & Glavas, 2012). Previously, Hansen et al. (2011) noted that small number of research findings reveal positive influence of employees’

perception of CSR on their outcomes and organizational activities and

85

demonstrating OCB. Fu et al. (2014) reported this perspective by conducting a

study on 450 employees in the hotel industry of China and found significant positive correlation between CSR and OCB. Recently, Newman et al. (2015)

conducted a study on 184 employees/managers in the context of China revealing

a positive influence of employees’ perceptions of CSR (social & non-social

stakeholders) on their OCB. However, insignificant relationship was found among employees’ perceptions (toward employees, customers and government)

and their OCB.

Thus, above reviewed literature shows that there is need to examine how

CSR activities get transformed into positive behaviours of employees at their

workplace which could be beneficial for organizations in order to promote

desired attitudes and behaviours. The relationship between perceived CSR and employees’ behaviours including organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB)

can be explained by using social identity theory (SIT) (Peterson, 2004; Brammer

et al., 2007; Turker, 2009). Based on above discussion, reviewed literature and followed by research direction of Lee et al. (2013) noted that in future other

variables may also be considered (e.g. organizational citizenship behaviour) to

explore the role of CSR to influence employees’ attitudes and behaviours. In

addition, Gao (2014) called for a future research and emphasized to incorporate more variables which could help organizations to achieve competitive

advantages and good human resource. Hence, this study contends that

employees’ perceptions of CSR may have positive impact on employees

behaviours. Therefore, following is hypothesized:

H15: Employee’s perceptions of CSR to their organization is positively

associated with their Organizational Citizenship Behaviour (OCB).

86

2.10 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK OF THE STUDY

The relevant literature indicates that there is a relationship between

employees’ perceptions of CSR and employee’ attitudes and behaviours.

However, there is still need to examine whether employees’ perception of CSR

is able to impact employees’ important outcomes significantly in higher education sector. Moreover, this study aims to identify the credibility of the

developed hypotheses and to examine what degree of employees’ perceptions

of CSR can impact employees’ attitudes and behaviours. After detailed review of CSR literature and relevant research on the topic, theoretical research

framework of the study is developed. The framework depicts how employees’

perceptions of CSR influence employees’ attitudes and behaviours through

intervening variables as mediators namely organizational trust, job satisfaction and organizational identification as shown in Figure-1.1.

In the model, employees’ perception of CSR is adopted as independent variable. In framework, it is suggested that employees’ perception of CSR affect

different dimensions of employees’ attitudes and behaviour which ultimately

affect employees’ outcomes. More specifically, the research objective of this

study is to hypothesize an integrative mechanism which explains how faculty members’ perceptions of CSR influence their attitudes and behaviours. The

developed model was tested which described the potential impact of employees’

perception of CSR on employees’ attitudes and behaviours in higher education

institutions in Pakistan. This is a pioneer empirical study in the context of higher education sector and its findings contribute significantly to gauge the effects of

perceived CSR and its impact on faculty members’ attitudes and behaviours at

their workplace. It was the first time that an integrated mechanism would be developed which explained the influence of perceived CSR on faculty members’

attitudes and behaviours.

Through this study an effort is made to explain that how CSR contributes

in higher education institutions in influencing and promoting faculty members’ attitudes and behaviours. In relevant domain of the literature, this study first time, hypothesized and considered the organizational trust, job satisfaction and organizational identification as mediators and examine their role between employees’ perceptions of CSR and employees’ outcomes. First ever, the perception of CSR as construct was clearly defined and tested in the context of higher education sector and its influence on faculty members’ attitudes and behaviours. The theoretical underpinnings of the model were based on two widely used theoretical frameworks in literature i.e. Social Exchange Theory and Social Identity Theory which basically underpins the theoretical contribution of the thesis. In following Figure 1.1 depicts the proposed relationships among the observed variables.

87

Figure 1.1: Theoretical Research Model

2.11 SUMMARY OF THE CHAPTER

All the constructs used in the study were discussed extensively in the

current chapter including Perceived CSR, OT, JS, OI, OC, EE and OCB. These constructs were discussed as regard to their definitions, theoretical development and importance. Moreover, this chapter also focused hypotheses development, relationship of adopted constructs of the study with employees’ perceptions of CSR and proposed theoretical research model of the study. In the next chapter, details about research methodology and measuring instruments used for the present study will come under discussion.

88

CHAPTER 3:

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter is aimed at outlining the details of methodology and adopted procedures to address the research questions and further to test the developed

hypotheses of this study. It further outlines the discussion on research design,

research approach or methods, research strategy, sampling, instrumentation and

tools used for data analysis.

3.1 RESEARCH PHILOSOPHY

Research philosophy is considered as an important element of research

methodology. In the area of management research, three views about research

philosophy are relevant i.e. positivism, interpretivism and realism (Cooke & Davies, 2000). Positivism is a philosophy which basis on highly structured

methodology, it enables to generalize, quantify the observations to analyze the

findings through statistical methods. This is a critical and objective based

method and this philosophy is generally used in natural science (Sundars, 2003). Interpretive Philosophy is based on the belief that the social world of business

and management is difficult because it formulates on the basis of theories and

laws similar to natural science. This philosophy indicates that “there are many truths and meaning of a simple fact and these are suitable for every situation and

for every research problem” (Johnson & Christensen, 2004). Realism

philosophy believes in the interdependency of human values, beliefs and focuses

on the principles that in environment reality exists. It considers that the humans not to take as stuffs to study or investigate as it is considered in natural science.

This view of research philosophy defines that how individual react to a real-time

situation or circumstance (Johnson & Christensen, 2004). In realism, it takes the view that people are likely to exchange their interpretations in the socially

constructed environment and it is to be used exclusively on human subjects. This

indicates that the realism is more relevant for business management research.

3.2 RESEARCH DESIGN

Research design process basically starts from the hypotheses

development and it continues till to reach a valid conclusion of the study. In the

process of research design multiple stages are included such as research

approach, research strategy or research method to collect required information

89

from respondents to reach a valid conclusion (Gauri & Gronhaug, 2002). In a

similar way, Parahoo (1997) describes a research design as “a plan that describes how, when and where data are to be collected and analyzed” (p. 142). Thus, by

adopting the research design, the type of required evidence is identified, ways

how to gather it and how to interpret it to find the answer to the basic research

question that under which conditions the faculty members’ perception of CSR influence their attitudes and behaviours in higher education institutions.

Research design has a number of characteristics such as the descriptive,

explanatory and the exploratory.

Primarily, the descriptive research design relates to the experiences of

respondents of the study (Bryman, 2012). The purpose to select this research

design for use is to explain the features of a population being investigated. However, this research design does not address the questions about how, when

and why these characteristics are occurred. Although, it explains "what"

question (what are the characteristics of the population or situation being investigated?) (Shields et al., 2013). Hence, descriptive research design is

unable to describe the basis of a causal relationship, where a variable affects the

other(s).

Exploratory research is a study which conducted for a problem that has

not been well-defined, it often occurs before we know enough to make

conceptual distinctions or suggest an explanatory relationship” (Shields et al.,

2013). Similarly, Kotler and Armstrong (2006) asserted that the purpose of exploratory study is to collect initial information which helps in explaining the

problems and suggest hypotheses. In addition, Neuman (2003) argued that the

exploratory research design is usually used in order to invite researchers to conduct more research in the subject area.

Saunders et al. (2007) described that an explanatory research design

focuses that how effectively describe the characteristics of a social phenomenon or a population. Moreover, Brains et al. (2011) indicated that the explanatory

research study is carried out to test hypotheses and to understand the cause-and-

effect relationships. Therefore, if it is the purpose of explanatory research study to determine which variable might be causing a certain behaviour (i.e. whether

cause and effect relationship is existed between the variables). Thus, in order to

determine causality, it is important to hold the variable that is assumed to cause

the change in the other variable(s) constant and then measure the changes in the other variable(s).

In literature, there are different possible ways to consider and identify the research design for a study. Basically, the characterization of a research study is

made on the basis of set objectives of the study (what the researcher intends to

90

do) (Baxter & Jack, 2008). In explanatory research design, the basic purpose of

the researcher is to develop hypotheses on the basis of different theories which attempt to explain how to specific phenomena operates (Johnson & Christensen,

2004). The primary purpose and the question under investigation in this research

is examining the impact of employees’ perceptions of CSR on employees’

workplace outcomes which entirely deals with human attitudes and behaviours. Thus, explanatory research design is considered suitable to be used and this

study and it categorizes as an explanatory study. In order to develop hypotheses,

different theories were used which theoretically supported to explain the specific phenomenon (employees’ perceptions of CSR) how it functions (Johnson &

Christensen, 2004).

3.2.1 Research Approach

In literature, different types of research approaches have been defined such as qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approach. Fraenkel &

Wallen (2003) supported that the qualitative research approach is the best choice

to be used. Contrarily, Ary et al., (2002) supported to use the quantitative

research approach with certain statistical tools to address a research question. Similarly, May (2011) supported that the quantitative research approach is

effectively used for a large number of respondents to measure the data by using

quantitative techniques and statistical methods. In addition, mixed methods

approach is also used by collecting data qualitatively and quantitatively. The collected data is then integrated which further used for a specific design based

on philosophical assumptions and theoretical frameworks. The main purpose of

using this approach is to combine both approaches rather using either approach separately.

In present study, the purpose to use the quantitative research approach is

to effectively measure the observed constructs in quantitatively. Moreover, Terre-Blanche et al. (2006) prefer to use the quantitative approach due to its

ability to increase the generalizability of the findings. Similarly, Johnson and

Christensen (2008) emphasized to use quantitative approach to examine hypotheses, considering the cause and effect relationship to predict about future

outcomes based on past events. In addition, Ledgerwood and White (2006) also

suggested that the quantitative research approach determines the degree of

participants’ attitudes as well as to measure the extent of the attitudes. In literature, some research studies related to CSR and employees have already

used this research approach (Luo, 2014; Barcelos et al., 2015; Zientara et al.,

2015). Thus, in this study, quantitative research approach is used to examine the general phenomenon of impact of employees’ perception of CSR in a specific

perspective i.e. higher education sector in the context of Pakistan.

91

3.2.2 Research Strategy

Researcher plan is basically a research strategy which needs to decide to

carry out the research work (Saunders et al., 2007). In literature, few research strategies are identified such as experimental study, survey based study, case

study, grounded theory and action research etc. (Gill & Johnson, 2002; Saunders

et al., 2003; Yin, 2003). Researchers in the field of management have used survey based strategy to collect information from the respondents (Islam et al.,

2012). Furthermore, Salant and Dillman (1994) and Fraenkel and Wallen (2003)

argued that this strategy is commonly used to examine characteristics of a

certain population including its attitudes and behaviours. Some scholars are also suggested that it is beneficial because it gathers a wide range of information

from the population (Singleton & Straits, 2005). Thus, considering the above

arguments, this study used a survey based strategy and questionnaires were adapted from previous studies to get the responses (see section measuring

instruments).

3.2.3 Time Horizon of the Study

Time horizon refers to the timelines within which the study is intended to

be completed by the researcher (Saunders et al., 2007). In the literature, two types of time horizon are categorized, cross sectional and longitudinal (Bryman,

2012). Saunders et al., (2003) emphasized that before entering into the data

collection process, it is important to decide whether the aim of the research study is to examine a phenomenon in a specific time frame (cross sectional) or study

an ongoing phenomenon (longitudinal). Goddard and Melville (2004) refer that,

a longitudinal time frame for data collection signifies that data collection has

been made over an extended period of time and is used for research for examining change over time. However, in the cross-sectional time frame, the

study is normally carried out when the investigation is related to a particular

phenomenon at a specific time. According to the arguments of Gall, Gall and Brog (2007) in a cross sectional study, it is most appropriate way to collect

required data from the respondents at one point of time. Therefore, the current

study is carried out in a cross sectional timeframe and primary data is collected

from the faculty members of 177 higher education institutions, recognized by HEC of Pakistan.

92

3.2.4 Population & Sampling

Population is basically a total set of observations out of which the sample

is selected for analysis on the basis of certain sampling techniques. In sampling,

it is necessary that the samples are true representative of the entire population

(Narehan et al., 2014). In the literature, in order to select the sample from the target population, scholars identified two main strategies (i.e. probability and

non-probability). In probability sampling, all elements in the target population

have an equal opportunity of being selected, therefore, for the purpose of generalizability, probability sampling is of much importance (Ary et al., 2006).

Moreover, in case of a known population, probability sampling is best technique

(Sekaran, 2006).

This study considered faculty members of higher education institutions

(public & private) as the population. Kothari (2004, p.66) suggested that

“normally, multi-stage sampling is used in big inquires extending to a considerably large geographical area, say, the entire country”. He further

suggested that “it is easier to administer than single stage designs because

sampling frame in multi-stage sampling is divided into partial units”. Therefore,

keeping in view the objectives and population, multi-stage sampling is considered the best suited for this study.

Thus, at first stage, stratified sampling technique is applied, because this

describe each group in detail (Sekaran, 2006). In stratified sampling, the population categories in a number of distinct groups, the frame can be organized

into separate "strata,". Each stratum is then treated and sampled as an

independent sub-population, of which individual subjects can be randomly selected and every subject in a stratum has the same chance to be selected as

“element”. Further, Kothari, (2004, p.62) asserted that “in stratified sampling,

the population is divided into several sub-populations that are individually more

homogeneous than the total population which are called ‘strata’ and then items are selected from each stratum to constitute a sample”.

In order to determine the sample size, different researchers suggested different parameters to be considered. Roscoe (1975) presented the following

rules of thumb: (a) in most of the research, sample size larger than 30 and less

than 500 are appropriate; (b) if the sample are divided into sub samples or sub

groups, a minimum sample size of 30 for each category is necessary and (c) in multivariate research the sample size should be at least 10 times large as the

number of observed variables. Similarly, Hinkin (1995) suggested that

appropriate sample size should have an item to response ratios as low as 1:4 and as high as 1:10 for each set of scales. However, Sekaran (2003) suggested

that sample size is important to determine the representativeness of the

93

sample for the generalizability of the results. There are 177 universities or higher

education institutions (HEIs) recognized by Higher Education Commission (HEC) of Pakistan, of which 103 (58%) are public sector universities while, 74

(42%) are private sector universities (www.hec.gov.pk) (see Appendix-A).

Accordingly, at first stage of sampling, 177 universities were divided into two

strata i.e. public sector and private sector because HEC has categorized universities into two categories i.e. public and private sector. Hence, a total

sample of 30% of 177 (i.e. 54) universities were selected. Therefore, to

determine an appropriate sample size from each stratum, proportional allocation of random sampling was applied. Hence, 30% random sample of the public-

sector universities which was comprised of 58.0 % of 54 = 31, and 42.0% of 54

= 23 universities from private sector were selected (see Appendix-B & C).

The target population of this study was comprised of the faculty members

of both public and private sector HEIs recognized by higher education

commission of Pakistan. Total 34444, full time faculty members are serving in these universities, including 24340 in public and 10104 in private sector

(www.hec.gov.pk) (see Appendix-D). At the 2nd stage of sampling, faculty

members were selected on convenience basis from 31 public sectors and 23 from

private sector identified universities. Moreover, in order to determine an appropriate sample size and to make the study more reliable, strengthen and the

generalizability of the recommendations, the formula presented by Krejcie and

Morgan (1970) was applied which is considered true representative of a given

population. Considering each stratum of a sub group of population and based on above referred formula, the sample size of 379 faculty members from public

sector and 357 faculty members from private sector universities (i.e. 736 faculty

members) were considered sufficient to examine the impact of faculty members’ perceptions of CSR on their attitudes and behaviours (see Appendix-E).

Kothari (2004) suggested that “proportional allocation is considered most

efficient and an optimal design when the cost of selecting an item is equal for each stratum, there is no difference in within-stratum variances, and the purpose

of sampling happens to be to estimate the population value of some

characteristic” (p. 63). The selection of respondents in each university (public or private), is made on the basis of proportional allocation of respondents as per

the size of the faculty members in the respective university. For the purpose of

distribution of samples among strata, the Kumaisons (1997) formula was

adopted (Ekwere & Edem, 2014; Anigbogu et al., 2014). Below is the Kumaisons formula which states that:

nh NnNh

where

94

n = Total sample size

Nh = The number of units allocated to each stratum N = Population size

In this study:

n = Total sample size 736 (of each stratum i.e. 379 for public and

357 for private)

Nh = The number of items or units allocated to each university

(faculty members in each university in each stratum).

N = Population size from selected universities in each “stratum” i.e. 15525 for public (from 31 universities) and 4721 for private

(from 23 universities).

Such as for COMSATS Institute of Information Technology (CIIT):

=379 ∗ 2908

15525= 71

Accordingly, strata based on public sector universities comprised of total

15525 faculty members from 31 randomly selected universities (at first stage)

and minimum threshold of 379 respondents was suggested to be approached on convenience basis to seek responses (see Appendix-F). In a similar way,

minimum threshold for private sector universities’ stratum, 357 respondents

were suggested to be approached out of 4721 faculty members in the strata of

23 private sector universities (which makes 736 faculty members in total) (see Appendix-G). For this purpose, most of the universities were selected from main

cities of the country (i.e. Islamabad, Lahore, Karachi, Quetta, Peshawar and

Multan). In selected universities, faculty members come from across the country

and true representation of faculty members was considered at the time of selection of the universities from most of the main cities of the country.

3.2.5 Data Collection Method

Primarily, data can be separated into two types i.e. primary and

secondary. Primary data is derived from first-hand sources and it needs to collect first time and it needs to be processed or interpreted; whereas the data which has already been analyzed and taken is called secondary data. Burns (2000) suggested that research deign and data type is important because instrumentation such as data collection entirely depends upon them. This is a

95

quantitative research based study having a survey based research design, therefore, primary data on a survey based questionnaire is appropriate and best suited for this study.

3.2.6 Data Collection Procedures

In order to collect responses from the participants, data collection is executed through self-administered questionnaires. Some scholars support that a questionnaire is very useful when there is a need to gather data collection about beliefs, values, feelings, thoughts, perceptions, attitudes, personality, behaviours, intentions among others (Johnson & Christensen, 2004). Furthermore, Zikmund (2003) emphasized that data collection through questionnaire based survey is less expensive, a quick way to collect data, an efficient and accurate method to assess information about target population. In addition, some other scholars also supported survey based questionnaire and viewed that this is the best tool regarding data collection (Bonds-Raacke & Raacke, 2012). In this study, an effort is made to collect statistics about faculty members’ perceptions of CSR as well as its impact on their attitudes and behaviours, therefore, the use of a questionnaire is deemed more appropriate for data collection.

For data collection purpose, in each stratum, randomly selected

universities were contacted to seek permission from the concerned head of departments. A cover note was provided to the participants to inform them about the purpose of the study. More precisely, the selected faculty members were contacted on the basis of convenience. They were requested to specify the degree to which they agreed or disagreed with their statement concerning to their perceptions about CSR, their feeling towards their job and organization and their job behaviours at their workplace. In order to minimize the potential biases, at the end of the questionnaire, it was clearly mentioned that anonymity of the respondents was maintained in the survey, however, if the respondents(s) are interested to get the results of the study, it may be shared with them on their given email addresses.

3.2.7 Response Rate

As per sample frame of the study, 736 questionnaires were distributed among faculty members of 177 recognized universities or HEIs from HEC of

Pakistan out of which 595 faculty members responded the questionnaires and

the response rate was 80%. However, at the time of the data entry, 10

questionnaires found incomplete which were not considered for data entry and declared as redundant or rejected. However, rest of the questionnaires were used

96

for data entry and subsequently utilized for analysis, therefore, effective

response rate of the study was 79%. Ruane, (2005) indicates that in case of large population, 30% of response rate is considered in acceptable range. However,

the response rate in this study seems exceptional well, this is perhaps the reason

because the target population of this study is highly educated segment of the

society and faculty members are supposed to be well aware about the importance of a research study as compare to others. Recently, Haq, Kuchinke, and Iqbal

(2017) conducted a study in higher education sector of Pakistan and response

rate was found 95%.

3.3 MEASURING INSTRUMENTS

Researchers emphasized that the questionnaire should be based on well-

defined scale, biased free and right questions should be selected which increases

its reliability and validity (Peterson, 2000; Bonds-Raacke & Raacke, 2012). Ghauri and Gronhaug (2005) supported the use of a survey in research study. In

addition, they suggested to use adapted questionnaires because its reliability and

validity have already been tested. Thus, it’s preferably better to use adopted

questionnaire. Therefore, in order to get the responses, the present study has also used adapted questionnaire which comprised of multiple questions through

which an attempt is made to measure the variables of interests (i.e. CSR, OT,

JS, OI, OC, EE and OCB). The respondents were evaluated on a five points

Likert scale ranging from 1 - “strongly disagree” to 5 - “strongly agree”. Moreover, respondents were also requested to provide their demographical

information such as designation, age, gender, marital status, qualification, job

category etc. as such demographics may impact on the observed variables of the study. In questionnaire, questions pertaining to demographics were placed in the

beginning of the questionnaire however, rest of the questions related to observed

variables were given after demographic questions to avoid the respondents

fatigue (Johnson & Christensen, 2004) (see Appendix-H).

3.3.1 Pretest of the Questionnaire

The purpose of the pretest was to assess the reliability and validity of the

scales, although the items were tested in previous studies, but some

modifications and alterations in wording were incorporated which demands to conduct a pilot study. Therefore, a pilot testing for the present study was carried

out in the higher education institutions in Lahore, Pakistan. The experts

examined the proposed questionnaire to ensure content and face validity. The panel of the expert included seven PhD’s with at least five research publications

each in international journals of repute. The panel recommended some

97

suggestions to incorporate which were noted and the items revised accordingly.

In this pilot study, the revised questionnaire was used for pretest and 25 employees of higher educational institutions were participated. Some

researchers suggested that if rigorous statistical analysis is not involved, a

sample of even 20 participants can be considered sufficient (McMillan &

Schumacher, 1989). Hence, the questionnaire was tested for its reliability and all the measures were found to have reasonable reliability. In following lines,

detail of items which included in the questionnaire and adapted measures is

briefly given.

3.3.2 Measurement of Independent Variable of the Study

In this study, employees’ perceptions of CSR are used as an independent

variable. The details of the questionnaire of the construct of perceived CSR is:

3.3.2.1 Perceived CSR

In this study, in order to measure the construct of corporate social responsibility, 29 items scale initially developed by Maignan and Ferrell (2001)

was used and reported its reliability coefficient alpha value as 0.87. This

measure was also used in some of previous studies such as Lee et al. (2012) and

Fu et al. (2014) and its internal consistency was found 0.89 and 0.85 respectively. Thus, the adapted scale has generally having good to high

reliability coefficient alphas (ranging from 0.85 to 0.89), which are beyond the

levels recommended by Nunnally (1978) because he states that 0.70 and above is acceptable. A sample item included “My university tries to fulfill its social

responsibilities”.

3.3.2.2 Measurement of Mediating Variables of the Study

In this study, Organizational trust, Job satisfaction, and Organizational identification is used as the mediating variables. Details about the questionnaires

of these constructs are:

3.3.2.3 Organizational Trust

The respondents’ perceptions about organizational trust is measured using five items of a scale developed by Garbarino and Johnson (1999) and

reported its reliability coefficient alpha value as 0.73. This scale was also

98

adapted by Lee et al., (2012) and noted its reliability coefficient alpha value as

0.89. A sample item included, “My university tries to meet my expectations”.

3.3.2.4 Job Satisfaction

To measure the construct of job satisfaction, three items scale which was

developed by Cammann et al., (1983) was used and reported its alpha value as

0.73. This scale has been used in a number of other research studies (e.g. Valentine & Fleishman, 2008) and noted its reliability coefficient alpha value as

0.86. A sample item included “All in all, I am satisfied with my job”.

3.3.2.5 Organizational Identification

To measure the organizational identification, a five items scale was adapted from the study of Mael and Ashforth (1992) and its internal consistency

was reported 0.87. This scale was initially developed by Mael (1988) and

reported Cronbach alpha of 0.81. A sample item included “when someone

criticizes my university, it feels like a personal insult to me”. This scale was also used in some of previous studies such as Fu et al. (2014), De Roeck and Delobbe,

(2012) and noted the factor loading ranging from 0.83-0.86 respectively.

3.3.2.6 Measurement of Dependent Variables of the Study

In current study, the constructs organizational commitment, employee engagement and organizational citizenship behaviour are used as dependent

variables. Detail regarding the used scales for these construct is:

3.3.2.7 Organizational Commitment

In order to measure the construct of commitment, 8 items were adopted from a scale which was developed by Allen and Meyer (1990). Two dimensions

of this construct were concerned and relevant i.e. affective commitment and

continuance commitment and reported Cronbach alpha value as 0.87 and 0.75

respectively. Some researchers suggested that influence of normative commitment may be restricted to specific circumstances such as blood donation

and may not be effective as affective or continuance commitment particularly

where the business relationships are involved (Tett & Meyer, 1993). A sample item included for affective commitment “I feel like ‘part of the

family’ at this university” and similarly a sample item also included for

99

continuance commitment “It would be very hard for me to leave this university

right now, even if I wanted to”. These 8 items of this scale were also adopted in some of previous studies such as Lee et al. (2012) and reported Cronbach alpha

value as 0.85.

3.3.2.8 Employee Engagement

To measure the employee engagement, eleven-items scale of Saks (2006) was employed and its internal consistency was reported 0.78. However, to

measure employee engagement, a sample item included “I really “throw” myself

into my job/teaching”. This scale was also used in some of previous studies such

as Azim et al. (2014) and its reliability was noted as 0.81.

3.3.2.9 Organizational Citizenship Behaviour

The construct of OCB is measured using eight-items scale which was

originally developed by Lee and Allen (2002) and reported its reliability as 0.80.

A sample item for OCB included “willingly give your time to help others who have work-related problems”. This scale was also used in some of previous

studies such as Newman, Nielsen & Miao (2015) reported its Cronbach alpha

value as 0.90.

3.4 STATISTICAL DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS

To ascertain and characterize the attributes of the sample of the study,

analytical methods were used such as examination of frequency distribution,

means, variation, and percentage distribution of attributes etc. The demographic

characteristics of the sample including job description, age, gender, marital status, educational qualification and job category were also analyzed.

3.4.1 Data Analysis Tools

Johnson and Christensen (2004) indicates that data analysis involves

different techniques which are used to convert the raw data into useful information, these techniques can be further applied to test and examine the

hypotheses and to infer the results. They also suggested that the use of data

analysis techniques depends on the adopted research design. In the present study, different quantitative techniques are used to examine the developed hypotheses.

Moreover, to test the hypotheses widely used software i.e. Statistical Package for

100

Social Sciences (SPSS) and Analysis of Moment Structure (AMOS) were used.

Thus, SPSS 21.0 and AMOS 18.0 were used to test the developed hypotheses and to further examine the results. Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) is also used

for reliability analysis of the constructs, and to examine the hypothesized model.

SEM was also applied in a number of previous studies, therefore, in order to infer

the results, SEM was applied in this study (see Table 3.1).

Table 3.1

A View of Current Study’ Research Design in Comparison with Some of

Previous Studies

Author(s) Sample

Size Sampling

Technique Data Collection

Method Statistical

Tool

Newman et al.

(2011) 437 Simple random

Survey based

Questionnaire SEM

Ahmed et al.

(2014) 703 Multi Stage As above As above

Zientara et al.

(2015) 412 Convenience As above As above

Aprile & Talo

(2015) 172 Convenience As above As above

Newman et al. (2015)

306 Convenience As above As above

Present study 736 Multi-stage Sampling

As above As above

3.5 PRELIMINARY DATA ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES

After completion of the data collection from the respondents, at the initial

stage of data processing, data entry was made into SPSS. Chin and Lee (1996) suggested that in case of missing data, a subjective threshold can be defined by

the researcher and if the missing data is found above the defined threshold, it

can be considered missing, the questionnaires which contain missing data above the established threshold can be dropped from the process of analysis. In this

study, the 5% threshold was defined and all the questionnaires with more than

5% of missing data were considered as redundant (Ruane, 2005). However,

demographic questions were also considered in this threshold.

Moreover, all other tests related to data normality such as screening,

missing value treatment and outliers were conducted through SPSS. At first

stage, the Mean and Standard Deviations of all the variables of interest were analyzed and then reliability and correlation among the variables were assessed

and their overlapping multi-collinearity was also tested. It is argued that

101

correlation ranging from 0.20-0.35 is considered as week, ranging from 0.35-

0.65 is considered as moderate however above than 0.65 is considered as strong and above 0.85 is assumed as high (Cohen & Manion, 1994). In addition to

further analyze the collected data and to examine the hypotheses, AMOS

(Analysis of Moment Structure) was also utilized.

3.5.1 Structural Equation Modeling (SEM)

SEM is normally considered as a confirmatory technique rather than an

exploratory, it is normally used to analyze the relationships between latent

constructs, McDonald and Ho (2002) suggested that it is used to test the

relationship between different measures with single latent construct (McDonald & Ho, 2002). Rigdon (2012) explains that after obtaining the model parameters,

the hypothesized model is matched with the matrices of data based covariance.

However, if the matrices of hypothesized model are found consistent, it is assumed that SEM offers a possible justification for the causal relationship

between the variables. Moreover, SEM is also used for confirmatory factor

analysis, exploratory factor analysis, linear regression, covariance, estimating

variances and testing of hypotheses etc. Some researchers indicate that in today’s research SEM is used to assess the uni-dimensionality, reliability, validity and

model fitness. Further, Meyer et al. (2006) and Hair et al. (2006) suggested that

SEM has the ability to test the model fitness, it can also modify the model for best

fit. Accordingly, in view of the nature of this study, two-stage approach of SEM was applied to infer the results.

3.5.2 Two-Stage SEM Technique

Anderson and Gerbing (1988) suggested that for application of SEM,

there are two approaches i.e. one-stage approach and two-stage approach. During the application of one-stage approach, measurement model and

structural modelling is used at the same time. However, in two-stage approach,

first the measurement model used which follows the structural model. In present study, two-stage approach is used as it not only indicates about the reliability of

each of the variable, minimize the interactional effect, but also it is most

frequently used approach (Kline, 2005; Meyer et al., 2006).

102

Figure 3.1: Two-Stage SEM

3.5.3 Application of Stage-One (Measurement Model)

In stage-one, uni-dimensionality, validity and reliability estimations are

included. In following section, uni-dimensionality factor analysis, validity and reliability are discussed in detail.

3.5.3.1 Assessment of uni-dimensionality

During the application of SEM at the first stage, causal relationship is

examined among the items and the construct. In uni-dimensionality analysis, it

determines the construct’ reliability, but it also reflects factor loading of each item to be used to measure the construct. Highlighting the importance of uni-

dimensionality, Byrne (2010) emphasized that in order to authenticate the uni-

dimensionality of the construct, assessment of causal relationship (among the items and the constructs) is necessary. In addition, Kline, (2005) and Meyer et

al., (2006) emphasized that in uni-dimensional models, it predicts discriminant

and convergent validity of the measures. Hence, in view of the importance of

uni-dimensionality, this study also used this approach to analyze the reliability, factor loading of items and validity of the observed variables (i.e. perceived

CSR, organizational trust (OT), job satisfaction (JS), organizational

103

identification (OI), organizational commitment (OC), employee engagement

(EE) and organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB).

In literature, mainly two approaches i.e. confirmatory factor analysis

(CFA) and exploratory factor analysis (EFA) are recommended to perform uni-

dimensionality analysis. Anderson and Gerbing (1988) asserted that in case of non-availability of measurement scale or theoretical grounds in the study, EFA

is supposed to be used as the best approach. However, Hair et al. (2006) opined

that EFA only serve the purpose for estimating factor structure, it does not confirm the structure itself.

Figure 3.2: Uni-dimensionality Approaches

Contrary to EFA, uni-dimensionality of the measure is evaluated in CFA through identification of best possible model (Bollen, 1989; Holmes-Smith et

al., 2006; Byrne, 2010). Byrne (2010) described that the selection of a suitable

technique is normally based on the nature of the study. In present study, CFA

was applied to evaluate the uni-dimensionality of the constructs i.e. CSR, OT, JS, OI, OC, EE and OCB (see Chapter 4). In this study, all the measures are

adapted from the previous studies which have already been examined for factor

loading and were developed on the basis of relevant theories, therefore, CFA is preferred to be used in the present study (Byrne, 2010). Some of the researchers

have suggested 0.50 as cutoff value of factor loading (Haier et al., 2006).

However, other have suggested that all the items below the loading of 0.30 are

not acceptable (Brown, 2006). Considering both the arguments, this study considered 0.30 as cutoff value for factor loading. Uni-dimensionality

examination should be followed by reliability and validity of the constructs

(Meyer et al., 2006). The details of the reliability and validity is deliberated as under:

3.5.3.2 Assessment of Internal Reliability of the Measures

104

Johnson and Christensen (2004) suggested that the researchers try to

select measurement instruments which provide an accurate measure of the variables. Bonds-Raacke & Rackee (2012) suggested that reliability of an

instrument refers its ability to provide similar results over the period of time.

However, the researchers attempt to select an instrument which provides an

accurate measurement of the constructs. Similarly, Johnson and Christensen (2004) suggested that the reliability of instruments is considered its consistency

in its test scores. However, validity of instrument indicates the correctness of

the explanations or inferred results which are derived from the test score. Moreover, Burns (2000) indicated that in order to test the reliability, the adapted

questionnaires were evaluated to get unbiased and fair results.

In order o assess the reliability of the scale, multiple techniques are used (e.g. test-retest and split half reliability). Some researchers are of the view that

Cronbach’s alpha is mostly used method to test for internal consistency of the

instruments (Nunnally, 1978; Meyer et al., 2006). However, Ahmed (2014) indicates that different researchers have set different thresholds to determine the

suitable value of Cronbach’s alpha, however, 0.60 alpha value was considered

as minimum threshold (Kline, 1999; George & Mallery, 2003; Bagozzi & Yi,

1988). Therefore, for examining the internal consistency of the adopted instruments, Cronbach’s α (1951) alpha values was used during pretest in the

present study. During the internal consistency tests, if the Cronbach’s α value

found below 0.60 the scale was considered undesirable and not consistent

because it does not meet the minimum threshold requirement. Therefore, the instrument is considered reliable if its Cronbach’s alpha value exceeds 0.60.

Table 3.2

Represents the Value of Cronbach’s Alpha Value of the Scale

which meets the above Requirement

Scale Cronbach’s alpha

Perceived CSR 0.93

Organizational Trust (OT) 0.88

Job Satisfaction (JS) 0.85

Organizational Identitfication (OI) 0.84

Organizational Commitment (OC) 0.81

Employee Engagement (EE) 0.82

Organizational Citizenship Behaviour (OCB) 0.85

Although, in order to test the internal consistency of the measure, the

Cronbach’s alpha is frequently used, but it has some limitations (Anderson &

105

Gerbing, 1988). Therefore, in parallel with Cronbach’s alpha method, an added

application of CFA is suggested to be used (Hair et al., 2006; Meyer et al., 2006). In addition, Hair et al. (2010) further suggested that SEM is used as a main

application for analysis which makes CFA obligatory to be used.

Similalry, Fornell and Larcker (1981) suggested that for the use of CFA, average

variance extracted (AVE) and composite reliability (CR) of the scale was used as a reference point. Some researchers also suggested that CR improves the

applicability on the basis of model parameters to assess the internal consistency

(Holmes-Smith et al. (2006). However, Hair et al. (2006) suggested that AVE indicates the extent of shared variance by the set of measures. Thus, CR and

AVE were applied for

measurement, using the minimum threshold values of 0.60 (for CR) and 0.50

(for AVE) respectively (Hair et al., 2010). Accordingly, the values concerning to CR and AVE are given in

Table 4.5.

3.5.3.3 Assessment of Validity of the Measures

In order to ensure the appropriateness of the measure, validity of the measure is important. In this context, Ghauri and Gronhaug (2002) asserted that

“validity is the scale’s ability to measure what it is supposed to measure” (p.

134). Nunnally and Berstein (1994) suggested that a valid scale has the ability

to represent constructs’ observable items which relates to other constructs, and having sufficient number of measures. In this study, for validity of the measures,

face and construct (convergent & discriminant) were used.

Ruane (2005) describes that “face validity of the measure is the assurance

of the contents quality of an instrument and its ability to measure a

phenomenon” (p. 136). In this study, for face validity of the used measures,

experts’ opinion was sought from a panel of experts including seven PhD’s with at least five publications of each in international journals of repute. In the light

of expert input from the panel about wording of the questions, the questionnaire

was revised accordingly.

“construct validity” is another important form of validity. Ruane (2005)

indicates that “validity is about what an instrument is measuring” (p. 137).

Therefore, “it is assurance of accuracy to measure and operationalize a construct” (Ahmed, 2014 p. 96). In this study, both discriminant and construct

validity were used. Hair et al., (2006) described that “discriminant validity

identifies that investigating variables are not highly correlated to each other, while correlation among the measure of the same construct are looked through

convergent validity”.

106

However, Kline (2005) suggested that in order to measure the discriminant and convergent validity, CFA is considered as the most desirable

application. Hair et al., (2006) suggested that in order to determine convergent

validity, the measure should have Average Variance Extracted (AVE) above

0.50. In present study, the AVE values of the measures indicate that used scales have convergent validity as shown in Table 4.5. Similarly, Fornell and Larcker

(1981), Kline (2005) proposed that for the sake of discriminant validity, the

value of correlation between the factors should be less than 0.85 or Average Variance Extracted of any two variables should be higher than square correlation

coefficient, the measures used in the present study meet both the requirements.

3.5.4 Stage-Two (Structural Model)

Byrne (2010) concluded that in order to examine the causal relationship among the observed variables, structural model is used. Some researchers

suggested that in the field of management science, graphical representation of

models through the use of paths is frequently used approach (Kline, 2011;

Hoyle, 1995). During application of structural modeling, path diagrams identify various relations among variables which may be examined simultaneously

(Meyer et al., 2006). In addition, Holmes-Smith et al. 2006) also supported the

use of structural modeling by emphasizing that path analysis can examine direct

and indirect effects simultaneously, thus the use of structural model is more important because it not only use to examines the relationship between variables

but also useful for mediations. In present study, for examination of hypotheses,

structural model approach was used. The hypothesized model which is used in the current study was composite in nature with large sample size, for which

model fitness is not easy (Kline, 2005). Byrne (2010) suggested that for this

purpose, model was bifurcated into small measurable models (see Section

4.4.2). In today’s research, the importance of SEM is vital as it not only tests the models, but it also suggest modifications for best fitness of model (Meyer et al.,

2006). Therefore, in order to path analysis and examining the direct and indirect

effects, the present study used structural model to test the developed hypotheses.

3.5.4.1 Assumptions for Using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM)

Islam (2014) suggested that “similar to other statistical techniques, SEM

also have some assumptions such as sample size, missing values in collected

data, data normality, multivariate outliers, theoretical grounds for relationship among variables and model specifications” (p. 95). A brief debate is presented

below on above mentioned assumptions.

107

3.5.4.2 Sample Size

For the application of SEM technique, an adequate sample size is

necessary. Some researchers suggested that if sample size is small than it can

influence on covariance and co-relational stability, hence appropriate sample size is necessary to apply SEM technique (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001).

However, there is no agreement among the researchers about the appropriate

sample size for the use of SEM. For example, some researcher emphasized that SEM can be applied on a sample size of 50 which is appropriate (Anderson &

Gerbing, 1984). However, some advocated that sample size of 100 is

appropriate. Hair et al (2006) and Meyer et al. (2006) suggested 200 sample size

sufficient for application of SEM technique. However, some scholars are of the view that in case of using SEM the large number of sample size may be

problematic of model fit (Meyer et al., 2006; Byrne, 2010). Moreover, Kline

(2005) supported that sample size of 1150 is sufficient. However, in the present study, SEM is considered to be used on a sample size of 736.

3.5.4.3 Missing Values

Hair et al., (2010) commented that it is common to find missing values

during data collection process. Normally, the question for missing values in data

collection arises when subjects or respondents forgot to respond some questions (Meyer et al., 2006). However, Tabachnick and Fidell (2001) asserted that in

case of missing values in data collection, it is necessary and important to

understand the patterns of the missing data because randomly missing values in the data is not having any significant effect on the results. Additionally, Ruane

(2005) argued that 5% of missing data or less is in acceptable range for a specific

construct. In present study, missing values were found randomly with less than

5% which falls within acceptable range to use the SEM technique (see Section 4.3)

3.5.4.4 Data Normality

Data normality is one of the assumption to apply SEM technique (Kline,

2005). Some scholars asserted that to identify the normality of the data, Skewness and Kurtosis are the methods (Hair et al., 2006). To assess the data

normality, value of Skewness should be ranging from -3 to +3 and the value of

Kurtosis should be ranging from -10 to +10. Additionally, Hair et al., (2010) concluded that data normality for a large sample size should be assessed by

applying probability plots. Graverrer and Wallnau (2007) described that

108

normally distributed data has a bell-shaped curve. In present study, both

approaches i.e. Skewness, Kurtosis and probability plots used to assess the normality of the data (see Section 4.5).

3.5.4.5 Multivariate Outliers

In collected data, values which are higher or lower than the majority of

the values are considered outliers (Pallant, 2011). Tabachnick and Fidell, (2001)

stated that standard errors, parameters and the values of model fit are effected by multivariate outliers, hence before examining the data, it should be analyzed

for multivariate outliers. In literature, a number of approaches have been

identified through which outliers can be checked from the data such as 5 %

trimmed mean, but the Mahalanobis distance (MD) test at p < 0.001 used in the current study to identify the outliers from the data (Panatik, 2010). In the present

study, outliers were identified which was treated before conducting the final

analysis (see Section 4.4).

3.5.4.6 Theoretical Base for Causality

Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) is used to estimate the causality among the observed variables, but for this purpose, theoretical justification is

required (Byrne, 2010), because theoretical and logical background is required

to know the model fit or not to fit (Hair et al., 2010). In this study, the proposed model is based on logics and theories i.e. social exchange theory (SET) and

social identity theory (SIT) (as elaborated in Chapter 2).

3.5.4.7 Model Specification

To ascertain the values of model fitness, there is another criterion i.e.

judgement of model specification through values of model fitness. There are number of indices to judge the model fitness, but some researchers are not

agreed upon this view point. For instance, some recommended absolute indices

i.e. GFI, NNFI, SRMR and NFI (Kline (2005), while some other recommended

absolute indices for model fitness such as (i.e. GFI, RMSEA and X2), parsimonious such as (i.e. X2/df) and incremental dimensions such as (i.e.

AGFI, TLI, NFI and CFI) (Hair et al., 2006). However, model Fit indices as

suggested by Hair et al., (2006) were used in the present study (see Table 4.3).

3.5.5 Control Variables

Ahmed (2014) argued that some demographic characteristics have significant association with the variables and in that case, demographic

109

characteristics are treated as control variables. To test the control variables in

the current study, correlation analysis was applied and job description, age and qualification was found significant. However, no other demographical

characteristics were found associated and significant with other observed

variables. Therefore, job designation, age and qualification was considered as

control variables in this study (see Table 4.1).

3.6 CHAPTER SUMMARY

In this chapter, methodology based discussions were presented. This

chapter has not only concluded the discussions regarding preference of

quantitative study to qualitative study, it also deliberates the techniques used in this study. In addition, data analysis techniques with rationale are also came

under discussion. A short brief about preliminary data analysis and two stage

method which includes application of uni-dimensionality and measurement model have also been deliberated. However, application of techniques for data

analysis, two stage SEM approach including uni-dimensionality assessment and

measurement model is deliberated in detail in the next Chapter 4.

110

CHAPTER 4:

DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

In this chapter, results of the study are presented and focus is made on the

data analysis which includes hypotheses testing. First, all basic steps and data normality analysis are performed such as data screening, data coding,

identification and treatment of missing values, multivariate outliers,

demographic profile of the respondents, descriptive and correlational statistics.

Moreover, reliability analysis of the constructs, testing of hypothesized model and Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) is applied. In addition, for examining

the uni-dimensionality, structural modeling and model fitness is also discussed.

For further analysis, Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS 21.0) and Analysis of Moment Structure (AMOS 18.0) are used:

4.1 SCREENING OF DATA

Coakes (2006) and Zikmund (2003) suggested that data verification may

be ensured before its entry, for this purpose, data may be devided and corrected

or edited for incompleteness, missing values, normality and omission. As suggested by Sekaran (2000), incomplete responses were dealt and 75 percent

criterion was used to consider the responses valid. Accordingly, in this study, as

per this criterion, questionnaires on which at least 75% of the questions were answered were considered for further analysis.

4.2 IDENTIFICATION OF MISSING VALUES

In the process of data collection, sometimes respondents are unable to

complete questions and all these in complete responses are considered as missing values and this is common in the process of data collection (Coakes,

2006). In case of missing values, understanding of pattern of the missing data is

important because missing data for specific variables may disturb analysis, whereas randomly missing data has less impact on the analysis (Tabachnick &

Fidell, 2001). As suggested by Churchill, (1995), a threshold of five percent of

missing data against each variable was used and complete data was found within

this range. All the received responses fulfilled this requirement except 10 which were declared as rejected. Thus, a few of the unanswered questions were

considered as missing values. This might be reason that all the respondents were

from academia and researchers themselves, they are well aware about the pre-

111

requisites of a research study and they were careful at the time of filling of the

research questionnaires.

4.3 MULTIVARIATE OUTLIERS

Before analyzing different parametric statistics, multivariate outliers must

be removed from the dataset, because multivariate outliers have influence on

other parameters such as standard errors and the values of model fit (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). Normally, outliers are expected in large sample size, therefore,

careful handling of such datasets is required. In order to identify the multivariate

outliers, Mahalanobis distance test can be used, which is the distance of a data

point from the calculated centroid of the other cases where the centroid is calculated as the intersection of the mean of the variables being assessed.

Accordingly, Mahalanobis test was applied at distance p<0.001, 1.68 % of the

data was found to have multivariate outliers which becomes (N=10) therefore, 10 items were removed for further analysis. Thus, after treatment of 10

responses, remaining 585 responses were further analyzed.

4.4 DATA NORMALITY ANALYSIS

Data normality tests are used to determine whether the data is normally

distributed or not. Kline (2005) suggested that data normality is a basic assumption for the application structural equation modeling and factor analysis.

To ascertain whether the data is normal or not, there are several others methods,

but histogram and probability plots test were used in this study because this study has large sample size and it is best method to apply for a large sample size

(Hair et al., 2010). The main reason for developing the histogram is to

graphically explain the distribution of a data set. For testing the normality of a

data set, curve or normal probability plot is used. Chambers (1983), suggested that the normal probability plot or curve is a graphical tool to assess whether a

data set is approximately normally distributed. In probability plot, normal data

points are plotted and fall around a straight line which shows high positive correlation. In the normal probability plot, most of the responses fall near

straight line indicating that the data is normally distributed. Similarly, the

pragmatic distribution of a data set (in histogram) should be bell-shaped and

look like a normal distribution. The following Figure 4.1 shows the residual histogram for Job Satisfaction (JS) which also depicts curve as bell shaped and

majority of marks lies inside the bell-shaped curve. This reflects that data

distributed normally and not dispersed (Graverrer & Wallnau, 2007).

112

Figure 4.1: Residual Histogram for JS

Figure 4.2: P-Plot for JS

113

In Figure 4.2 (Plot for JS) indicates that in the data set, multivariate

outliers P-Plots extremely below or above the line residuals were checked as suggested by Hair et al. (2010). This figure also depicts that the variable’s

standards residual is normal. P-Plots and residual histogram of all variables of

this study are also presented in Appendix-H. In addition, in order to assess the

normality of the data set, it was further checked through Skewness and Kurtosis values. According to Hair et al. (2006) for data normality Skewness should be

ranging from <3 and >3, however the Kurtosis value should be ranging <10 and

>10 as shown in Appendix-I. This depicts that all values fall the acceptable rang and therefore meeting the data normality requirement, hence the data was found

in normal range.

4.5 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS

Descriptive statistics include the measurement of different features of the given population of the study (Bickel & Lehman, 1975). They describe the

summary of the characteristics of the sample population with its distinctive

measurement which includes means and median as measures of location, or the

inter-quartile and standard deviation range as measure of scale. Sekaran (2000) suggested that descriptive was analyzed by using the frequency and percentage

which is considered as an appropriate method. Moreover, results of survey items

of perceived CSR (i.e. independent variable), OT, JS and OI (i.e. mediating

variables) and OC, EE and OCB (i.e. dependent variables) were also analyzed to ascertain whether the results of different variables are similar and having a

clear pattern (Ferreira & Oliveira, 2014). In this study, measures are adopted

such as the mean, standard deviation and correlations of the variables which depicts the clear understanding of the attributes of demographics variables of

the study including job designation, age, gender, marital status, qualification and

job category.

4.6 CATEGORIZATION OF DEMOGRAPHICAL VARIABLES

In the literature on organizational behaviour and human resource,

importance of demographical variables is well acknowledged to understand and

explain the variances in work attitudes and theories (Cianni & Romberger, 1995;

Barak, Cherin, & Berkman, 1998). Demographic characteristics of employees are considered as the composition of a social entity in term of features of its

members (Pfeffer, 1983). In literature, considering the purpose of the study,

normally researchers used a variety of demographic characteristics. In this study, such demographic characteristics were used which may influence the

employee perceptions of CSR. In addition, these demographic characteristics

114

were also frequently referred in some of previous studies as control variables.

The used demographic variables include job designation, age, gender, marital status, qualification and job category. Job designation is categorized into six

categories (RA/TA, Lecturer, Assistant Professor, Associate Professor,

Professor and Other (if any). Age is classified into five categories (i.e. below 30,

31-40, 41-50, 51-60 and above 60 years). Marital status is characterized into two categories i.e. single and married. Qualification is categorized in into four

categories i.e. Master (having 16 years of education), MS (having 18 years of

education), PhD and Post-Doc. Job category is characterized into three categories i.e. permanent, contractual, and others such as tenure track system

(TTS).

4.7 DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE OF THE RESPONDENTS

A description of personal information of the respondents is presented in the below mentioned table (Table 4.1). Faculty members were asked to pinpoint

their job designation in the organization than 11.5 percent (N=67) faculty

members reported their job designation as RA/TA, while 45.1 percent (N=264)

of them reported as Lecturer. Similarly, 30.4 percent (N=178) reported as Assistant Professor and 5.5 percent (N=32) responded as Associate Professor.

In addition, 3.1 percent (N=18) reported as Professor. Respondents were

inquired to specify their age group in which they fall and their average age was

calculated 44 years by using the midpoint of each category of age. Respondents were also categorized into genders i.e. male and female. Male participants were

62.1 percent (N=363) while female participants were 37.9 percent (N=222).

Marital status was inquired from the respondents and 56.2 percent (N=329) were responded as married, while 43.8 percent (N=256) were responded as single.

115

Table 4.1

Demographic Characteristics

Category Percentage Frequency

Age Group

Below 30 years

31- 40 years

41- 50 years

51- 60 years

Above 60 years

42.7% 39.5%

12.5%

4.1%

1.2%

250 231

73

24

07

Job Designation Research Associate / TA

Lecturer

Assistant Professor

Associate Professor

Professor

Other

11.5%

45.1%

30.4%

5.5% 3.1%

4.4%

67

264

178

32 18

26

Gender

Male

Female

62.1% 37.9%

363 222

Marital Status Single

Married

43.8%

56.2%

256

329

Qualification

Master

MS

PhD

Post-Doctorate

18.3%

54.0%

24.6% 3.1%

107

316 144

18

Job Category

Permanent

Contractual

Other

55.9%

38.1% 6.0%

327

223 35

University Status

Public

Private

60.7%

39.3%

355

230

Moreover, respondents were provided the option to specify their level of qualification: Master’s degree, Master of Science (MS), Doctorate degree, and

post-doc. The respondents’ qualification status had 100% (N=585), 18.3 percent

(N=107) respondents reported to have Master’s degree, while 54.0 percent

(N=316) reported to have Masters of Science degree, whereas 24.6 percent (N=144) reported to have PhD degree. Similarly, 3.1 percent (N=18) reported

to complete their Post-doc (See Table 4.1 to view the summary of the results).

Respondents were provided the option to specify their category of job in their

116

organization, 55.9 percent (N=327) respondents reported to have permanent job.

However, 38.1 percent (N=223) reported to have contractual jobs in their organization. In addition, 6.0 percent (N=35) reported to have others job status

in their organizations such as tenure track system (TTS). Respondents were also

inquired to specify the status of their Institution/University (i.e. public or private

sector), 60.7 percent (N=355) reported that they were serving the public-sector institutions whereas 39.3 percent (N=230) reported to belong to private sector

universities.

4.8 CORRELATION AMONG VARIABLES

In all demographic variables, job designation, age and qualification partially correlate with all other variables of the study i.e. CSR, OT, JS, OI, OC,

EE and OCB, however other demographic variables such as gender, marital

status and job category does not have correlation with other variables of the study. The findings of some previous research studies indicate that these

demographic variables influence the work attitudes and behaviours of the

individuals (Schappe, 1998; Peterson, 2004; Valentine & Fleischman, 2008). A

detailed discussion is presented in the following table about correlation among the variables of this study.

Results about descriptive statistics including mean, standard deviation

and correlation are also presented in Table 4.2. The mean value of CSR was found as, Mean=3.60 which implies that most of the respondents were agreed

with the statement. Job satisfaction was having the highest mean value (Mean=

3.98), which implies that the respondents are agreed with their job satisfaction. Similarly, the mean value of organizational trust was found (Mean=3.59) which

implies that most of the employees have trusted their organizations because

response of most of the employees fall between ranging from 3-4 i.e. “Neutral”

to “Agree”. The mean value of organizational commitment has found (Mean=3.54) which identifies that most of the respondents agreed to the survey

statement given in the questionnaire and they agreed to have organizational

commitment with their organizations. The mean value of organizational identity has found (Mean=3.68) which reflects that most of the respondents have feelings

of organizational identity with their organizations.

117

Table 4.2

Inter Correlation Matrix among Variables

Mea

n

S.D

.

CS

R

JS

OT

OC

OI

EE

OC

B

Jo

b

Desi

gn

ati

on

Ag

e

Gen

der

Ma

rit

al

Sta

tus

Qu

ali

fica

tio

n

Jo

b

Ca

teg

ory

Un

iversi

ty

Sta

tus

CSR 3.60 .554 1

JS 3.98 .748 .528** 1

OT 3.59 .791 .696** .594** 1

OC 3.54 .667 .548** .527** .600** 1

OI 3.68 .743 .513** .344** .444** .608** 1

EE 3.60 .543 .555** .447** .540** .599** .555** 1

OCB 3.76 .615 .534** .313** .411** .460** .519** .633** 1

Job Designation 2.58 .980 .091 .077 .132** .117* .090 .188** .182** 1

Age 1.91 .893 .062 .039 .093 .077 .079 .108** .139** .656** 1

Gender 1.35 .477 .046 -.017 -.031 -.022 -.082 -.057 -.067 -.201** -.191** 1

Marital Status 1.64 .479 -.033 -.009 -.008 .003 .006 -.005 .041 .410** .510** -.191** 1

Qualification 2.24 .742 .137** .088 .148** .144** .118* .221** .168** .507** .407** -.237** .306** 1

Job Category 1.41 .561 .098 .052 .083 .046 .031 .028 -.061 -.148** -.150** .163** -.159** .079 1

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). CSR-Corporate Social

Responsibility OC-Organizational Commitment

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

(α). Parenthesises denotes the Alpha Co-effiecienct

OT-Organizational Trust

JS-Job Satisfaction

EE-Employee Engagement

OCB-Organizational Citizenship Behaviour

118

The mean value of employee engagement was found (Mean=3.60) which implies that most of the employees agreed with the statement given in the questionnaire ranging between “Neutral” to “Agree”. However, the mean value of Organizational Citizenship Behaviour (OCB) have found (Mean=3.76) which identifies that most of the respondents “Agreed” with the statement given in the questionnaire from “Neutral” to “Agree”. In addition, the values of standard deviation were found less than “one”, which showed that no large dispersion was found in the data (Hair et al., 1995).

Additionally, to have a clear picture about the relationship between

demographic variables (i.e. job designation, age, gender, marital status, qualification, job category) and variables (i.e. perceived CSR, OT, JS, OI, OC, EE and OCB) correlation analysis was performed. The results of the correlation analysis reveal a partial relationship among some of demographic variables and observed variables of the study. Therefore, job designation, age and qualification are considered as control variables of this study. However, a significant correlation is exited among all other variables of interest of the study. For example, between CSR and OT highly significant correlation was observed (r = .694, p < .001), CSR and JS (r = .524, p < .001), CSR and OI (r = .513, p < .001) and CSR and OC (r = .548, p < .001), and CSR and EE (r = .555, p < .001) and CSR and OCB (r = .534, p < .001). 4.9 STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELING (SEM)

Byrne (2010) suggested that in order to test measurements and structural

models, two stage SEM approach is used to reduce interactional effects of measurements and structural models (Byrne, 2010). Hair et al. (2010) further suggested that by using first stage, CFA was applied to examine the causal relationship and uni-dimensionality between the items and constructs. In addition, Byrne (2010) suggested that at the first stage of SEM further reliability analysis and validity of the constructs is assessed. By using SEM, in the second stage, endogenous variables (OC, EE and OCB) and exogenous variable (i.e. CSR) were examined through structural model. Furthermore, Tabachnick and Fidell (2001) advocated that at the second stage of SEM, it examines the set of independent variables (IV) with dependent variables (DV).

4.10 STAGE-FIRST-MEASUREMENT MODEL

Measurement model was examined using constructs’ validity and

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). Arbuckle (2005) defined the measurement model as “a model that specifies how the observed variables depend on the latent, composite, and unobserved variables” (p. 89). In addition, Byrne (2010)

119

described that measurement model identifies the pattern by which each measure is loaded on a specific variable. Thus, each variable used in this study (i.e. Corporate Social responsibility (CSR), Organizational Trust (OT) Job Satisfaction (JS), Organizational Identification (OT), Organizational Commitment (OC), Employee Engagement (EE) and Organizational Citizenship Behaviour (OCB) were separately examined. In some of previous studies such as (e.g. Byrne, 2010; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007) the model was re-visited because it was found inconsistent with the hypothesized model. In order to get the better fit, necessary modifications were made in the models. As a follow up, reliability and validity test of the variables were also conducted. Hence, the developed model was measured in two steps i.e. first through uni-dimensionality of the factors by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and second through validity and reliability analysis.

4.11 APPLICATION OF CFA-ASSESSMENT OF UNI-

DIMENSIONALITY

Schreiber et al. (2006) suggested that CFA is normally used to examine the validity of the observed variables in relationship with latent constructs. In order to check the uni-dimensionality of all the observed variables, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) approach was used in this study. Kline (2005) suggested that for model fit by using CFA, reasonable factor loading should have in the model and low correlation among the observed constructs. Brown (2006) described different minimum acceptable value for factor loading has been suggested by different researchers, however, in this study, standardized value of above 0.30 is considered as acceptable value. In confirmatory factor analysis, correlation value among the observed variables should be interrupted as it relates to discriminant validity. In this context, Kline (2005) argued that correlation value must not be less than 0.85 otherwise factors are not considered distinct. Thus, in this study, the values 0.85 (for correlation) and 0.30 (for factor leading) are considered as the base. In literature, normally used fit indices are the CMIN, NFI (Normal Fit Indexed), CFI (Comparative Fit Index), NNFI (Non-Normed Fit Index), TLI (Tucker-Lewis Index) and RMSEA (Root Mean Square Error of Approximation) and these goodness-of-fit indexes are used to test the model. In addition, Hair et al. (2010) presented standard values for model fitness such as “The value of Comparative Fit Index (CFI) should be high for better model fit, the value of Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) and Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI) should be equal or more than 0.90, the value of Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) should be less than 0.08, the value of Normed Fit Index (NFI) should be equal or greater than 0.90 and the value of x2/df should be less than 5” (see Table 4.3). Byrne (2010) argued that model fitness was evaluated through examination of value of normal residuals and modification indices. In addition, Hair at al. (2010) suggested that through normal residuals, difference

120

between observed and estimated correlation can be identified, on the other hand indices which are modified show the calculated results about such relations in the model which are not estimated. He further argued that chi-square (x2) is also influenced by modification indices if its value is greater than 3.84. however, the residual having value ± 2.58 reflects an error in the specification’ of the model. In this context, Holmes-Smith et al. (2006) recommended that estimates should be performed slowly and theoretical consideration should also be kept in mind.

Table 4.3

Standardized Values for Model Fit

Indices Standard Values

Comparative Fit Index (CFI) Must be ≥ than 0.90

Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) Must be ≥ than 0.90

Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI) Must be ≥ than 0.90

Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) Must be ≤ than 0.08

Normed Fit Index (NFI) Must be ≥ than 0.90

Chai Square / Degree of Freedom (x2/df) Must be ≤ than 5.00

Source: Hair et al., (2010) and Byrne, (2010)

4.12 CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY (CSR)

The construct of CSR was measured by using 29 items of the scale. Initially, in comparison with the standard values, the values of standardized parameter were not found good as shown in the Table 4.3. The initial values were found i.e. x2 =1900.362, df=377, x2/df = 5.041, p = 0.00, NFI = 0.727, GFI = .795, AGFI = .763, CFI = .768, TLI = .750, RMSEA = 0.083. At the first stage, factor loading of all items of the scale were examined which were found higher from the standard value i.e. 0.30 (ranging from 0.34-0.67) except item 4 & 5. Therefore, item 4 & 5 which had factor loading values 0.25 and 0.29 respectively were removed from the measure to make the factor loading of items in acceptable range. Afterward modification indices and standardized residuals were examined in the model and some of the error terms found which were unacceptably highly in comparison to other error terms such as e28-e29 = 96.946; e26-e27 = 134.438; e25-e26 = 111.034; e22-e23=90.405 and so on. As suggested by Byrne (2010) all referred error terms were correlated one by one and model was tested repeatedly to get better model fit. After making each re-specification in the model, model fitness improved. The final model along with values of standardized parameter estimates are given in Figure 4.3.

121

Figure 4.3: Confirmatory Factor Analysis Measurement Model for CSR

Standardize Values of Model Fitness

x2 =722.046, df = 302, x2/df = 2.391, p = 0.000, NFI = 0.902, GFI = 0.915, AGFI = 0.905, CFI = 0.934, TLI = 0.923, RMSEA = 0.049.

122

4.12.1 Organizational Trust

Organizational Trust (OT) was measured by using five items scale. In

comparison with standard values, the standardized parameter estimates

preliminary values were found not good as shown in Table 4.3 such as x2

=109.477, df = 5, x2/df = 21.895, p = 0.00, NFI = 0.931, GFI = 0.924, AGFI = 0.773, CFI = 0.933, TLI = 0.867, RMSEA = 0.189. The factor loading of all

items were examined which found higher than the standard value of 0.30

(ranging from 0.71-0.85). Subsequently, the model was examined through modification indices and standardized residuals. Some error terms found related

with other error terms which were too highs such as e4-e5 = 68.786; e1-e2 =

31.548. As suggested by Byrne (2010) all referred error terms were correlated

one by one and model was tested repeatedly for better fit. After making each re-specification in the model, model fitness improved. The final model along with

values of standardized parameter estimates is presented in Figure 4.4.

Figure 4.4: Confirmatory Factor Analysis Measurement Model for OT

Standardize Values of Model Fitness

x2 =5.132, df = 3, x2/df = 1.711, p = 0.162, NFI = 0.997, GFI = 0.997, AGFI = 0.983, CFI = 0.999, TLI = 0.995, RMSEA = 0.035

4.12.2 Job Satisfaction

A three items scale was used to measure the construct of job satisfaction

(see Figure 4.5). Initially, standardized parameter estimates and values were

found good as compare to values presented in Table 4.3 e.g x2 = 8.137, df = 2, x2/df = 4.05, p = 0.016, NFI = 0.992, GFI = 0.993,

AGFI = 0.978, CFI = 0.994, TLI = 0.990, RMSEA = 0.063). Moreover, factor

loading values of all items were also found above the minimum standard value

123

of 0.30 (i.e. 0.76-0.85). Thus, without modification, the construct was found to

be good as depict in Figure 4.5.

Figure 4.5: Confirmatory Factor Analysis Measurement Model for JS

Standardize Values of Model Fitness

x2 =8.139, df = 2, x2/df = 4.07, p = 0.017, NFI = 0.992, GFI = 0.993,

AGFI = 0.978, CFI = 0.994, TLI = 0.990, RMSEA = 0.064

4.12.3 Organizational Identification

The construct of Organizational Identity (OI) was assessed using its five

items scale. The preliminary standardized parameter estimates or values were found good with respect to all standardized values as shown in Table 4.3 (i.e. x2

=14.506, df = 5, x2/df = 2.901, p = 0.013, NFI = 0.985, GFI = 0.990, AGFI =

0.969, CFI = 0.990, TLI = 0.980, RMSEA = 0.057). Furthermore, all the values of factor loading were also higher than the minimum standard value of 0.30 (i.e.

0.64-0.75). Thus, without any modification this construct was found to be good

as depicts in Figure 4.6.

124

Figure 4.6: Confirmatory Factor Analysis Measurement Model for OI

Standardize Values of Model Fitness

x2 =14.506, df = 5, x2/df = 2.901, p = 0.013, NFI = 0.985, GFI = 0.990,

AGFI = 0.969, CFI = 0.990, TLI = 0.980, RMSEA = 0.057

4.12.4 Organizational Commitment

Two dimensions of the construct of organizational commitment i.e.

affective commitment and continuance commitment was measured by using its 08 items scale. In comparison with the standard values as given in Table 4.3, the

preliminary standardized parameter estimates or values were not found good.

The initial standardized parameter estimates or values were found as x2 =114.867, df = 9, x2/df = 12.763, p = 0.00, NFI = 0.929, GFI = 0.939, AGFI =

0.858, CFI = 0.934, TLI = 0.890, RMSEA = 0.142. Initially, all the items were

examined which had factor loading (ranging from 0.34-0.85) above the standard

value of 0.30 except item 7 & 8. Therefore, item 7 & 8 which had factor loading values 0.12 and 0.21 respectively were removed from the measure to make the

factor loading of items in acceptable range. Subsequently, the model was

examined comparing the modification indices and standardized residuals. In the model, some error terms were found unsatisfactorily high related with other

error terms such as e6-e7 = 68.763; e5-e6 = 60.793; e5-e7=32.332 and

e1-e2=30.530. As suggested by Byrne (2010) all referred error terms were

correlated one by one and model was tested repeatedly for better fit. After making each re-specification in the model, model fitness improved. The final

model along with values of standardized parameter estimates are given in Table

4.7.

125

Figure 4.7: Confirmatory Factor Analysis Measurement Model for OC

Standardize Values of Model Fitness

(i.e. x2 =11.689, df = 7, x2/df = 1.670, p = 0.111, NFI = 0.993, GFI = 0.994, AGFI = 0.981, CFI = 0.997, TLI = 0.994, RMSEA = 0.034).

4.12.5 Employee Engagement

The construct of employee engagement was measured by using eleven

items scale. In comparison with standard values, the preliminary values

pertaining to standardized parameter estimates were found not good as shown

in Table 4.3 e.g. x2 = 477.886, df = 44, x2/df = 10.861, p = 0.00, NFI = 0.767, GFI = 0.852, AGFI = 0.778, CFI = 0.783, TLI = 0.728, RMSEA = 0.130. All

items were examined for their factor loading (ranging from 0.46-0.74) which

were found higher than the minimum standard value of 0.30 except item 4 & 8. Therefore, item 4 & 8 which had factor loading values 0.21 and 0.21

respectively were removed from the measure to make the factor loading of items

in acceptable range. Subsequently, the model was examined comparing the

modification indices and standardized residuals. In the model, some error terms were found significant high concerning with other error terms such as e2-

e3=95.677; e9-e10=83.923; e5-e9 = 43.510; e5-e3=41.216; e5-e10 = 28.005;

e1-e5=26.445; e7-e5=19.97. As recommended by Byrne (2010) all referred error terms were correlated one by one and model was tested repeatedly to get

better model fit. After making each re-specification in the model, model fitness

improved. The final model along with values of standardized parameter

estimates are presented in Figure 4.8.

126

Figure 4.8: Confirmatory Factor Analysis Measurement Model for EE

Standardize Values of Model Fitness

x2 =89.268, df = 20, x2/df = 4.463, p = .000, NFI = 0.953, GFI = 0.966,

AGFI = 0.924, CFI = 0.963, TLI = 0.934, RMSEA = 0.077.

4.12.6 Organizational Citizenship Behaviour

Two dimensions of the construct of Organizational Citizenship Behaviour

(OCB) i.e. organizational citizenship behaviour towards individual (OCBI) and

organizational citizenship behaviour towards organization (OCBO) was measured by using its two dimensions’ scale comprising of 8 items containing

4 items of each dimension. In comparison with the standard values, the

preliminary values of standardized parameter estimates were found not good as

depicted in Table 4.3 e.g. x2 =322.438, df = 20, x2/df = 16.122, p = 0.00, NFI = 0.807, GFI = 0.850, AGFI = 0.729, CFI = 0.816, TLI = 0.742, RMSEA = 0.161,

but for more fit, some re-specifications were made. For factor loading, all items

were examined and few of them were found higher than the minimum standard value of 0.30 (i.e. 0.46--0.77). Subsequently, the model was examined through

standardized residuals and application of modification indices. Some error terms

were found highly correlated with other error terms such as e1-e2=71.65; e2-e5

= 64.797; e1-e5 = 31.380. As per the recommendations by Byrne (2010) all referred error terms were correlated one by one and model was tested repeatedly

to get the best model fit. After making each re-specification in the model, model

fitness improved. The final model along with values of standardized parameter estimates are presented in Figure 4.9.

127

Figure 4.9: Confirmatory Factor Analysis Measurement Model for OCB

Standardize Values of Model Fitness

x2 =42.739, df = 14, x2/df = 3.053, p = 0.000, NFI = 0.974, GFI = 0.983, AGFI = 0.955, CFI = 0.983, TLI = 0.965, RMSEA = 0.059).

4.13 CONSTRUCTS RELIABILITY

In research process, the reliability of the instruments is considered as the most important element of the research process. Carmines and Zeller (1979) and

Bollen (1989) argued that reliability is characterized as an experiment or method

which provides the similar results repeatedly over different circumstances. Internal consistency of a scale is determined before application or performance

of a research test to ensure its validity; reliability indicates the amount of

measurement error in a test. One of the ways to determine the instrument's

internal consistency is through Cronbach Alpha values, it was first presented by Lee Cronbach in 1951.

Therefore, a pretest was conducted to examine whether the respondents of the study comprehend all the items of the scale which they are supposed to

respond (Brislin, 1980). This questionnaire was comprised of different measures

which were already used in some of previous studies and found reliable. For

determining the reliability of the tailored questionnaire, 25 questionnaires were distributed among the faculty members of an Institute. The participants

responded the questionnaires about their perceptions on CSR, their feelings

128

towards job, organization, and work behaviours. Reliability of test was

performed by using Cronbach alpha to determine the internal consistency of the tailored questionnaire and received results are given in the following Table 4.4.

Table 4.4 indicates the Cronbach’s Alpha value of each instrument

supposed to be used to measure the constructs of this study. This table show that all the values are above 0.7 which indicates that scales to be used in this study

to measure the constructs is good and highly reliable which also indicates the

inter-correlation matrix generated from the results. Cronbach’s coefficient alphas value for each variable is also given in the end of each row which has

been highlighted as bold in brackets.

Table 4.4

Reliability of Pretest of the Measures

Constructs No. of Items Cronbach Alpha

Perceived CSR 29 (0.93)

Organizational Trust 5 (0.88)

Job Satisfaction 3 (0.84)

Organizational Identitfication 5 (0.83)

Organizational Commitment 8 (0.81)

Employee Engagement 11 (0.81)

Organizational Citizenship Behaviour 8 (0.84)

Source: Developed for the research

The alpha value for CSR perceptions of employees’ is above 0.70 (i.e. 0.93), which is highly reliable, found on a high level of internal consistency

and hence achieved acceptable internal consistency of the measure. The alpha

values of adopted mediating variables (e.g. OT, JS and OI) are more than 0.80,

which also indicates a high level of reliability of the scales. The internal consistency of the dependent variables i.e. organizational commitment,

employee engagement and OCB all had alpha values of above 0.80 and all scales

have achieved acceptable to good internal consistency. Therefore, it concludes that the proposed survey questionnaire used in this study is a reliable instrument.

However, validity and reliability of the final questionnaire was tested through

confirmatory factor analysis as shown in Table 4.5

129

4.13.1 Assessment of Reliability and Validity

After assessment of uni-dimensionality of the observed variables of the

study i.e. CSR, OT, JS, OI, OC, EE and OCB, the constructs reliability and

validity were also examined (Byrne, 2010). In order to examine the reliability

and validity of the constructs, Cronbach’s Alpha, Average Variance Extracted (AVE) and Composite Reliability (CR) were applied. However, to test the

discriminant and convergence validity, measures of the constructs were used

(Kline, 2005). Moreover, the reliability of the used constructs was tested through the Cronbach Alpha value and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). George

and Mallery (2003) suggested rules of thumb that the value of Cronbach Alpha

“≥ 0.9 – Excellent, ≥ 0.8 – Good, ≥ 0.7 – Acceptable, ≥ 0.6 – Questionable,

≥ 0.5 – Poor, and ≤ 0.5 – Unacceptable”. In some of previous studies, Cronbach’s alpha was applied such as Al-bdour et al. (2010) and Cheruiyot and

Maru (2014). On the basis of above referred rules of thumb all the alpha values

of the constructs were found in “good” for CSR, OT, JS, OI, OC, EE, and OCB (see Table 4.5). A formula given by Fornell and Larcker (1981) was applied to

calculate the value of Average Variance Extracted (AVE), Composite

Reliability (CR). Hair et al., (2006) suggested that the value of AVE should be

≥ 0.50 and CR value should be ≥ 0.60. In addition, assessment of convergent and discriminant validity of the observed variables were made. In this context,

Holmes-Smith et al. (2006) recommended that loading of the construct could be

greater than 0.30 with significance value p < 0.001. Table 4.4 depicts the values

of the items of the constructs which shows that all the observed constructs are having convergent validity. Conversely, Kline (2005) concluded that for having

convergent validity, correlation and coefficients of the construct should not be

more than the value of 0.85. The scale used in this study was acceptable for discriminant validity because results of the study were found consistent with the

suggested values for correlation and coefficients. Model fitness values with

unstandardized parameter estimates may be seen at Appendix-J.

130

Table 4.5

Evaluation of Measurement Model

Item FL ∞ CR AVE Item FL ∞ CR AVE

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Job Satisfaction (JS) CSR1 .868

.932 .954 0.526

JS1 .847

.848 .905 .760 CSR2 .667 JS2 .898

CSR3 .711 JS3 .868

CSR6 0.63 Organizational Identity (OI)

CSR7 0.42 OI1 .801

.833 .876 .587

CSR8 .652 OI2 .758

CSR9 .505 OI3 0.74

CSR10 0.73 OI4 .799

CSR11 .661 OI5 .729

CSR12 .612 Organizational Commitment (OC) CSR13 0.58 OC1 .795

.810 .933 .639

CSR14 .583 OC2 .895

CSR15 .553 OC3 .854

CSR16 .597 OC4 .852

CSR17 .882 OC5 .648

CSR18 .516 OC6 .603

CSR19 .585 Employee Engagement (EE) CSR20 .638 EE1 .577

.819 .936 .576

CSR21 0.58 EE2 .822

CSR22 .806 EE3 .806

CSR23 .721 EE5 .775

CSR24 .711 EE6 .644

CSR25 .387 EE7 .741

CSR26 .418 EE9 .902

CSR27 .324 EE10 .873

CSR28 .837 EE11 .547

CSR29 .833 Organizational Citizenship Behaviour (OCB)

Organizational Trust (OT) OCB1 .802

.848 .926 .614

OT1 .793

.881 .916 .685

OCB2 .872

OT2 .833 OCB3 0.83

OT3 .851 OCB4 .549

OT4 .837 OCB5 .848

OT5 .823 OCB6 .754

OCB7 .795

OCB8 .773

131

4.14 HYPOTHESES TESTING (SECOND STAGE-SEM

APPLICATION)

Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) is more important and well known

for hypotheses testing and inferential of data analysis. SEM is considered as

multipurpose and more diverse comparing other multivariate procedures, because it permits simultaneously to analyze various relationships between

dependent and independent variables. As suggested by Kline (2005), Hair et al.

(2006), Holmes-Smith et al. (2006) and Byrne (2010), at first stage of SEM application, model fitness and uni-dimensionality of the observed variables was

examined. In this study, structure model is defined at the second stage of SEM

application. Byrne (2010) suggested that at the second stage of SEM, structural

model identifies that “how latent variables are related”, it also specifies the direct and indirect relationship among the observed latent variables. In order to test the

existing relationship among the observed variables, structure model is used in the

study. To ascertain model fitness, structure model was examined as per model fitness indices as introduced by Hair et al. (2010). In this study, perceived CSR

is an independent variable, organizational commitment, employee engagement

and organizational citizenship behaviour are dependent variables, while

organizational trust, job satisfaction and organizational identification are hypothesized as mediating or intervening variables between CSR and dependent

variables i.e. OC, EE and OCB.

4.14.1 Structural Model-1

In second stage of SEM, first structural model is defined and relationship between the observed variables is also examined. In Figure 4.10 one independent

variable (i.e. CSR) and six dependent variables are shown (i.e. OT, JS, OI, OC,

EE, and OCB with sixty-five paths. At this stage, there is no need to correlate the

independent variable (i.e. CSR) with double headed arrow. All the possible causal paths are shown in relation with exogenous variable (i.e. CSR) and

endogenous variables (i.e. OT, JS, OI, OC, EE and OCB) through single headed

arrows. An error term relating to endogenous variables (i.e. JS and OCB) signifies the residual error because of systematic error.

132

Figure 4.10: Hypothesized Structural Model-1

Values of Model Fit: x2 =5540.620, df=1872, x /df =2.960, p=0.000,

NFI=0.725, GFI=0.745, IFI=0.799, AGFI=0.725, CFI=0.798, TLI=0.790, RMSEA=0.058, P-Close=1.000

133

In model fitness, standardized estimates along with the values are

presented in Figure 4.10. The model fit values (x2 =5540.620, df=1872, x2/df =2.960, p=0.000, NFI=0.725, GFI=0.745, IFI=0.799, AGFI=0.725,

CFI=0.798, TLI=0.790, RMSEA=0.058, P-Close=1.000) which shows that

model is closely fit as per standardized values, but it has some insignificant paths

which need to be modified to make the model as good fit (Hair et al., 2010). Table 4.6 depicts the results of hypotheses testing. The reflected values in the

table depicts that hypotheses H1, H5, H9, H15 are found statistically significant

and support the hypotheses. However, H13 and H14 are found statistically insignificant and do not support the predicted hypotheses (as hypothesized in

Chapter 3).

Table 4.6

Results of Hypotheses Testing

Hypotheses Paths Β C.R P Supported

H1 CSR-OT .785 11.551 .000 Yes

H5 CSR-JS .203 2.978 .000 Yes

H9 CSR-OI .303 3.946 .000 Yes

H13 CSR-OC -.069 -1.231 .218 No

H14 CSR-EE .116 1.898 .058 No

H15 CSR-OCB .353 4.538 .000 Yes

Note: CSR = Corporate Social Responsibility, OT = Organizational Trust,

JS = Job Satisfaction, OI = Organizational Identification,

OC = Organizational Commitment, EE = Employee Engagement and OCB = Organizational Citizenship Behaviour **p < .001, *p <.05.

4.14.2 Removal of Insignificant Paths and Fit Indices for Structural Model

As suggested by Byrne (2010), in view of better model fitness, all

insignificant paths were removed. Moreover, as suggested by Holmes-Smith et al. (2006) that one by one all the insignificant paths were removed. Furthermore,

first those paths removed which were having least standardized value because

removal of path accrues change in significance level and standardized weights

for the remaining paths. Table 4.7 depicts the details of all the removed paths with the values of model fitness.

134

Table 4.7

Indices of Structural Models

Structural

Model

Removed

Paths Model Fitness Indices

Model -1 -------

x2 =5540.620, df=1872, x2/df =2.960, p=0.000, NFI=0.725, GFI=0.745, IFI=0.799, AGFI=0.725,

CFI=0.798, TLI=0.790, RMSEA=0.058,

P-Close=1.000

Model -2 CSR-EE

x2 =5544.037, df=1873, x2/df =2.960, p=0.000,

NFI=0.725, GFI=0.745, IFI=0.799, AGFI=0.725, CFI=0.798, TLI=0.790, RMSEA=0.058,

P-Close=1.000

Model -3 OT-OI

x2 =5550.732, df=1874, x2/df =2.962, p=0.000,

NFI=0.724, GFI=0.744, IFI=0.799, AGFI=0.725,

CFI=0.798, TLI=0.789, RMSEA=0.058, P-Close=1.000

Model -4 CSR-OC

x2 =5554.111, df=1875, x2/df =2.962, p=0.000,

NFI=0.724, GFI=0.744, IFI=0.799, AGFI=0.725,

CFI=0.798, TLI=0.789, RMSEA=0.058,

P-Close=1.000

Model -5 JS-OCB

x2 =5554.179, df=1873, x2/df =2.961, p=0.000, NFI=0.724, GFI=0.744, IFI=0.799, AGFI=0.725,

CFI=0.798, TLI=0.789, RMSEA=0.058,

P-Close=1.000

Model -6 OT-OCB

x2 =5544.201, df=1877, x2/df =2.959, p=0.000,

NFI=0.724, GFI=0.744, IFI=0.799, AGFI=0.725, CFI=0.798, TLI=0.790, RMSEA=0.058,

P-Close=1.000

Model -7

Final -------

x2 =3725.177, df=1830, x2/df =2.036, p=0.000,

NFI=0.915, GFI=0.910, IFI=0.907, AGFI=0.921,

CFI=0.911, TLI=0.923, RMSEA=0.042, P-Close=1.000

Note: CSR = Corporate Social Responsibility, OT = Organizational Trust,

JS = Job Satisfaction, OI = Organizational Identification,

OC = Organizational Commitment, EE = Employee Engagement and OCB = Organizational Citizenship Behaviour **p < .001, *p < .05.

All the insignificant paths were removed one by one from the structural

model to identify the model fitness. In the fitness indices, not so much changes were observed from model 1-6 when insignificant paths were removed. For

instance, in case of change in insignificant paths or fitness indices no change

was observed in fitness indices such as NFI value i.e. 0.724 remained constant

135

and no changes was occurred. Moreover, values of other fit indices remained

the same i.e. IFI, CFI, TLI, RMSEA and P-close.

Figure 4.11: Hypothesized Structural Model 7 - Final

136

After removal of all the insignificant paths, the model was again adjusted

for standardized residuals and modification indices. For this purpose, less values paths were removed to get the high values of model fitness. This time the values

of model-7 were improved and found to be fit having fitness indices values as

suggested by Byrne (2010) and Hair et al. (2006) for better model fit. (see Figure

4.11) i.e. x2 =3725.177, df=1830, x2/df =2.036, p=0.000, NFI=0.915, GFI=0.910, IFI=0.907, AGFI=0.921, CFI=0.911, TLI=0.923, RMSEA=0.042,

P-Close=1.000. (see Appendix-K to see all the diagrams of structural model).

Hence, this model (Final model) was found as best structural model and it may be executed in the higher education sector of Pakistan in particular and world

across in general. However, in view of the cultural diversity, variation might be

observed in the results.

4.15 STRUCTURAL MODELS FOR MEDIATION ANALYSIS

Some scholars are of the view that in case a variable is considered

between the relationship of independent and dependent variable(s), it is

considered as a mediating variable (Baron & Kenny, 1986). In addition, Little

et al. (2007) argued that in complex models the role of mediating variable is important because mediating variables explains the mechanism through which

predictor influence the criterion. In order to check the mediation, different

methods are adopted, however, the causal step method introduced by Baron and

Kenny (1986) is commonly used and considered important. Moreover, Preacher and Hayes (2008) advocated that this step method shows better results in case

of large sample size. However, there are certain conditions which needs to be

fulfilled for a good mediation results such as:

1. There should be significant relationship existed between A and M (path-a).

2. There should also be significant relationship existed between M and B (path-b).

3. The direct path (i.e. c) should be less significant as compared to the indirect path (i.e. a × b).

137

Figure 4.12: Mediation Model

Note: In the current study, where A = CSR, M = OT, JS and OI, B = OC,

EE and OCB

Although this method is frequently used by the scholars, however, this

method is still debatable on account of following two reasons. First, as suggested by Preacher and Hayes, (2004), it does not have the feature to test the

significance of the indirect path. Second, as suggested by Mackinnon, (2008),

this method does not consider type II errors. Some researchers are of the view

that for measurement of mediation, indirect path is more suitable technique, because in this technique indirect path is calculated by increasing regression

weights of path “a” and “b” (see Figure 4.12) (Muthen, 2011; Sobel, 1982).

However, researchers advocated that the SEM is most appropriate statistical tool to analyze the indirect paths because it has the ability to evaluate the complex

models (Mackinnon et al., 2007; Preacher & Hayes, 2004; Little et al., 2007).

Thus, considering the complexity of the model and to test the significance, the

mediation was examined individually by dividing the model into small parts, therefore, in this study, SEM technique was used to test the mediation. In Figure

4.12 the mediation model is shown with direct variable (A), indirect variable (B)

and mediation variable (M) (i.e. A =CSR, M = OT, JS and OI and B = OC, EE

and OCB. Muthen (2011) and Mackinnon, (2000) supported that by using SEM technique these paths are divided into two paths i.e. indirect path and direct path.

Regression weight of variable A and B is considered the direct path, however,

multiplication of two regression paths i.e. regression weight of variables A and M, and regression weight of variables of M and B is considered indirect paths.

The model is considered fully mediated if the relationship between variables A

and B is fully explained by M. However, the model is considered partially

mediated if all the paths are found significant. In addition, as suggested by Mackinnon et al., (2002) if the non-significant relationship is found between

independent and mediating variable (A-M) or between mediating and dependent

variable (M-B) then there is no mediating relationship exists. The results of mediation relationships among variables are presented in Table 4.8. For

M

A B

a b

c

138

mediation models, as predicted mediations among the observed variables of the

study (see Appendix-L).

Table 4.8

Hypothesized Mediation Relations among Variables and its Results

Hypotheses Hypothesized Relation Mediation Results

H2 CSR-OT-OC Partial Mediation

H3 CSR-OT-EE Partial Mediation

H4 CSR-OT-OCB No Mediation

H6 CSR-JS-OC Partial Mediation

H7 CSR-JS-EE Partial Mediation

H8 CSR-JS-OCB No Mediation

H10 CSR-OI-OC Partial Mediation

H11 CSR-OI-EE Partial Mediation

H12 CSR-OI-OCB Partial Mediation

Note: CSR = Corporate Social Responsibility, OT = Organizational Trust,

JS = Job Satisfaction, OI = Organizational Identification,

OC = Organizational Commitment, EE = Employee Engagement

and OCB = Organizational Citizenship Behaviour.

4.15.1 The Relationship between CSR, OT and OC

Figure 4.13 depicts the relational paths among CSR, OT and OC,

however, the Table 4.9 shows the direct and indirect paths. After analyzing all

the paths through SEM, the model fulfills all the parameters, requirements as suggested by Hair et al., (2006) it was found to be considered as fit. Model

fitness values were found to be as x2=1506.424, df=638, x2/df=2.361, p=0.000,

NFI=0.912, GFI=0.923, IFI=0.919, AGFI=0.905, CFI=0.918, TLI=0.910,

RMSEA= 0.048.

139

Model Fitness Values

x2=1506.424

x2/df=2.361

NFI=0.912

IFI=0.919

CFI=0.918

RMSEA= 0.048

df=638

p=0.000

GFI=0.923

AGFI=0.905

TLI=0.910

Figure 4.13: Mediation Analysis CSR-OT-OC

Table 4.9

Path Analysis Outcomes for CSR-OT-OC

Path Std.

Reg. P Effect

CSR-OT OT-OC

CSR-OC

.79

.61

.15

0.00 0.00

0.03

Direct Indirect Total Mediation

0.15** 0.48** 0.63 Partial

Mediation

Note: CSR = Corporate Social Responsibility, OT = Organizational Trust, OC = Organizational Commitment

** P < .001 and * P < .05

After analyzing the mediation results, significant path was found between

CSR and OT (with values of β=.79, p =.000), similarly the path between OT

and OC was also found significant β=0.61, p =.000. Moreover, the indirect path

was found greater (β=.48) in comparison with direct path (β =.15). Thus, it is concluded that OT plays its role as a mediator between CSR

and OC and partially mediates the relationship between CSR and OC. Hence,

the results supported the H2.

4.15.2 The Relationship between CSR, OT and EE

Figure 4.14 shows the relational paths among CSR-OT-EE, furthermore

this Table 4.10 also depicts relationship between the variables which is reflected

through indirect and direct paths. Moreover, SEM was applied examine the paths for model fitness. Values of model fitness were found to be good (see

Table 4.4) i.e. x2=1640.185, df=747, x2/df=2.196, p=0.000, NFI=0.910,

GFI=0.923, IFI=0.918, AGFI=0.905, CFI=0.917, TLI=0.909, RMSEA= 0.045.

OT

CSR OC

β=.791,

p =.000

β=.614,

p =.000

β=0.152,

p =0.030

140

Model Fitness Values

x2=1640.185

x2/df=2.196

NFI=0.910

IFI=0.918

CFI=0.917

RMSEA= 0.045

df=747

p=0.000

GFI=0.923

AGFI=0.905

TLI=0.909

Figure 4.14: Mediation Analysis CSR-OT-EE

Table 4.10

Path Analysis Outcomes for CSR-OT-EE

Path Std.

Reg. P Effect

CSR-OT

OT-EE CSR-EE

.79

.37

.33

0.00

0.00 0.00

Direct Indirect Total Mediation

0.33* 0.29** 0.63 Partial

Mediation

Note: CSR = Corporate Social Responsibility, OT = Organizational Trust, EE = Employee Engagement

** P < .001 and * P < .05

After examining the mediation results, significant path was found

between CSR and OT (with values of β=.79, p =.000), similarly the path

between OT and EE was also found significant β=0.37, p =.000. Moreover, the

indirect path was found lesser (β =0.29) in comparison with direct path (β =0.33). Thus, it is concluded that OT performs its role as a partial mediator

among CSR and EE. Hence, the results supported the H3.

4.15.3 The Relationship between CSR, OT and OCB

Figure 4.15 presents the relational paths among CSR-OT-OCB, in addition this Table 4.11 also identify relationship between the observed

variables which reflects through the indirect and direct paths. Moreover, for

examining the paths for model fitness, SEM was applied and standard values for model fitness was found to be good as suggested by Hair et al., (2010) (see Table

4.4) i.e. x2=1587.668, df=707, x2/df=2.246, p=0.000, NFI=0.923, GFI=0.909,

IFI=0.917, AGFI=0.905, CFI=0.916, TLI=0.907, RMSEA= 0.046.

OT

CSR EE

β=.794,

p =.000

β=.379,

p =.000

β=.335,

p =.000

141

Model Fitness Values

x2=1587.668

x2/df=2.246

NFI=0.923

IFI=0.917

CFI=0.916

RMSEA= 0.046

df=707

p=0.000

GFI=0.909

AGFI=0.905

TLI=0.907

Figure 4.15: Mediation Analysis CSR-OT-OCB

Table 4.11

Path Analysis Outcomes for CSR-OT-OCB

Path Std.

Reg. P Effect

CSR-OT

OT-OCB CSR-OCB

.79

.08

.52

0.00

0.31 0.00

Direct Indirect Total Mediation

0.52** 0.06 0.58 No

Mediation

Note: CSR = Corporate Social Responsibility, OT = Organizational Trust,

OCB = Organizational Citizenship Behaviour ** P < .001 and * P < .05

After examining the mediation results, significant path was found between CSR and OT (with values of β=.79, p =.000), contrarily the path

between OT and OCB was found insignificant β=0.08, p =0.31. Moreover, the

indirect path was found lesser (β = 0.06) in comparison with direct path (β =.52).

Thus, it is concluded that OT does not perform its role as a mediator between the observed variables i.e. CSR and OCB. Hence, the results do not support the

H4.

4.15.4 The Relationship between CSR, JS and OC

Relational paths are shown in Figure 4.16 among variables i.e. CSR-JS-OC, in addition Table 4.12 also depicts the relationship between observed

variables which reflects through indirect and direct paths. Moreover, SEM was

applied to examine the paths for model fitness and standard values for model fitness was found to be good as suggested by Hair et al., (2010) (see Table 4.4)

i.e. x2=1014.146, df=544, x2/df=1.864, p=0.000, NFI=0.902, GFI=0.911,

IFI=0.951, AGFI=0.911, CFI=0.950, TLI=0.942, RMSEA= 0.038.

OT

CSR OCB

β=.794,

p =.000

β=0.083,

p =.317

β=0.525,

p =0.000

142

Model Fitness Values

x2=1014.146

x2/df=1.864

NFI=0.902

IFI=0.951

CFI=0.950

RMSEA=0.038

df=544

p=0.000

GFI=0.911

AGFI=0.853

TLI=0.942

Figure 4.16: Mediation Analysis CSR-JS-OC

Table 4.12

Path Analysis Outcomes for CSR-JS-OC

Path Std.

Reg. P Effect

CSR-JS

JS-OC CSR-OC

.62

.47

.34

0.00

0.00 0.00

Direct Indirect Total Mediation

0.34** 0.29** 0.63 Partial

Mediation

Note: CSR = Corporate Social Responsibility, JS = Job Satisfaction, OC = Organizational Commitment

** P < .001 and * P < .05

After examining the mediation results, significant path was found

between CSR and JS (with values of β=.62, p =.000), similarly the path between

JS and OC was also found significant β=0.47, p =.000. Moreover, the indirect

path was found lesser (β=.29) in comparison with direct path (β =.34). Thus, it is concluded that JS performs its role as a mediator between

observed variables CSR and OC. Hence, the results support the H6.

4.15.5 The Relationship between CSR, JS and EE

In Figure 4.17 relational paths are shown among variables i.e. CSR-JS-EE, in addition, Table 4.13 also depicts the relationship between the observed

variables which reflects through indirect and direct paths. Moreover, in order to

examine the paths for model fitness SEM was applied. Values of model fitness were found to be good as suggested by Hair et al., (2010) (see Table 4.4) i.e.

x2=1363.204, df=663, x2/df=2.056, p=0.000, NFI=0.911, GFI=0.923,

IFI=0.928, AGFI=0.930, CFI=0.928, TLI=0.919, RMSEA= 0.043.

JS

CSR OC

β=.627,

p =.000

β=0.478,

p =.000

β=0.345,

p =0.000

143

Model Fitness Values

x2=1363.204

x2/df=2.056

NFI=0.911

IFI=0.928

CFI=0.928

RMSEA=0.043

df=663

p=0.000

GFI=0.923

AGFI=0.930

TLI=0.919

Figure 4.17: Mediation Analysis CSR-JS-EE

Table 4.13

Path Analysis Outcomes for CSR-JS-EE

Path Std.

Reg. P Effect

CSR-JS

JS-EE CSR-EE

.62

.33

.42

0.00

0.00 0.00

Direct Indirect Total Mediation

0.42** 0.20** 0.62 Partial

mediation

Note: CSR = Corporate Social Responsibility, JS = Job Satisfaction, EE = Employee Engagement

** P < .001 and * P < .05

After examining the mediation results, significant path was found between

CSR and JS (with values of β=.62, p =.000), similarly the path between JS and

EE was also found significant β=0.33, p =.000. Moreover, the indirect path was

found lesser (β =0.20) in comparison with direct path (β =0.42). Thus, it is concluded that JS performs its role as a mediator between

observed variables i.e. CSR and EE. Hence, the results supported the H7.

4.15.6 The Relationship between CSR, JS and OCB

In Figure 4.18 relational paths are shown among variables i.e. CSR-JS-OCB, in addition, Table 4.14 also depicts the relationship between the

observed variables which reflects through indirect and direct paths. Moreover,

in order to examine the paths, SEM was applied for model fitness. Values of model fitness were found to be good as suggested

by Hair et al., (2010) (see Table 4.4) i.e. x2=1316.304, df=627, x2/df=2.099,

p=0.000, NFI=0.927, GFI=0.910, IFI=0.927, AGFI=0.930, CFI=0.926,

TLI=0.917, RMSEA= 0.043.

JS

CSR EE

β=.622,

p =.000

β=0.335,

p =.000

β=0.427,

p =0.000

144

Model Fitness Values

x2=1316.304

x2/df=2.099

NFI=0.927

IFI=0.927

CFI=0.926

RMSEA=0.043

df=627

p=0.000

GFI=0.910

AGFI=0.930

TLI=0.917

Figure 4.18: Mediation Analysis CSR-JS-OCB

Table 4.14

Path Analysis Outcomes for CSR-JS-OCB

Path Std.

Reg. P Effect

CSR-JS JS-OCB

CSR-OCB

.62

.06

.54

0.00 0.30

0.00

Direct Indirect Total Mediation

0.54** 0.03 0.58 No

mediation

Note: CSR = Corporate Social Responsibility, JS = Job Satisfaction, OCB

= Organizational Citizenship Behaviour. ** P < .001 and * P < .05

After examining the mediation results, significant path was found

between CSR and JS (with values of β=.62, p =.000), contrary the mediating

path between JS and OCB was found insignificant β=0.06, p =0.30. Moreover,

the indirect path was found lesser (β= 0.03) in comparison with direct path (β = 0.54). Thus, it is concluded that JS does not perform its role as a mediator

between observed variables i.e. CSR and OCB. Hence, the results do not support

the H8.

4.15.7 The Relationship between CSR, OI and OC

Relational paths are shown in Figure 4.19 among variables i.e. CSR-OI-

OC, in addition, Table 4.15 also depicts the relationship between the observed

variables which reflects through indirect and direct paths. In addition, in order to examine the paths for model fitness, SEM was applied. Values of model

fitness were found to be good as suggested by Hair et al., (2010) (see Table 4.4)

i.e. x2=1220.792, df=631, x2/df=1.935, p=0.000, NFI=0.917, GFI=0.900,

IFI=0.939, AGFI=0.922, CFI=0.939, TLI=0.932, RMSEA= 0.40.

JS

CSR OCB

β=.621,

p =.000

β=0.061,

p =.304

β=0.543,

p =.000

145

Model Fitness Values

x2=1220.792

x2/df=1.935

NFI=0.917

IFI=0.939

CFI=0.939

RMSEA=0.40

df=631

p=0.000

GFI=0.900

AGFI=0.922

TLI=0.932

Figure 4.19: Mediation Analysis CSR-OI-OC

Table 4.15

Path Analysis Outcomes for CSR-OI-OC

Path Std.

Reg. P Effect

CSR-OI OI-OC

CSR-OC

.58

.52

.32

0.00 0.00

0.00

Direct Indirect Total Mediation

0.32** 0.30** 0.62 Partial

mediation

Note: CSR = Corporate Social Responsibility, OI = Organizational Identity,

OC = Organizational Commitment

** P < .001 and * P < .05

After examining the mediation results, significant path was found

between CSR and OI having values of β=.58, p =.000), similarly the path

between OI and OC was also found significant β=0.52, p =0.000. Moreover, the indirect path was found lesser (β= 0.30) in comparison with direct path

(β = 0.32). Thus, it is concluded that OI performs its role as a mediating variable

between observed variables i.e. CSR and OC. Hence, the results of mediation analysis support the H10.

4.15.8 The Relationship between CSR, OI and EE

In Figure 4.20 relational paths are shown among variables i.e. CSR-OI-

EE, Moreover, Table 4.16 also depicts the relationship between the observed variables which reflects through indirect and direct paths. In order to examine

the paths for model fitness, SEM was applied. Values of model fitness were

found close to be good (see Table 4.4) i.e. x2=1595.849, df=749, x2/df=2.131,

OI

CSR OC

β=.585,

p =.000

β=0.524,

p =.000

β=0.327,

p =.000

146

p=.000, NFI=0.915, GFI=0.918, IFI=0.916, AGFI=0.923, CFI=0.915,

TLI=0.907, RMSEA= 0.44.

Model Fitness Values

x2=1595.849

x2/df=2.131

NFI=0.915

IFI=0.916

CFI=0.915

RMSEA=0.44

df=749

p=0.000

GFI=0.918

AGFI=0.923

TLI=0.907

Figure 4.20: Mediation Analysis CSR-OI-EE

Table 4.16

Path Analysis Outcomes for CSR-OI-EE

Path Std.

Reg. P Effect

CSR-OI

OI-EE

CSR-EE

.82

.44

.42

0.00

0.00

0.00

Direct Indirect Total Mediation

0.42** 0.36** 0.79 Partial

Mediation

Note: CSR = Corporate Social Responsibility, OI = Organizational Identity, EE

= Employee Engagement ** P < .001 and * P < .05

After examining the mediation results, significant path was found

between CSR and OI having values of β=.82, p =.000), similarly the path between OI and EE was also found significant β=0.44, p =0.000. Moreover, the

indirect path was found lesser (β = 0.36) in comparison with direct path

(β = 0.42). Thus, it is concluded that OI performs its role as a mediating variable between observed variables i.e. CSR and EE. Hence, the results of mediation

analysis supported the H11.

4.15.9 The Relationship between CSR, OI and OCB

In Figure 4.21 relational paths are shown among variables i.e. CSR-OI-OCB, Moreover, Table 4.17 also reflects the relationship between the

observed variables which reflects through indirect and direct paths. In order to

examine the paths for model fitness, SEM was applied. Values of model fitness

values were found to be good as suggested by Hair et al., (2010) (see Table 4.4)

OI

CSR EE

β=.826,

p =.000

β=0.443,

p =.000

β=0.426,

p =0.000

147

i.e. x2=1405.106, df=704, x2/df=1.996, p=.000, NFI=0.918, GFI=0.923,

IFI=0.911, AGFI=0.917, CFI=0.927, TLI=0.919, RMSEA= 0.41.

Model Fitness Values

x2=1405.106

x2/df=1.996

NFI=0.918

IFI=0.911

CFI=0.927

RMSEA=0.41

df=704

p=0.000

GFI=0.923

AGFI=0.917

TLI=0.919

Figure 4.21: Mediation Analysis CSR-OI-OCB

Table 4.17

Path Analysis Outcomes for CSR-OI-EE

Path Std.

Reg. P Effect

CSR-OI OI-OCB

CSR-OCB

.60

.42

.34

0.00 0.00

0.00

Direct Indirect Total Mediation

0.34** 0.25** 0.59 Partial

Mediation

Note: CSR = Corporate Social Responsibility, OI = Organizational Identity, OCB = Organizational Citizenship Behaviour

** P < .001 and * P < .05.

After examining the mediation results, significant path was found

between CSR and OI having values of β=.60, p =.000), similarly the path between OI and OCB was also found significant β=0.42, p =0.000. Moreover,

the indirect path was found lesser (β = 0.25) in comparison with direct path

(β = 0.34). Thus, it is concluded that OI performs its role as a mediating variable between observed variables i.e. CSR and OCB. Hence, the results of mediation

analysis support the H12.

4.16 RESULTS FOR HYPOTHESES TESTING

In current study, total 15 hypotheses were tested. In Table 4.18, all 15 developed hypotheses along with their results are shown. Table 4.18 reflected

that 04 hypotheses were not supported (H4, H8, H13 and H14). However, Table

4.18 also reflected that 11 hypotheses were supported (H1, H2, H3, H5, H6, H7,

H9, H10, H11, H12 and H15). Hence, the results of this study signify that employees’ perceptions of corporate social responsibility influence the faculty

members’ attitudes and behaviours on their workplace as number of hypotheses

have supported.

OI

CSR OCB

β=.603,

p =.000

β=0.427,

p =.000

β=0.342,

p =0.000

148

Table 4.18

Results of Hypotheses Testing

Hypotheses Paths Supported or Not Supported

H1 CSR-OT Supported

H2 CSR-OT-OC Supported

H3 CSR-OT-EE Supported

H4 CSR-OT-OCB Not Supported

H5 CS-JS Supported

H6 CSR-JS-OC Supported

H7 CSR-JS-EE Supported

H8 CSR-JS-OCB Not Supported

H9 CSR-OI Supported

H10 CSR-OI-OC Supported

H11 CSR-OI-EE Supported

H12 CSR-OI-OCB Supported

H13 CSR-OC Not Supported

H14 CSR-EE Not Supported

H15 CSR-OCB Supported

Note: CSR = Corporate Social Responsibility, OT = Organizational Trust,

JS = Job Satisfaction, OI = Organizational Identification, OC = Organizational Commitment, EE = Employee Engagement

and OCB = Organizational Citizenship Behaviour.

4.17 CHAPTER SUMMARY

In this chapter, all the analysis starting from data normality to hypotheses

testing were executed. In beginning, data normality was checked and then all

SEM assumptions were completed before conducting the analysis such as CFA and structural model. At second stage, data was analyzed through application of

SEM for testing of hypotheses and mediation analysis. Total 15 hypotheses were

developed out of which 11 were found to support the hypothesized relations,

however, 04 were found not to support the hypothesized relationships. The next chapter presents conclusive deliberations about the findings, implications and

limitations of the study.

149

CHAPTER 5:

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The purpose of this chapter is to discuss the main findings which are

observed on the basis of research objectives of the study. This chapter also aims to discuss the findings of this study in relation with previous empirical evidences

available in the literature. In this chapter, the interpretations, theoretical and

practical implications of the results are also presented. Moreover, on the basis

of the results of this study, limitations, future research directions and conclusion is also deliberated in this chapter.

5.1 SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS

The main stimulus factor to conduct this study started from the belief that

if a firm engages in CSR activities, its employees perceive it, and their perceptions might affect their cognition level which ultimately influences their

attitudes and behaviours at their workplace. In management research domain,

CSR has become an emerging topic and has been growing importance day by

day. In a competitive environment, it is imperative for the organizations to motivate their workforce to enhance their performance. Hence, it has become

important to understand and examine the impact of employees’ perceptions of

CSR on employees’ workplace outcomes. Employees play key role in their organizations and their perceptions of CSR may likely influence their work

attitudes and behaviours. The firm’ level of engagement in Corporate Social

Responsibility (CSR) activities might be able to influence employees to generate

positive workplace outcomes such as organizational commitment (OC), employee engagement (EE) and organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB).

The mediating role of organizational trust (OT), job satisfaction (JS) and

organizational identification (OI) is also tested to know that how these variables impact the relationship between employees’ perception of CSR and dependent

variables (OC, EE and OCB). Therefore, this study also considered the

attitudinal constructs which might have potential influence between the

relationship of employees’ perception of CSR and their attitude and behaviour.

In this study, the hypothesized framework is of great interest as there is hardly any empirical research study which has previously made attempt to

examine the relationship between impacts of employees’ (i.e faculty members)

perceptions of CSR and attitudes and behaviours i.e. OC, EE and OCB in higher

education sector. The examination of relationship among observed variables in this study may be helpful for higher education institutions in order to improve

performance of their employees by influencing their workplace attitudes and

150

behaviors at workplace through perceived CSR. This study has twofold

objectives: 1) to examine the relationship between employees’ perception of CSR and their workplace outcomes such as OC, EE and OCB; and 2) to evaluate

the potential mediation effects of employees’ attitudes (e.g. OT, JS and OI) in

relationship of employees’ perceptions of CSR and employees’ attitudes and

behaviours.

Although, the researchers and managers have started to focus on CSR,

and a small number of empirical research studies have been focused on the topic of CSR. However, the potential impact of CSR on employee’ perception has

been largely ignored (Bhattacharya et al., 2009; Kim et al., 2010; Jones, 2010;

Rupp et al., 2013; Morgeson et al., 2013). In this study, the researcher has made

an attempt to fill this gap. In order to develop a model which could be evaluated empirically, an extensive review of the literature was carried out. Moreover, to

test the proposed model, several statistical analyses were conducted. In last

chapter, the results of these tests were presented. In order to address the research objectives of the study, a quantitative survey based research design was

employed. To collect responses from the employees of the higher education

institutions, full consideration was paid towards the respondents. In this survey,

a total 595 respondents participated from across Pakistan. In addition, reliable measures were used to secure responses from the respondents (i.e. faculty

members of higher education institutions) from major cities of the four

provinces of Pakistan because of the multi ethnicity and generalizability of the

results.

In order to comprehend the concept of CSR, the results of this study

provided useful information, particularly in the perspective of higher education institutions. Results of this study, provide rich information to carry out future

research in the field of organizational behaviour and management sciences.

Firstly, mean values of all constructs were examined which were found to be

higher than 3.0 and fall between the range 3.0 to 4.0 which means respondents responses lie between neutral to agree in the given scale. The choice of answer

ranges from “1” (Strongly Disagree) to “5” (Strongly Agree), most of the data

collected ranges between “3” (Neutral) and “4” (Agree). Therefore, no large dispersion in data found and data was normally distributed (Hair et al., 1995).

Correlation analysis includes CSR, OT, JS, OI, OC, EE and OCB. The

independent variable i.e. CSR was found to correlate with mediating variables (i.e. OT, JS and OI) and dependent variables (i.e. OC, EE and OCB). The prime

objective of correlation analysis was to assess whether any of the demographic

variable positively associated with observed variables of the study (i.e. CSR, OT, JS, OI, OC, EE and OCB). In significant relationship was found among

demographical and observed variables except job designation, age and

151

qualification. Thus, job designation, age and qualification were used as the

controlled variables while conducting the analysis (Byrne, 2010).

In order to infer the results, SEM was applied in two stages. In the first-

stage, uni-dimensionality of the variables were examined and in the second stage

structural model was applied to remove the insignificant paths. Results indicated that CSR has no direct influence on OC and EE. However, results also indicated

that CSR has direct positive relationship with OCB. In addition, the role of OT,

JS and OI as mediators were found to have significant positive influence between employees’ perceptions of CSR and OC, EE and OCB. However, the

predicted mediating relationships of OT and JS were not found significant

between perceived CSR and OCB in faculty members of higher education

institutions.

A substantial and significant contribution is made by this empirical study

after testing the model of CSR with mediation effects of attitudes between perceptions of CSR and employees’ outcomes (i.e. attitudes and behaviours).

Based on the results of SEM using AMOS, it appears that the conceptual

research framework is largely applicable to CSR research and practice in

Pakistan in particular and world across in general. The proposed model received a strong statistical support and results supported the hypothesized framework

which provided rich and useful information for future studies. Moreover, in

future there is a need to put more focus on CSR research to further examine the

relationship between employees’ perception of CSR and their workplace outcomes.

5.2 DISCUSSION ON THE FINDINGS OF THE STUDY

This section is aimed to deliberate the four defined research objectives of

this research study (see chapter 2) and to discuss the research findings generated from the objectives of this study. The objectives of this study are documented

(from Section 5.2.1-5.2.4) below:

152

5.2.1 Employees’ Perceptions of CSR and its Outcomes (RO1)

The first research objective of the study is:

RO1 - To examine the impact of employees’ perception of CSR on

employees psychological, attitudinal and behavioural outcomes (e.g. Organizational Identification, Job Satisfaction, Organizational Trust,

Organizational Commitment, Employees Engagement and Organizational

Citizenship Behaviour) in higher education institutions of Pakistan.

The purpose of RO1 is to examine the direct impact of employees’

perception of CSR on their work-related outcomes (i.e. attitudinal and

behavioural outcomes including OC, EE and OCB). In addition, on the basis of research objective one, it was further divided into six hypotheses and six main

relations were developed for these six hypotheses (as depicts in Table 5.1) i.e.

the relationship between employees’ perception of CSR and organizational trust (H1); relationship between employees’ perception of CSR and job satisfaction

(H5); relationship between employees’ perception of CSR and organizational

identification (H9); relationship between employees’ perception of CSR and

organizational commitment (H13); relationship between employees’ perception of CSR and employee engagement (H14) and relationship between employees’

perception of CSR and organizational citizenship behaviour (H15).

Table 5.1

Hypothesized Associations of CSR

Hypotheses Relationship Supported or not

Supported

H1 CSR-OT Yes

H5 CSR-JS Yes

H9 CSR-OI Yes

H13 CSR-OC No

H14 CSR-EE No

H15 CSR-OCB Yes

Note: CSR = Corporate Social Responsibility, OT = Organizational Trust, JS= Job Satisfaction, OI = Organizational Identification,

OC= Organizational Commitment, EE = Employee

Engagement and OCB= Organizational Citizenship Behaviour

First, hypothesis 1 predicted that perceived CSR would be positively correlated with organizational trust level of employees. This was supported by

the result of this study and perceived CSR was found to have positive impact

153

on organizational trust level of employees of higher education institutions

(Path coefficient =.785, P < .001) and it supported the H1. This indicates that organizational trust is stemmed from the employees perceived treatment from

the activities of their organization. This further indicates that involvement of

higher education institutions in CSR related activities positively influence the

employees’ trust towards their organization. Higher education institutions which show socially responsible behaviour are likely to trigger the feeling of

their employees which ultimately influence their attitudes including

organizational trust. The main purpose of assumption of this hypothesis is to understand the relationship between perception of CSR and trust level of

employees in the higher education institutions of Pakistan. This result has

proven that significant and positive relationship is existed between employees’

perception of CSR and employees’ trust. In this context, Kramer (1999) also noted that “this interest has been fueled, at least in part, by accumulating

evidence that trust has a number of important benefits for organizations and

their members (p. 569)”. This shows the empirical support for the idea that trust has important benefits for organizations and their members. Similarly,

Datta et al. (2005) also suggested that CSR has significant impact on the job

related variables such as organizational commitment and motivation which are

considered important for the competitive advantage.

Social Exchange Theory (SET) provides the theoretical underpinning to

this assumption and explain this relationship between perceived CSR and OT.

In this context, Molm et al. (2000) suggested that employees’ perceptions concerning with fair, benevolent, and caring behaviour of their organization

induce the employees to reciprocate, results in organizational trust and this

relationship is explained by social exchange theory. This result also established a significant positive relationship of CSR activities with

organizational rust. The positive impact of CSR initiatives on organizational

trust further indicates that CSR initiatives towards development of society

including social welfare, and social assistance generate positive responses among employees, and perhaps among non-employees too. Therefore,

employees are interested not only with the generous support and benevolent

actions of the organizations towards employees but they also concerned with discretionary actions of the organization.

Thus, findings of this study support the assumption that perceived CSR

prompts indirect social exchange and employees reciprocate good and other-focused actions by their organization. The impact of employees’ perception of

CSR on employees’ outcomes including organizational trust also implies that

these activities reflect the organization’s character that how it is generous and concerned with the welfare and support of its employees. This result of this

study also contributes towards social exchange theory which provided

154

theoretical underpinning to explain the predicted relationship between

employees’ perception of CSR and its impact on employees’ level of organizational trust particularly in higher education institutions. Moreover, in

some of previous studies positive correlation was found between CSR and OT

e.g. Lee et al. (2012) conducted a study in the context of foodservice enterprises

in South Korea and a positive association was found between CSR and OT. Similarly, Lee et al. (2015) conducted a study in the context of Malaysian

service firms and a positive relationship was found between CSR and the quality

of work life including OT. Thus, the outcome of this study confirms that in higher education institutions, the employees’ perception of CSR influences the

employees’ level of organizational trust. Therefore, the academic managers may

enhance trust level of their employees by adopting CSR programs through which

they can improve their organizations performance. In addition, this result also suggested that through CSR activities, academic managers and executives may

indeed devise an effective strategy to be used for winning the “hearts and minds”

of the employees for better performance of the Institutions.

The hypothesis 5 was predicted with the aim to examine the direct

relationship between employees’ perceptions of CSR and job satisfaction. It is

assumed that the sense of care and socially responsible actions by the organization may likely influence, positively, the employees’ attitudes and

behaviours, because Locke (1976) identifies that job satisfaction is the

employees’ psychological state towards their work. It is supposed that it stems

from the employees perceived behaviour from the action of their organization. Social Identity Theory (SIT) provides the theoretical underpinning to this

hypothesized relationship which explains that employees’ perceptions towards

their organizations to be socially responsible citizen impact their attitudes and behaviours including job satisfaction. This theory assumes that the hypothesized

dyadic association remains intact till the time individual kept identify

himself/herself with their organization.

Little attention has been paid to explore the employees’ responses towards

CSR (Jones, 2010), despite of the significance of CSR and the important role of

employees as key internal stakeholders of the organizations (McWilliams & Siegel, 2001). In particular, employee is one of the key and most important

assets, because committed and motivated workforce is essentially needed for

long term organizational growth. In literature, empirical evidences are available

which suggest that CSR can contribute towards financial performance of an organization by promoting necessary intangible resources such as corporate

image building, corporate reputation etc. (e.g. Branco & Rodrigues, 2006;

Surroca et al., 2010; Ehsan & Kaleem, 2012). In order to understand, examine and predict the positive impact of CSR on employees’ workplace attitudes and

behaviours, there is need to have an in-depth understanding about the

155

psychological mechanisms which determine their response towards CSR

initiatives (Bhattacharya et al., 2009). In addition, they asserted that this relationship can be influenced by the organization by providing benefits to the

employees which encourage and induce employees to create strong and long-

term relationships with an organization (Bhattacharya et al., 2009).

This study would further contribute to enhance understanding that how CSR promotes human capital which would further enhance employees’

performance in different ways. The aim of this study was to examine the impact

of employees’ perceptions of CSR on their level of job satisfaction which also

highlights the essential mechanisms to explain these relationships. In this study, a similar manifestation is expected in elevation of job satisfaction due to

participation of organization in volunteering programs. The result of this study

indicated positive impact of employees’ perceptions of CSR on employees’ level of job satisfaction. Faculty members’ perception of CSR was found to have

influence on their job satisfaction level in higher education institutions (Path

coefficient = .203, P < .001) which supports the hypothesis H5. Similarly,

relationship has also been observed by researchers in some of previous studies which noted the positive relationship between CSR and job satisfaction, because

organization’ involvement in CSR programs enhance the image of the

organization before the employees and it further increase employees’ level of

job satisfaction (Galbreath, 2010). This finding confirms that when the faculty members found that their organization is a socially responsible citizen, their

level of job satisfaction became high, which reflects that faculty members’

perception of CSR had positive effect on their level of job satisfaction in higher education institutions.

The hypothesis 9 was developed for examining the relationship between

perceived CSR and organizational identification. It was predicted that perceived

CSR would be positively associated to organizational identification in higher education institutions. In this study, an attempt was made to examine the direct

impact of employees’ perceptions of CSR on employees’ level of organizational

identification in higher education institutions. It was argued that organizational

CSR program sends a positive signal to the employees which they respond to and feel attached with their organizations. Collier & Esteban (2007) described

that active involvement of an organization in CSR activities will consequently

be positively accepted by the employees which in result have stronger employee identification with the organization.

Employees’ strong feelings towards their organization leads them towards

psychological attachment with their organization and they feel themselves as a

distinctive group or class on the basis of organizational affiliation or identification. This hypothesis was grounded on social identity theory which

156

was based on this assumption that organizational identification links to a specific

type of social identification where feeling of oneness develops among the employees, or feelings of belongingness towards an organization (Ashforth &

Mael, 1989). This theory assumes that individuals themselves partially develop

self-concepts from social identities such as organization, political parties or

religious memberships to which they belong (Hogg and Abrams 1988). Thus, social identification discusses the psychological mechanism through which

individuals classify themselves into different social groups to enhance their self-

esteem and overall their self- concept (Hogg & Terry, 2001; Tajfel & Turner, 1986; Tajfel, 1981).

This result of H9 revealed significant relationship between employees’

perception of CSR and employees’ level of organizational identification. Thus, the result of this study (path coefficient = .303, P < .001) supported the H9. This

result is consistent with the proposition that CSR (internal together with the

external CSR activities), signals important organizational characteristics which induce individuals’ self-categorization process. Through this identification

process, individuals come to associate for their identity with their organizations

which have common attractive and mutual distinctive characteristics, which

provide supports to fulfil psychological needs for meaningful attachment and existence. This result further highlights the importance of having both internal

and external CSR programs in higher education institutions which can positively

influence the employees’ attitudes to achieve high level of organizational

identification of employees.

Some scholars emphasized that CSR has become a key priority area for

business leader around the globe (McWilliams, Siegel & Wright, 2006; Pfeffer, 2010; Porter & Kramer, 2011). Therefore, on the basis of the findings of this

study, it is essential for organizations to devise and implement appropriate CSR

policies and practices through which employees’ attitudes can influence

positively including organizational identification. In some of previous studies, positive association was found between employees’ perception of CSR and

organizational identification (i.e. Kim et al., 2010; De Roeck et al., 2014; Farooq

et al., 2014). Hence, it is important for scholars and managers to figure out appropriate tools like CSR which can be used to develop employees’

organizational identification.

It was assumed in hypothesis 13 that perceived CSR would have a significant and positive impact on employees’ level of organizational

commitment. It is likely that if employees have confidence that their

organization is a socially responsible citizen, then they believe that their organization is likely to treat them with responsibility. This perception is likely

to enhance employees’ psychological attachment and obligation toward the

157

organization, leading them to high level of commitment. This predicted

relationship between observed variables is based on a framework derived from social identity theory (SIT) which explains the association between the

organizational social responsibility and the employees’ work related attitudes

including organizational commitment. In this background, an organization is

considered as a social category, its perceived success, good image and reputation can take it as an improved sense of attachment and improved self-concepts of

employees (Smith et al., 2001; Brammer et al., 2005). Therefore, socially

responsible organizations can positively affect employee’s work related attitudes to start becoming a proud member of the organization (Dutton et al.,

1994; Maignan & Ferrell, 2001; Peterson, 2004; Brammer et al., 2005; Turker,

2009a).

The result of this study revealed insignificant direct impact of perception

of CSR on employees’ level of organizational commitment. This result indicated

that employees’ perceptions of CSR in higher education institutions had no significant direct influence on employees’ level of commitment. In this study

(path coefficient = -.069, P < .218) which did not support the H13. This result

may be explained in the specific context of collectivist cultural characteristics

of Pakistan. Triandis et al. (1988) suggested that primarily, individuals in collectivist culture have few in-groups and almost everybody else is supposed

to be in the out-group. They further suggested that their behaviours about the in-

group and the outgroup members are very different. In this context, they further

suggested that “in a collectivist culture, although people share and show harmony within in-groups, the total society may be characterized by much

disharmony and non-sharing’’ (Triandis et al., 1988, p. 326). It is assumed that

due to strong in-group apprehensions and concerns, individuals are least concerned about external CSR issues related to community, and it considers as

a matter related with the out-groups. Accordingly, external CSR activities may

not be considered as important and relevant. This could be the reason that impact

of CSR initiatives in higher education institutions may not have significant direct impact on faculty members level of commitment. Haq, Kuchinke and

Iqbal (2017) suggested that a number of studies relevant to CSR were conducted

in the context of developed economies and impact of CSR differs across nations.

In the literature, there are few empirical evidences, which shows

insignificant direct influence of CSR activities on commitment level of

employees in the organization. Similarly, Farooq et al., (2014) carried out a research study in context of South Asia and concluded that organizational

commitment is not directly influenced by CSR, it induces by organizational trust

and organizational identification. In addition, Albert et al. (2000) also concluded that trust and organizational identification are the basic constructs which induce

various other work-related attitudes and behaviours including OC. Similarly,

158

this result indicates that CSR initiatives of organizations may likely have

indirect positive impact on employees’ level of commitment through mediation mechanism of other variables rather direct influence.

CSR is considered as a management strategy and findings of this study

can be of prime interest of HR managers who are finding ways and tools to enhance employees’ level of commitment and their morale to effective control

their organizations. By improving commitment and morale of the workforce,

better productivity and efficiency can be obtained. Therefore, findings of this study may help scholars and managers to formulate effective and efficient

strategy which may help to enhance the employees’ level of commitment.

Therefore, this result of the study offering empirical support to the argument

that organization should be a socially responsible citizen and have an effective relationship maintenance strategy to influence employees’ level of commitment.

Thus, managers need to find mechanisms through which they can enhance their

employees’ level of OC to get better performance.

The hypothesis 14 was developed to examine the direct impact of

employees’ perception of CSR on employee engagement. It was predicted that

employees’ perceptions of CSR would have a significant and positive influence on employee engagement. Employee engagement may constitute through job

satisfaction, employee involvement into job, rewards and recognition and

commitment. Similarly, Ma (2011) identified six top drivers of employee

engagement which could determine the effect of CSR on employee engagement. Berry and Parasuraman (1992) viewed it: “a paycheck may keep a person on the

job physically, but it alone will not keep a person on the job emotionally” (p.

27). Therefore, it is likely that CSR has a direct influence on employee engagement. The result of this study indicated insignificant association between

employees’ perceptions of CSR and employee engagement which revealed that

employees’ perceptions of CSR had no significant direct impact on employee

engagement.

In this study (path coefficient =.116, P < .058) which did not support the

H14. More specifically, this result showed insignificant impact of employees’ perceptions of CSR, their level of engagement. In this study, it was assumed that

the relationship between employees’ perceptions of CSR and employee

engagement appeared to be in accordance with social identity theory (SIT). In

addition, Branco and Rodrigues (2006) asserted that CSR provides support through encouragement of workforce which can effectively carry out the

organizations’ business activities for improved business performance. There

could be some reasons for the rejection of this hypothesis which are:

159

There could be the case that in Pakistan the higher education institutions

might be functioning in successful manner by the management but employees’ level of engagement might not be affected because it could not provide any

support or facilitation to the employees. Therefore, if any support and care is not

provided by the organization then it could not enhance employees’ engagement

at their workplace. Thus, in order to enhance employee engagement in higher education institutions of Pakistan there is need to make all such arrangements

which could provide care and support to employees.

Similarly, uncorroborated relationship was found in some of previous

studies between CSR and employee engagement. Smith and Langford (2011)

concluded that in order to improve employee engagement, it would more

advantageous to invest in human resource practices rather to allocate resources to CSR practices in an organization. They further asserted that from employees’

perspective CSR may be considered a high order construct, which may include

HR practices such as fair employees reward system, providing development opportunities, and supporting employee welfare at their workplace.

This could also be the possibility that CSR activities of higher education

institutions might be considered as HR activities by the employees because some internal CSR activities are similar in nature and hardly any distinction could be

made between HR activities and CSR activities by the employees. If this would

be the case, the management of higher education institutions should have to

make arrangement for proper dissemination of CSR programs of the institutions so that a clear-cut distinction between these two concept should be made within

and outside the organization.

In developing countries like Pakistan, employees do not care about

environmental related activities and all such efforts of organizations are not

recognized by the employee as CSR program which consequently do not have

any impact on employee engagement. Similarly, Farooq et al. (2014) concluded a study in the context of South Asia and noted that employees may be less

concerned about the environmental issues and its impacts on corporate

operations. Therefore, it could be the reason that employees of higher education institution in Pakistan did not give any weightage to the environmental activities

of the institutions which may not affect their perceptions, consequently it might

not influence the faculty members’ level of engagement at their workplace.

The hypothesis 15 was developed to examine the direct relationship

between employees’ perceptions of CSR and organizational citizenship

behaviours (OCB). In this study an attempt was made to examine the impact of employees’ perceptions of CSR on employees’ level of OCB. It was argued that

if an organization undertook measures for the welfare of employees then the

160

employees reciprocate this gesture of their organization and are ready to perform

beyond their formal tasks which are not recognized by the normal reward system (i.e. citizenship behaviour). Lawrence et al. (2012) supported this notion and

argued that it is prime consideration of organizations to support their employees

for their own interests.

In this study (path coefficient = .353, P < .001) which supported the H15

and showed that faculty members of higher education institutions reciprocated

the gestures of their institutions which would be initiated for the welfare of employees and the community. The proposed framework developed on the

assumption that employees might perceive their organizational CSR activities

as positive gesture which might result in more positive attitudes and behaviours

by the employees. The theoretical underpinning to this relationship was provided by SET and it was assumed that employees’ perceptions of CSR

activities have positive impact on employees’ level of job satisfaction which

ultimately enhances their organizational citizenship behaviours towards organization.

The result of this study revealed that when employees of higher education

institutions perceive that their organization show concern towards employees and for overall society, they feel that their organization is caring about their

well-being and society. This caring behaviours of organization develops positive

feelings about their organization and they perceive that their organization is

engaging in CSR activities, they rely on the norm of reciprocity, they would respond in a positive way such as extra role behaviours (OCB) as a form of

mutual support. On account of norm of reciprocity, CSR develops positive

perception among employees and they would be willing to reciprocate support for their organizations (Gonzalez & Garazo, 2006; Santhosh & Baral, 2015).

Therefore, this result of the study also shows that if the higher education

institutions promote a supportive working environment among its employees,

employees will more likely show obliging behaviours. If a higher education institution engages and promote social responsible behaviours among the

employees, then employees may reciprocate through OCB. Organ et al. (2006)

indicated that employees’ organizational citizenship behaviours are not openly rewarded in the organization, but these behaviours are concerning to the

efficient and effective functioning of the organization. Therefore, organizations

should need to embed CSR practices into their operations to enhance employees’

OCBs. Thus, it is important for academic managers to identify-tools and strategies such as CSR which can be utilized as a way of developing OCB in

faculty members.

161

5.2.2 Mediating Role of OT between Employees’ Perceptions of CSR

and OC, EE and OCB

The second objective of the present study was:

RO2 - To examine the mediating role of Organizational Trust between employees’ perceptions of CSR and, employees’ level of Organizational

Commitment, Employees Engagement and Organizational Citizenship

Behaviour.

The main purpose of RO2 is to examine the mediating effect of

organizational trust (OT) between the relationship of employees’ perceptions of

CSR and employees’ attitudes and behaviours which includes OC, EE and OCB. According to Dirks and Ferrin (2002) and Colquitt et al. (2007), the construct of

trust has been mostly investigated as a mediator between internal organizational

antecedents and important consequences such as performance, turnover, and organizational commitment. In view of the hypothesized association among

these variables, this research objective was further divided into three hypotheses

(H2, H3 and H4 as depicted in Table 5.2). In the present study, mixed results

came out and hypotheses 2 & 3 are supported whereas hypothesis 4 is not supported.

RO2 predicted that employees’ perceptions of CSR would be positively

associated with employees’ attitudes and behaviours through mediation mechanism of organizational trust. This hypothesis was grounded on social

exchange theory which states that social behaviours are the result of an exchange

process (Blau, 1964). This theory further elaborates that within the exchange process, the important element is the primary motives and norm of reciprocity,

which is considered as the important factor. If employees feel happy with their

organization, it is likely they extend their support as a mutual social exchange.

Similarly, Jo and Joo (2011) advocating that social exchange theory (SET) recommends that extra role behaviors are consequences of exchange relations

between the parties.

162

Table 5.2

Hypothesized Mediation Relationship among Variables and its Results

Hypotheses Hypothesized Relation Mediation Results

H2 CSR-OT-OC Partial Mediation

H3 CSR-OT-EE Partial Mediation

H4 CSR-OT-OCB No Mediation

H6 CSR-JS-OC Partial Mediation

H7 CSR-JS-EE Partial Mediation

H8 CSR-JS-OCB No Mediation

H10 CSR-OI-OC Partial Mediation

H11 CSR-OI-EE Partial Mediation

H12 CSR-OI-OCB Partial Mediation

Note: CSR = Corporate Social Responsibility, OT = Organizational Trust, JS = Job Satisfaction, OI = Organizational Identification,

OC = Organizational Commitment, EE = Employee Engagement and

OCB = Organizational Citizenship Behaviour.

The hypothesis 2 was assumed that organizational trust performs its role

as mediator between perception of CSR and organizational commitment (H2).

In organizational perspective, the scholars and researchers highlighted that OC is a strength which binds an employee in a social and non-social objective

(i.e. organizations and work groups) (Bishop & Scott, 2000) as well as to jobs,

corporate objectives, and initiatives related to organizational change (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002). In view of these conceptual considerations, the

scholars have started to explore the impact of CSR on OC without considering

psychological variables (e.g. organizational trust) (Bauman & Skitka, 2012;

Aprile & Talò, 2014). In a present study, a new psychological based CSR model was presented in which psychological variable i.e. OT was considered to explain

the influence of CSR on organizational commitment level of faculty members

of higher education institutions. This psychological model is based on social exchange theory (SET). This theory suggested that individuals involves in

exchange relations with individuals, groups, political parties and country on the

basis of their evaluation of possible benefits and loss (Blau, 1964).

This hypothesized relationship was fully supported by the result of this

study therefore, result shows strong, positive, and significant linkages as

predicted in (H2) and employees’ perceptions had significant effect on trust

level of employees which had influence on employees’ level of commitment with their organizations. This result indicates that CSR first influences the trust

level of employees in the organization, which is considered as a stronger

antecedent of commitment of business professionals (Birch, 2003; van

163

Marrewijk, 2003, 2004). This also indicates that if the employees feel that their

perception about organizations’ corporate citizenship is low, consequently the trust level of employees is likely to be minimized in the organization and

employees’ commitment level is badly affected. More specifically, these

findings show that employees’ perceptions of CSR directly impact on

employees’ level of organizational commitment through the mediating influence of trust in higher education institutions. Thus, this study provides support to the

managers and practitioners in developing strategies, methods and tools to

enhance engagement of faculty members in CSR related activities. This result is also congruent with the findings of some of previous studies such as Lee et al.

(2012) and Lee et al. (2015).

It was also predicted in H3 that the relationship between employees’ perceptions of CSR and employee engagement is mediating by the

organizational trust. This hypothesis assumed that organizational trust performs

its role as mediator between the relationship of employees’ perceptions of CSR and employee engagement. Employees’ physical and psychological

involvement is considered necessary for employee engagement in their work

place, which also need their psychological attachment with their organization.

Some researcher emphasis that employees who have high levels of psychological attachment with an organization also have a stronger motivation

to perform well in their jobs (Meyer et al., 1989; Riketta, 2002; Colquitt et al.,

2007). Similarly, some researchers also argued that employees with a high level

of organizational trust are ready to response to their organizations despite of the risk factor which it might not follow through its own obligations (Mayer, Davis

& Schoorman, 1995). It deepens our understanding of the mechanisms which

address CSR based interactions between organizations and employees. It would therefore, contributes to determine the directionality of this important

relationship between perception of CSR and employee engagement in the

context of higher education sector. The theoretical framework for this

hypothesized relationship was supported by Social Identity Theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1985). In this context, individual belonging to a specific group, and

having common objectives, provide help to explain employees’ perceptions,

behaviours and feelings. Therefore, CSR as a common goal which can enhance engagement of employee at their workplace.

The result of this study supported this hypothesis and indicate that

organizational trust partially mediates between the relationship of employees’ perceptions of CSR and employee engagement in higher education institutions.

These findings further indicate that CSR has positive impact on employee

engagement through mediation of trust in higher education institutions, therefore, there is need to enhance CSR activities to positively influence trust

level of employees. These findings also reveal that the construct of trust is

164

important for the benefits of both i.e. employers and employees. Similarly,

Kramer (1999) argued that “this interest has been fueled, at least in part, by accumulating evidence that trust has a number of important benefits for

organizations and their members” (p. 569). This result further shows that if the

employees feel that their organization’s perception of CSR is low, consequently

the trust level of employees is likely to be minimized which badly affect the employees’ level engagement in their organization.

The findings of this study have significant implications since Bakker et al., (2011) suggested that “when employees perceive that their organization

provides a supportive, involving, and challenging climate, they are more likely

to respond by investing time and energy and by being psychologically involved

in the work of their organization” (p. 13). As the result of this study, several practical implications may take place for academic managers which is helpful

for them to reinforce the view point that implementation of CSR pays off to the

organizations in term of more committed and engaged workforce. This result also shows that the faculty members of higher education institutions give a

considerable weight to responsible attitudes at their workplace. Therefore, it

would be fair to say that higher education institutions should take and perceive

CSR in view of its importance and all such institutions which intend to enhance their competitiveness should implement CSR in its operations. Positive

association was found in some of previous studies between employees’

perceptions of CSR and employee engagement (Ferreira & Oliveira, 2014;

Zientara et al., 2015; Glavas, 2016).

The third relationship with OT was hypothesized (H4) that organizational

trust mediates the relationship between perceived CSR and Organizational Citizenship Behaviours (OCB). This hypothesis was grounded on the basis of

social exchange theory which explains that this relationship is established on the

norms of reciprocity. It is generally perceived that when employees perceive

that their organization is participating in CSR activities, it is most likely they show extra role behaviours to reciprocate the actions as a form of mutual

support. Employees with high level of organizational trust tend to rely on their

organization despite of the fact that element of risk which might not follow through on its responsibilities (Colquitt, Scott & LePine, 2007). Some

researchers are of the view that employees’ willingness to become vulnerable to

organizational actions is a defining characteristic of OT (Dirks & Ferrin, 2001;

McAllister, 1995). In addition, Williams (2001) suggested that due to involvement of risk factor at workplace, a high level of organizational trust

indicates an intense form of psychological attachment of employees with their

organization.

165

Conversely, the result of the present study rejected the hypothesized

mediating influence of organizational trust between employees’ perceptions of CSR and OCB (H4). It was assumed that employees’ work attitude (e.g.

organizational trust) would perform its role as mediator between perceived CSR

and OCB which failed to receive the support. The result of this study indicated

that employees did not respond meaningfully to CSR activities of their organization. Specifically, employees who perceived that their organization to

be more socially responsible were likely to engage in extra role behaviours

(OCB) and this relationship was not influenced by OT. More precisely, this result concludes that in higher education institutions, trust level of employees is

low which do not have significant influence between the relationship of

employees’ perceptions of CSR and OCB. Therefore, in order to get involved,

the faculty members in extra role behaviours (out role performance) towards organization, need to enhance their level of trust.

In congruence with the findings of this study, Corpanzano, et al., (1997) also concluded that CSR activity of an organization is considered as business

policy of an organization rather than a real concern about welfare of employees.

In addition, they also suggested that economic responsibility is considered its

responsibility for profit, discretionary obligations refer a larger range of responsibility toward society, therefore, all these responsibilities are not directly

concerned with employees’ welfare, and employees are less likely to be

influenced and consequently they may not show extra role support for their

organization. This might be one of the reasons that OT could not perform its role as a mediator between perceived CSR and OCB in hypothesized relationship in

higher education sector of Pakistan. Thus, this result of the study suggested that

the academic managers should evolve CSR programs as an effective strategy, not just to share it with stakeholders as a tool and to share values to strengthen

relationship between faculty members and the institutions.

5.2.3 Mediating Role of JS between Employees’ Perceptions of CSR

and OC, EE and OCB

RO3 - To examine the mediating role of Job Satisfaction between

employees’ perceptions of CSR and, employees level of Organizational

Commitment, Employees Engagement and Organizational Citizenship

Behaviours.

The RO3 was aimed to examine the mediating effects of JS between the

relationship of perceived CSR and employees’ outcomes which includes OC, EE and OCB. Lok and Crawford (2001) noted in their study that JS can play the

role of mediation between independent and dependent variables. Thus, it is

166

assumed that the impact of employees’ perceptions of CSR on employees’

attitudes and behaviours may be examined through mediation of JS. Moorman, Niehoff and Organ (1993) and Parker et al. (2003) advocated that employees’

perceptions of organizational CSR activities have impact on their behaviours

which could be mediated by attitudinal and psychological factors such as job

satisfaction and organizational commitment. In a recent study, it is concluded that a significant correlation exists between the relationship of employees’

perception of CSR and their level of job satisfaction, because firms’ orientation

towards CSR positively impacts the employees’ level of job satisfaction and work life (Senasu & Virakul, 2015). Thus, there is a strong possibility that job

satisfaction could mediates between the relationship of employees’ perceptions

of CSR on employees’ outcomes in higher education institutions of Pakistan. In

addition, this research question was divided into three hypotheses (see Table 5.2). The results of this study presented mixed and diversified results regarding

RO3.

In hypothesis 6, it was assumed that job satisfaction performs its role as

mediator between employees’ perceptions of CSR and employees’ level of

organizational commitment. The purpose of this hypothesized relationship is to

understand the mechanisms which can examine impact of employees’ perceptions of CSR on their level of organizational commitment. Previous

studies supported that involvement of organizations in CSR activities boosts

their image before the employees and resulting the satisfaction of employees

(Galbreath, 2010). The result of this study partially supported the mediation effect of job satisfaction between employees’ perceptions of CSR and OC as

hypothesized in H6. This result of the study is congruent with the findings of

few of earlier studies which reveals that job satisfaction performs its role as mediator between the relationship of perceived CSR and OC. Similarly, Zientara

et al., (2015) found significant support of job satisfaction between the

relationship of CSR activities and employees’ workplace outcomes.

This shows that JS performs additional role to enhance employees’ level

of commitment in relationship with their perception of CSR and OC. In addition,

this result also indicates that the employees of higher education institutions consider the CSR as the most important factor to increase their level of

commitment. In higher education institutions, employees feel that the primary

purpose of these institutions is the improvement and progression of the society

and CSR activities are considered as mandatory feature for their organizations. This creates higher effect of CSR activities on commitment level of employees.

Hence, through practicing of CSR in organizations, employees’ level of job

satisfaction can be enhanced which may ultimately guide the management to improve their organizational performance. Therefore, it would be of interest to

organizations to maintain high level of job satisfaction of their employees to

167

achieve high level of commitment to get the desired performance. In higher

education institutions, in order to achieve the desired objectives, attention might be needed to enhance employees’ level of job satisfaction which in turn

enhances employees’ level of organizational commitment.

The hypothesis 7 suggested that job satisfaction mediates the positive relationship between perceived CSR and Employees’ Engagement (EE). It was

supposed that job satisfaction would perform the role of mediation between

employees’ perceptions of CSR and employee engagement. Some researchers asserted that the employees remain engaged with those organizations which are

highly involved in CSR activities and these activities have positive impact on

their attitude at workplace, resulting in a better level of organizational

belongingness and job satisfaction in employees (Bashir, Hassan & Cheema, 2012). In this study, relationship between perceived CSR and employee

engagement with mediation effect of job satisfaction was assumed on theoretical

underpinning of social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1985).

The result of this study supported that H7 and JS found to have partially

mediated the relationship between perceived CSR and employee engagement.

Hence, findings of this study provide the evidence that satisfied employees have strong inclination to be engaged rather than the other way around. In the

literature, this study first ever explores the underlying mechanisms between

employee perceptions of CSR and employee engagement in the context of

higher education sector. Moreover, a positive relationship was found between CSR and EE in some of the previous studies. Singh & Paithankar (2015)

conducted a study in IT and hospitality sector in India and a significant positive

influence of CSR was found on employees’ level of EE. Similarly, Glavas (2016) conducted a study on employees of a large professional service firm in

the USA and a positive association was found between CSR and EE. Moreover,

Zientara et al. (2015) also conducted a study on a polish hotel employees and

CSR experiences were found positively associated with employees’ work engagement along with JS and OC. Hence, considering the impact of job

satisfaction on employee engagement, it is fair to say that higher education

institutions could perceive and introduce CSR practices in term of strategic significance. In addition, higher education institutions which intend to retain a

satisfied and committed workforce should maintain and sustain CSR programs

to enhance their level of engagement. Thus, it reinforces the views that CSR

pays off: in term of retention of committed and engaged workforce which helps in achieving the objectives of the organization.

The study was continued by examining the role of JS as mediator between the relationship of perceived CSR and OCB, as it was hypothesized in H8 that

job satisfaction mediates the relationship between perceived CSR and OCB. It

168

was assumed on the basis of findings of previous studies, that positive

relationship was found between CSR and OCB (Islam et al., 2015; Newman et al., 2016). Theoretically, based on the notion of social exchange theory,

relationship between perceived CSR and OCB with mediating role of JS was

hypothesized. More specifically, exchange relations between giver (i.e. higher

education institution) and recipient (faculty member) is dyadic and these exchange relations continue till the time benefits are shared between both the

parties.

The result of this study did not support the H8 and identified that JS did

not perform its role as mediator between the relationship of perceived CSR and

OCB (i.e. mediating effect of job satisfaction between the two variables was not

established). This result of the present study contradicted the findings of some of previous studies and JS was found not performing its mediation role between

perceived CSR and OCB (Path coefficient β=0.06, p =0.304). This could be the

possibility that due to distinctive organizational culture of higher education institutions in Pakistan, JS may not have impact on the relationship between

faculty members’ perceptions of CSR and their extra role behaviours (OCB). In

this context, Memon et al. (2014) indicated that similar to other developing

countries, Pakistan has also some socioeconomic challenges and the concept of CSR is newer, therefore, there is need to create awareness of CSR practices in

organizations.

More specifically, result of this study indicates that in higher education institutions, the relationship between employees’ perceptions of CSR and extra

role behaviours have not found to be positively influenced by JS as mediator. In

this study, multiple mediators between the relationship of perceived CSR and employees’ outcomes including OCB were included. These multiple mediators

are hardly studied in CSR domain, but important to explore in order to

understand how different mechanisms effect employees (Jones et al., 2014).

Recently, a study was conducted by Akturan & Şevik (2016) they emphasized that the success of an organization is based on team working which demonstrates

OCB and this considers a key factor the success of a business. Thus,

organizational managers should be well aware about the importance of corporate reputation and they should take into account the impact of corporate programs

on employee attitudes and behaviours such as OCB. In addition, managers

should make efforts to create a positive corporate culture within and outside the

institutions which can affect job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behaviours of employees in a positive way. Hence, in view of the result of this

study, it is necessary that organizations should focus on corporate reputation or

corporate image building and management should make efforts to enhance job satisfaction level of employees to get involved employees in OCBs.

169

5.2.4 Mediating Role of OI between Perception of CSR and OC, EE and

OCB

RO4 - To examine the mediating role of Organizational Identification

between employees’ perceptions of CSR and, employees level of Organizational Commitment, Employees Engagement and Organizational Citizenship

Behaviours.

The RO4 was aimed to examine the mediating role of organizational

identification between the relationship of employees’ perception of CSR and

their outcomes which includes OC, EE and OCB. It is assumed that the impact

of employees’ perceptions of CSR on employees’ attitudes and behaviours may influence indirectly through organizational identification. This relationship

explains that how employees’ attitudes and behaviours can be influenced

through establishing and maintaining the relationship with their reference group (Kelman, 1958; O’Reilley & Chatman, 1986). Although through the concept of

organizational identification, a strong and lasting relationship is accepted by

employee with its organization and he/she develops a feeling of oneness with

organizational or its belongingness (O’Reilley & Chatman, 1986; Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Bhattacharya et al., 2009). Similarly, van Knippenberg and van

Schie (2000) and van Dick et al. (2006) noted that organizational identification

offers an important mechanism to influence employees’ attitudes and

behaviours such as job satisfaction. In addition, in literature, few of the empirical evidences demonstrated the mediating role of organizational identity in

employees’ responses e.g. job satisfaction and organizational citizenship

behaviours (Jones, 2010; De Roeck et al., 2014). Thus, it was predicted that impact of employees’ perceptions of CSR activities on their attitudes and

behaviours could be mediated by psychological & attitudinal factors such as

organizational identification. This research question was further divided into

three hypotheses (H10, H11 and H12) (see Table 5.2). The results of this study presented positive influence of OI on the relationships between perceptions of

CSR and OC, EE and OCB. In this study, mediation mechanisms were

highlighted by adopting various equations with mediation role of OI between perceptions of CSR and OC, EE and OCB.

It was predicted in H10 that organizational identification (OI) performs

the role of mediation between perceived CSR and OC. The main objective of this hypothesized relationship is to examine the impact of employees’

perceptions of CSR on employees’ level of OC, through the mediation of

organizational identification. Social identity theory provides the theoretical foundation to this hypothesized relationship and explains the association

between employee and organization. Researchers consider that organizational

170

identity has probability to influence a number of positive employees’ outcomes,

including employee performance (Cole & Bruch, 2006; Ashforth, et al., 2008). The result of the study supported the hypothesized relationship and partial

mediation of OI was established between perceived CSR and OC. Therefore,

positive impact of employees’ perceptions of CSR on employees’ level of

organizational commitment with mediation role of OI is supported by the result of this study. Some previous empirical evidences indicated positive association

between OI and OC (Marique & Stinglhamber, 2011). More specifically, this

result of the study provides guidance to the managers of the organizations that how they should tailor their CSR programs to enhance employees’ attitudes

positively, which ultimately returns on their investments on CSR. This finding

also demonstrated that the organizational investment on social issues enhances

employees’ attitudes such as organizational commitment. Hence, there is need to encourage and promote investments on social issues at organizational level,

it would increase the potential response of CSR activities in shape of positive

employees’ attitudes such as OC.

Using SEM, the result of this study concluded that employees’ perception

of CSR is a strong predictor of employees’ level of OC, through mediation of

OI which indicated that OC is not a direct outcome of CSR rather it is affected by identification, which itself is the direct consequences of CSR activities of an

organization (Farooq et al., 2014). In organizational studies, organizational

identification is a primary or root construct which induces some other

employees’ work place attitudes and behaviours, including commitment (Albert et al., 2000). Thus, result of this study suggests that CSR may have indirect

impact on several other employees’ attitudes including OC through

identification. Hence, academic manager needs to focus on enhancement of CSR activities to further improve the organizational commitment level of employees

in higher education institutions through mediation process of OI.

Hypothesis 11 predicted that organizational identification mediates the relationship between perceived CSR and Employees’ Engagement (EE). A

number of research studies have already explored the relationship between

employees’ attitudes and work engagement (Demerouti et al., 2001; Hallberg & Schaufeli, 2006), and findings of these empirical studies found influence and

inter-relationship of both the constructs. The review of literature has also

reflected that CSR activities are important and beneficial to both employees and

the employers, which may help to bring positive outcomes such as employee engagement and job satisfaction. Hypothetically, a socially responsible

organization which cares about its employees and provides support to enable

them to avail future opportunities for their career development. In return, employees perceive such care and support by their organizations emotionally

and intrinsically become more motivated and engaged in their work (Gao, 2014).

171

Hence, it was hypothesized that OI would mediates between the relationship of employees’ perceptions of CSR and employee engagement. This

result supported the H11 which reveals that if an organization implements CSR

programs, its employees feel identification with their organization and engage

themselves psychologically and physically in their work in the organization. A few research studies have also observed mediation effects of OI between the

relationship of CSR and EE such as Zientara et al., (2015) conducted a research

study on Polish hotel employees and found positive effect of employees’ CSR attitudes on employee engagement. The result of this study emphasized that

CSR activities of an organization pays off: more engaged workforce to the

employers if certain measures are adopted to enhance identification which in

turn increase positive firm-level outcomes.

Mirroring theoretical implications of this study, CSR should be embedded

in practice as much as possible in higher education institutions to further enhance engagement level of faculty members in their job and organization.

More specifically, the result of this study emphasized to understand and

determine that how CSR activities of institutions may indirectly impact the

employee engagement to improve organizational performance. Thus, CSR turned out as an important factor which indicates that if organization would

engage more in CSR programs, the more organizational support the employees

perceived to get. Therefore, at the same time the organizational support to

employees through CSR programs was a strong predicting factor for employee engagement.

In order to address the RO4, it was also predicted in hypothesis 12 that organizational identification mediates the positive relationship between

perceived CSR and organizational citizenship behaviours (OCB). Employees’

organizational identity is an important psychological mechanism which

mediates between the relationship of perceived CSR and employees’ extra role behaviours (OCB). This assumption provides theoretical support by social

identity theory which is also supported by some of previous empirical evidences

(Peterson, 2004; Turker, 2009a). For instance, Turker (2008) concluded that positive relationship was found between identification and employees’ work

related attitudes and behaviours.

The result of this study supported the H12 which indicates that organizations which are implemented the CSR programs, its employees having

good reputation in CSR programs perform activities which are beyond their

assigned tasks such as OCB. This result is congruent with the proposition that CSR programs of an organization signals important organizational

characteristics which facilitates employees’ self-categorization mechanism.

172

This process attracts employees to attach and identify themselves with their

organization and share their mutual identity traits, which provide supports to satisfy their psychological needs for belonging and significant existence.

Findings of some of previous studies found mediation effect of OI between the

relationship of CSR and OCB such as (Brammer et al., 2007; Turker, 2009a;

Jones, 2010).

This result shows that cooperative treatment, social practices and norms

perform the mediating role between perceived CSR and employees’ extra role helping behaviours. It also reveals that it is important for organizations to devise

and implement appropriate CSR policies and programs which can enhance

employees’ level of identification and more positive work behaviours. Hence,

findings of this study suggest several practical implications to higher education institutions to be considered to improve the faculty members’ extra role

behaviours through implementation of CSR program and policies. In addition,

this study indicates that all such policies which are adopted by the organizations towards their employees can be beneficial to higher education institutions as

well as employees in the context of Pakistan. This result further suggests that

focusing on CSR activities in higher education institutions could be supportive

to influence employees’ contribution towards their institution in extra role performance beyond their job requirements. Moreover, the managers and senior

leaders of the organization should consider and assess the CSR initiatives as a

feature of social and financial performance which effects on employees’

attitudes and behaviours.

5.3 IMPLICATIONS OF THE STUDY

In today’s competitive environment, one of the major challenge for the

organizations is to retain a motivated workforce and enhance their work attitudes

and behaviours. The formulated conceptual framework provides insights to managers to enhance positive employees’ attitudes and behaviours to improve

their performance through employees’ perceptions of CSR. However, limited

research exists to address, understand and to explore the phenomenon that how employees’ perception is established towards CSR (Wright, 2010) and how it

impacts on their work outcomes, specifically in a developing economy like

Pakistan. The main impetus for carrying out this study is based on the credence

that when an organization implement the CSR program, its employees perceive it positively, and this perception of employees might have positive impact on

their attitudes and behaviours at workplace. There is hardly any empirical study

which could previously evaluated and examined that how these mediating variables influence the relationship between perceived CSR and dependent

variables (OC, EE and OCB).

173

More specifically, this study was also aimed to fill the conceptual and

contextual gaps by adding OT, JS and OI as mediators. Hence, findings of the study have valuable practical implications for improving faculty members’

attitudes and behaviours to enhance their performance especially in the context

of higher education institutions of Pakistan. In Pakistan, higher education

institutions may be considered a key driver for CSR activities through which employees’ level of OC, EE and OCB can be developed and enhanced. Pakistan

is a developing country which has some socioeconomic challenges such as

poverty, shortage of energy and low GDP, therefore, through optimization of CSR, achievement is possible by developing best synergy between available

resources and need for higher education institutions. Scholars and practitioners

have been focusing on the topic CSR, however, CSR concerning activities and

its impact differs across the nations (Haq, Kuchinke & Iqbal, 2017). Most of the CSR related studies were conducted in the context of developed economies

however, Pakistan is a developing economy. The findings of this study not only

provide guidance for management to improve performance of their organizations through effective use of CSR programs but also to provide insights

for better understanding of CSR from a different perspective in developing

economies.

5.3.1 Theoretical Implications

The developed framework of this study shows that employees may perceive their organizational CSR programs as positive which may in result

enhance more positive attitudes and behaviours at workplace. This conceptual

framework significantly contributes theoretically and presents a practical model for organizations to enhance their employees’ performance. In this context, Kim

et al. (2010) noted that although, in recent years, organizations have initiated

more effective CSR activities, however, very few studies have focused to

examine the impact of CSR programs on employees’ attitudes and behaviours. The results of this study provide momentous understandings and contributions

to the literature in CSR domain.

First, in a present study, an effort has been made to fill the gap and

extended the previous studies by observing the unique mechanisms (i.e. OT, JS,

OI) through which impact of employees’ perceptions of CSR on employees’ attitudinal (i.e OC and EE) and behavioural (i.e. OCB) outcomes were

examined. Partial mediation influence of OT, JS and OI were observed, which

show that employees’ perceptions of CSR about their organizational involvement in CSR related activities enhances their feelings of care and fair

treatment by the organization. Consequently, when employees perceive that

their organizations’ action and decisions are more just, employees will more

likely engage in performing their work with more commitment and devotion

174

such as OC, EE and OCB. The results of this study are congruent with some of

previous empirical evidences which found that perceptions of justices (which may be caused by CSR practices) do in fact lead to positive workplace outcomes

(Colquitt et al., 2001).

Second, this study examines the impact of perceived CSR on faculty members’ attitudes and behaviours in higher education sector, whereas the

previous studies have focused banking professionals (Albdour & Altarawneh,

2012; Azim et al., 2014), employees from oil industry (De Roeck & Delobbe, 2012), employees from food service sector (Lee at al., 2012), employees from

Casino (Lee et al., 2013), employees of hotel industry (Fu et al., 2014),

employees of manufacturing industry (Santhosh & Baral, 2015), employees of

ICT (Choi, Ebrahim & Kwak, 2015). The findings of this study advanced the study of CSR and its impact on employees’ attitudinal and behavioural outcomes

particularly in a different sector i.e. higher education. In fact, a highly educated

class of a society is associated with this profession which has far reaching impact on society.

In this research, a sufficient number of samples composed of faculty

members of public and private sector institutions were used, the obtained results contribute to the advancement of the subject within the higher education realm.

Scholars and practitioners can use the findings of this study as a baseline and

apply this tested framework in other sectors and contexts, specifically in

developing countries. More specifically, organizations can develop better CSR strategies through establishing good reputation and relationship with all other

stakeholders, particularly employees.

Third, this study contributes in literature by suggesting that employees of

higher education institutions and corporate sector organizations are not in

different nature. This shows that CSR initiatives implemented by higher

education institutions has no difference at least from the perspective of this study and has influence on employees’ attitudes and behaviours. As suggested by

Hantrais (1995) also supported and suggested that organizational phenomena

may be described by the same causes or it does not differ by organizational perspective. The results of this study also indicate that perceived CSR has

impact on employees’ outcomes, generates desirable attitudes and behaviours in

employees which influence the feelings of the employees about their

organization and towards themselves. In most of the hypothesized combinations, partial mediation effects of OT, JS, and OI were observed,

indicating that when employee perceive CSR carried out by their organizations,

their level of OT, JS and OI influence their feelings which impacts their (attitudinal and behavioural) outcomes. Thus, findings of this study can be

helpful for top management of higher education institutions and other

175

organizations to use CSR strategies to attract and retain a talented workforce to

increase organizational performance which can also be helpful to attain competitive advantage.

Fourth, relationships among the observed variables is grounded on the

basis of social exchange theory (based on the principle of reciprocity) and social identity theory (based on the principle self-esteem or self-categorization in

groups or in classes). Organizations’ decisions and actions are perceived as more

justified; it is more likely that employee will engage in work performance and OCB and prefer to attach with the organization. Colquitt and colleagues (2001)

concluded that perceptions of justices (which may be triggered by the CSR

programs) would in fact lead to positive work outcomes. In addition, partial

mediation role of intervening variables i.e. OT, JS and OI were observed which indicates that through perception of CSR, employees are likely to develop high

level of self-esteem at workplace which influences feelings and develop

favorable work attitudes. All such actions lead them to exhibit improved performance and OCBs. Sims and Kroeck (1994) concluded that when

organizations are engaged in CSR programs which match with their desired

ethical work environment of their employees, their employees have greater level

satisfaction about their job and organizational commitment. In this study, employees’ perceptions of CSR were found to have direct impact on attitudes

and behaviours (i.e. OT, JS, OI, and OCB), except OC and EE, hence partial

mediation effects of OT, JS and OI were also observed on dependent variables.

Through the results of this study, three mediators (i.e. OT, JS and OI) having partial mediation effects have also been identified.

Fifth, although, this study significantly contributes to the relevant knowledge domain, however, mediation role of OT and JS between the

relationship of perceived CSR and OCB were not supported by the results.

However, overall results indicated that two mediators (i.e. OT and JS) were not

effecting the relationship between perceived CSR and OCB. This is probably the most interesting finding of this study, this could be the reason that working

environment in higher education institutions is distinctive culture in Pakistan. A

report published by CIA (2010), revealed that in South Asia, employees may be less concerned towards the environmental effects on organizational operations,

because 24 percent people live below the poverty line. There is possibility that

employees are more concerned about the economic issues than environmental

ones. Therefore, employees may not consider CSR actions pertaining to environment as very relevant and it may not to affect their level of OT and JS

which may have not any further impact on OCB.

Hence, CSR programs may also consider the traditional culture and social

norms of different countries in the world (Zheng, 2011). In addition,

176

Corpanzano et al. (1997) also supported that in case of employees’ perceptions

of CSR, they take it as the business strategies of the corporation rather than a matter of their benefits. Similarly, Organ et al. (2006) concluded that although

organizations does not reward the OCBs because they are considered relevant

to the efficient and effective function of the organization. Therefore, due to norm

of reciprocity, employees may not develop OCB towards their corporation. In literature, there are also few empirical evidences which consistent with the

results of this study such as Zheng (2011) concluded that insignificant

relationship was found between perceived CSR and OCB which was not mediated by employees’ work attitudes. More recently, Glavas (2016) carried a

study and concludes that although employees are affected positively by CSR

activities of an organization, however, they prefer that CSR does not demand

efforts above and beyond their assigned job (i.e. OCB). More precisely, the association between perceived CSR and employees’ outcomes (e.g. OC, EE and

OCB) mainly functions through a mechanism of OT, JS and OI.

Sixth, the results of this study further strengthen the social exchange

theory which describes that stakeholders’ well-being by the organizations

generates feeling of reciprocity among the employees’ which further develops

positive attitudes and behaviours in the employees towards their organizations. Moreover, previously hardly a study has attempted to adopt such model

holistically especially with the theoretical support of social identity theory and

social exchange theory in the context of higher education sector. Therefore, this

study also contributed to the SET and SIT both provided the theoretical underpinning to this study and concluded that employees’ perception of CSR

impacts on their work outcomes (e.g. OC, EE and OCB), further this relationship

mediates by psychological and attitudinal variables (e.g. OT, JS and OI).

5.3.2 Practical Implications

The developed framework of this study, provides a strong basis to

managers for their understanding that how an organization can attain its

effectiveness through CSR initiatives. Some organizations are involved in CSR activities but they fail to link their programs with employees’ attitudes and

behaviours because they do not have proven evidence before them to believe on

the effectiveness of CSR initiatives. In this competitive environment,

organizations are investing a lot of resources to enhance positive attitudes and behaviours of their employees. The current framework motivates managers to

understand and examine the relationship between CSR and employees’ attitudes

and behaviours and apply intelligently to focus and reinforce their CSR activities and channelize them in a proper way to get the real-time benefits.

177

This study found that employees’ perceptions of CSR have impact on

employees’ attitudes and behaviours which eventually affect their performance at workplace. Employees are considered as a key stakeholders having pivotal

role in their organizations. In this study, some predicted relationships were

found little bit different in comparison with the findings of previous empirical

evidences such as the correlation between CSR and OC, CSR and EE were found insignificant. This study examines the impact of employees’ perceptions

of CSR in context of Pakistan and employees’ perceptions of CSR and their

reactions are different from other countries because of the distinctive culture of Pakistan. In collectivist culture people have some in-groups and everybody else

is considered in the outgroup. Therefore, employees’ attitudes and behaviours

are different in-group and outgroup (Triandis et al., 1988). In addition, Triandis

et al. (1988) also explained that ‘‘although people share and show harmony within in-groups, the total society may be characterized by much disharmony

and non-sharing’’ (p. 326). It is assumed that due to strong in-group

considerations, employees are least concern about environmental issues, considering them as problems related to outgroups. Therefore, this may be the

reason that employees’ level of OC and EE may not be directly affected by CSR

activities in higher education institutions. Work outcomes of employees may be

significantly affected by employees related CSR activities than the other CSR initiatives of the organizations.

This indicates that managers can also consider the traditional culture and

social system of different countries during devising of CSR strategies in the organization. Thus, it is important and necessary for the manager and

researchers to understand and consider the cultural influence or effects on CSR

programs during evaluation of CSR impact on employees’ workplace outcomes. The results of this study supported the conception that organizational CSR

programs are perceived by the employees as a good and fair act of corporate

citizen, which in response enhances employees’ self-esteem in the workplace.

Therefore, it makes a sense and justification for corporations to develop CSR strategies and invest in CSR programs because in return it generates a strong

sense of fairness and enhance organization-based self-esteem in employees.

Moreover, CSR initiatives enhance the corporations’ reputation which in result helpful to motivate the employees which can be further helpful to retain talented

employees by adopting the mechanisms as supported in this study.

If employees have trust in reliability and integrity of the organizational CSR programs, such activities on the part of the organization influence the

employees’ perceptions about organizations’ objectives to engage in CSR.

Results of this study indicate that if employees perceive CSR initiatives as sincere effort to support the community, such employee’ perception contributes

to enhance identification and attachment level with the organization. This is

178

important for mangers because just assessing the economic and corporate image

of CSR, managers should also examine the positive impact of CSR on employees’ level of attachment and identification with the organization. Results

of this study also indicate that organizational identification has positively

influenced the relationship between perceived CSR and OC, EE and OCB.

Hence, it is important for mangers to identify all such tools and methods such as CSR which can be used to enhance employees’ level of OC, EE and OCB.

More specifically, there is need to focus on CSR activities which could also

enhance employees’ level of OC, EE and extra-role behaviours. Similarly, Newman et al., (2016) suggested that to enhance possible impact on OCB, there

is need to make efforts to communicate to employees that how social responsible

human resource management (SRHRM) practices are benefiting to employees

through other stakeholders and community at large. Therefore, to have a positive impact of CSR activities on employees’ attitudes and behaviours particularly on

OC and EE, mangers need to focus to realize the benefits of external and internal

CSR activities on employees which could positively influence employees’ attitudes and behaviours in organizations.

Practically, this study contributes and increases the awareness of

academic managers of higher education institutions on the interrelatedness of employees’ perceptions of CSR and employees’ attitudes and behaviours. In

order to enhance employees’ level of OC, EE and OCB, the managers should

implement CSR policies in their operations as all the CSR initiatives may affect

employees’ attitudes and behaviours. If organization, ensure that the working conditions of employees are safe and comfortable, it enhances the employees’

quality of work life which includes JS, OC and OT (Sageer et al., 2012). This

research delivers a business-like pathway that offers psychological based CSR model which theoretically converge multiple psychological and attitudinal

organizational constructs. In this way, the organization can impact and

positively influence employees’ attitudes and behaviours at their workplace and

enhance the performance of higher education institutions.

5.3.3 Recommendations for Organizations

This study was aimed to examine the impact of employees’ perceptions

of CSR on employees’ outcomes (including OC, EE and OCB) through

mediation effects of OT, JS and OI. This study contributes in relevant literature and theories as well as it has extended recommendations for organizations,

managers and HR practitioners. Employees are always ready to reciprocate the

actions of their organization, if they feel that their organization is taking care of them and other stakeholders, they share their experiences with their colleagues

and ready to help them. Therefore, in order to retain talented human resource,

179

organizations should have to take initiatives for the welfare of employees by

introducing CSR initiatives which impacts on employees’ perceptions, this ultimately enhance the employees’ level of OC, EE and OCB.

In order to engage employees, findings of this study indicate that job

satisfaction and commitment level of employees has to be enhanced, to win the support of the key stakeholders i.e employees, their attitudes and behaviours

may influence in different ways including implementation of CSR programs. If

CSR is meant to improve the well-being of others, then it enables the employees to find well-being through their work. Therefore, organizations have realized

that only human resource enables them to accomplish the tasks well in time and

it is the core asset of an organization. In order to provide support to the

employees, organizations should also consider the financial and non-financial aspects (i.e. implementation of CSR programs) during establishing the

organizational strategies.

It is important for organizations to invest in CSR programs, however,

there is need that employees have to perceive the CSR activities of the

organizations. Development of perception of CSR is required in consistency in

CSR actions by the organization, it is not that can be swift in, this need to be supported over the time. Thus, it is prime requirement that organizations should

implement CSR programs in their operations. This is the reason, that

Multinational Corporations (MNCs) are now focusing, emphasizing to look

after their employees and have started to sign the employers’ Pledge of Fair Employment Practices (Tan & Ho, 2011). In addition, such MNCs are also

emphasizing that their business partners follow the set of CSR parameters, and

through third party service contracts, even to ensure that workers are well taken care off. Therefore, organizations should have a separate and dedicated

department which specifically implement and maintain sustainable CSR policies

and programs.

5.3.4 Limitations of the Study

Primarily, this research study was designed to fill both theoretical and

empirical gap in the academic literature. However, several limitations need to

be addressed and acknowledge which could be overcome in future research.

There is possibility that there might be some other factors which may also have influence on the dependent variables (i.e. OC, EE and OCB). This study

considered perceptions of CSR and work attitudes (e.g. OT, JS and OI) as

antecedents and mediators. There may be some other mediators which may also have influence between the relationship of employees’ perception of CSR and

employees’ attitudes and behaviours.

180

The use of cross sectional data is another limitation of this study, as such data collection is taken place at one point of time (Johnson & Christensen,

2004). In cross sectional data, the collected information only reflects the sample

at a single point of time; and in that case, it is impossible for researcher to

distinguish more stable feeling, opinions, or perceptions from those which can be obtained temporarily (Yee & Niemeier, 1996). Moreover, in cross sectional

data, the assessment of direction of causality is difficult. This may be overcome

to collect future data with a time horizon condition, such as longitudinal data, or it may be addressed by using time series of cross sectional data, which deal with

different subjects and how they change over the time. Podsakoff et al. (2000)

suggested that the quality of responses is affected in such studies because there

is possibility that difference in one response may cause effect on other response. Therefore, the variation in the answers of the respondents over the time is not

considered and the results of the study cannot be considered as definite.

In this study, specific emphasizes was not given to the analysis regarding

the social and cultural characteristics specific to Pakistan. In other words, in

present study, the effects of cultural values were not considered, as claimed by

Meyer et al. (2002), cultural values have influence on the responses of the respondents. Therefore, in order to overcome such limitations, in future a

psychosocial CSR-based model from large firms may be evaluated (Aprile &

Talò, 2015). The survey was limited to 54 institutions spread all around the

single country, which may under question the generalizability of the findings.

The main objective of public sector institutions is to serve the society

whereas private sector institutions are established for making profit and normally do not involve in CSR activities without considering the factor element

of profit. Last but not the least, another limitation is the targeted population, only

the faculty members of higher education institutions were included as the target

population of this study. Primarily, the data was collected from higher education institutions located at different part of the country mostly from big cities i.e.

Lahore, Islamabad, Karachi, Quetta and Peshawar which is a relatively non-

representative of other institutions located in remaining part of the country. Yew (2010) concluded that the results differ according to the nature of the firm and

employees. Thus, the obtained results only limited to higher education

institutions and may not be applicable to other sectors or organizations such as

manufacturing industry.

5.3.5 Future Research Directions

181

This study expanded the base of the CSR research by examining the

impact of employees’ perceptions of CSR on employees’ attitudes and behaviours in higher education sector of Pakistan. This is the first ever empirical

study in the field of CSR which examines the impact of faculty members’

perception of CSR on their outcomes in higher education sector. However, some

suggestions have been made for future research:

The results of the study indicated mixed findings of the mediation role of

attitudes between the relationship of perception of CSR and employees’ outcomes. However, in future some other factors may also be considered as

mediator on which theoretical and empirical research may be grounded (e.g.

managerial or supervisor’ support, personality traits, leadership etc.). Moreover,

further studies may also be carried out to examine the impact of CSR activities on other stakeholders of the firm, because other stakeholders are also the integral

part of the firms’ environment (i.e customers, suppliers and the society).

This is a cross sectional study and in order to handle the problem of

common biased method, there is need to conduct a longitudinal study, because

longitudinal study provides better results as compared to cross sectional research

studies. In future, researchers may also conduct a longitudinal study, through this way, employees’ responses about implementation of CSR in different time

frame could be observed (Perks et al., 2013).

The present study noted that perceived CSR is not a good predictor of faculty members’ OC and EE, but social exchange theory suggests that CSR

activities of an organization positively influence the employees’ attitudes and

extra role behaviours. However, in literature empirical evidences showed positive effect of firm’s CSR activities on employees’ attitudes and behaviours

including OC and EE. For instance, Ho (2012) concluded that “organizations’

actions and decisions are perceived as more just, employees will more likely

engage in the performance of their work, OCBs and remain with the organization” (p. 86). In future, research may be conducted to examine CSR in

relation to other performance outcomes of employees, therefore, this study may

also be replicated in other sectors in other developing countries.

Thus, a cross regional study should also be carried out through collection

of data from other countries to have a more comprehensive study, which could

be a source to provide a wider generalizability of results (Mueller et al., 2012). The horizon of the present work should be expended to other geographic and

industrial settings across the countries and cultures. In this way, the findings

may be replicated in more developed Western economies where there is less impact of the factors of in-groups’/out-groups difference and CSR activities are

widespread as compare to Asian economies.

182

It is possible that heavy investment on CSR activities may displease the employees because there is possibility that they may perceive that their

organizations are investing huge investment on CSR initiatives and less amount

on its employees. Moreover, Ehsan, Kaleem and Anwar (2013) suggested that

it can be possible that high insider stock ownership (i.e. corporate managers) support the CSR initiatives and sometimes they oppose because of their personal

interests. This can have a negative impact on employees’ attachment level with

their organization and can affect the commitment and satisfaction level of employees. As it has been observed by Glavas (2016) that “by understanding

why, how, and when employees are positively and negatively affected by CSR,

more complete models of CSR can be built in which the positive effects of CSR

can be disentangled” (p. 7). Thus, in future there is need to examine this type of potential negative effects of CSR activities on employees’ attitudes and

behaviours.

There may be difference of perception and practice between private and

public sector institutions. In future, a study may be conducted to explore the

difference in perception and practice of CSR between private and public sector

institutions, there is possibility that it may bring significant change in results. More specifically, the ideas and findings of this study merit for further research

to understanding why, how, and when employees are positively influenced by

CSR to find out more complete models of CSR.

5.4 CONCLUSION

CSR has become a prominent area and emerging topic in the field of

management and organizational behaviour research. The main impetus to

conduct this study derives from the belief that when an organization performs

its CSR activities, its employees perceive it and this perception might influence employees’ attitudes and behaviours at their workplace. This engagement of

organization in CSR activities might be able to prompt employees to generate

positive outcomes such as OC, EE and OCB. In this study, the researcher attempted to enhance the understanding that how specifically the CSR impacts

the employees’ perceptions which affect employees’ attitudes and behaviours

with mediation effects of OT, JS and OI in the context of higher education sector

of Pakistan.

The role of CSR in influencing employees’ attitudes and behaviours has

received a growing attention. This study examined the impact of employees’ perceptions of CSR on their work attitudes i.e. organizational commitment (OC)

and employee engagement (EE) and behaviours i.e. extra-role behaviours

183

(OCB). The results of this empirical research supported the framework which

provided rich information for future studies in this domain. This study has contributed to the existing literature in several ways i.e. (i) behavioural and

attitudinal outcomes of perceptions of CSR (ii) indirect impact of perception of

CSR on OC, EE and OCB through mediation mechanism (iii) empirical

evidences of the model in higher education sector. The mediating effect of OT, JS and OI is of great interest as previously hardly an empirical study performed

to examine the impact of these constructs on the relationship between

employees’ perceptions of CSR and dependent variables i.e. OC, EE and OCB. In this study, an initial effort was made to provide information to the researchers

and managers about impact of perceptions of CSR and its potential positive

impact on employees’ attitudes and behaviours in higher education sector in

Pakistan.

This study was aimed to address the four research questions consisted of

fifteen hypotheses including main and sub hypotheses. The first research question includes that employees’ perception of CSR as an antecedent of

employees’ job related outcomes (RO1). RQ1 was further examined with six

hypotheses (H1-H6). The findings of this study indicate diversified results of

these hypotheses, only four hypotheses were accepted. Therefore, it was concluded that perceived CSR is an antecedent of OT, JS, OI and OCB but not

for OC and EE. RQ2 was aimed to examine the indirect impact of perceived

CSR on employees’ outcomes (OC, EE and OCB) through the mediation

relationship of OT. The RQ2 was further examined through three hypotheses (H7-H9). The results of these hypothesis indicated that OT was found to perform

the role as mediator between perceived CSR and OC, EE and not for OCB. RQ3

was aimed to examine the indirect effect of perceived CSR on employees’ outcomes (OC, EE and OCB) through mediation relationship of JS. This

question was further examined through three hypotheses (H10-H12). The results

of these hypotheses indicated that JS was found to perform its role as mediator

between OC and EE and not for OCB. The last RQ4 was aimed to examine the indirect influence of employees’ perceptions of CSR on employees’ outcomes

(OC, EE and OCB) through the mediation role of OI. This question was further

examined through three hypotheses (H13-H15). The results of these hypotheses indicated that OI was found to perform its role as mediator among all

hypothesized indirect relationships between independent variable (i.e. CSR) and

dependent variables (i.e. OC, EE and OCB).

The present study was designed and conducted on 177 higher education

institutions recognized by Higher Education Commission (HEC) Pakistan.

These higher education institutions are located all across Pakistan. The current regional distribution of higher education institutions (province wise) which may

be seen at (Appendix 5-A). Most of the higher education institutions located in

184

big cities of Pakistan (i.e. Lahore, Karachi, Peshawar, Quetta, Islamabad,

Faisalabad, and Multan etc.). All in all, this study presented a workable model for academic managers of higher education institutions through which they can

positively influence their employees’ attitudes and behaviours to enhance their

performance at workplace. This study identifies that through the perception of

CSR employees’ job attitudes (i.e. organizational trust, job satisfaction, organizational identification, organizational commitment and employee

engagement) and behaviours (i.e. citizenship behaviour) have impact on

employees’ outcomes and performance.

185

REFERENCES

1. Abd-Elmotaleb, M., Saha, S.K. and Hamoudahb, A.E.M. (2015).

Rethinking the Employees' Perceptions of Corporate Social

Responsibility. International Business Research, 8(3), 121-132.

2. Aberson, C.L., Healy, M. and Romero, V. (2000). Ingroup bias and self-

esteem: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review,

4(2), 157-173.

3. Aguilera, R., Rupp, D.E., Ganapathi, J. and Williams, C.A. (2006).

Justice and social responsibility: A social exchange model. Paper

presented at the Society for Industrial/Organizational Psychology Annual Meeting, Berlin.

4. Aguilera, R.V., Rupp, D.E., Williams, C.A. and Ganapathi, J. (2007).

Putting the S back in corporate social responsibility: A multilevel theory of social change in organizations. Academy of Management Review,

32(3), 836-863.

5. Aguinis, H. and 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.

6. Aguinis, H. and Glavas, A. (2013). Embedded versus peripheral corporate social responsibility: Psychological foundations. Industrial

and Organizational Psychology, 6(4), 314-332.

7. Ahmad, J. (2012). Can a university act as a corporate social

responsibility (CSR) driver? An analysis. Soc. Responsib. J., 8(1), 77-86.

8. Ahmad, K.Z. and Bakar, R.A. (2003). The association between training

and organizational commitment among white‐collar workers in Malaysia. International Journal of Training and Development, 7(3),

166-185.

9. Ahmed, A. and Ahsan, H. (2011). Contribution of servicing sector in economy of Pakistan. PIDE working papers, 1-27.

186

10. Ahmed, I. (2014). Effects of exchange relations, perceived

organizational support and employee engagement in turnover intentions. Doctoral Thesis submitted to the faculty of Management,

Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.

11. Ahmed, I. and Islam, T. (2011). Decoding the Relationship between Employee’s Jobs Related Behaviours: A Study of Telecom Sector of

Pakistan. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(8),

245-252.

12. Ahmad, R., Islam, T., & Saleem, S. S. (2017). Employee Engagement, Organizational Commitment and Job Satisfaction as consequent of

perceived CSR: A Mediation Model. Journal of the Research Society of

Pakistan, 54(1)

13. Akturan, A. and Sevik, N. (2016). The effect of corporation reputation

on organizational citizenship behaviour. International Journal of

Commerce and Finance, 2(1), 113-123.

14. Albdour, A.A. and Altarawneh, I.I. (2012). Corporate social

responsibility and employee engagement in Jordan. International

Journal of Business and Management, 7(16), 89-105.

15. Al-bdour, A.A., Nasruddin, E. and Lin, S.K. (2010). The relationship

between internal corporate social responsibility and organizational

commitment within the banking sector in Jordan. International Journal of Human and Social Sciences, 5(14), 932-951.

16. Albert, S., Ashforth, B.E. and Dutton, J.E. (2000). Organizational

identity and identification: Charting new waters and building new bridges. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 13-17.

17. Albinger, H.S. and Freeman. S.J. (2000). Corporate social performance

and attractiveness as an employer to different job seeking populations.

Journal of Business Ethics, 28(3), 243-253.

18. Alfaro-Barrantes, P. (2012). Examining the Relationship Between

Employees' Perceptions of and Attitudes Toward Corporate Social

Responsibility and Organizational Identification. Theses, College of Education, The Folorida State University.

187

19. Alfes, K., Shantz, A.D., Truss, C. and Soane, E.C. (2013). The link

between perceived human resource management practices, engagement and employee behaviour: a moderated mediation model. The

International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(2), 330-

351.

20. Ali, A.A., Nasruddin, E. and Lin, S.K. (2010). The Relationship

between internal corporate social responsibility and organizational

commitment within the banking sector in Jordan. International Journal

of Human and Social Sciences, 5(14), 932-952.

21. Ali, I., Rehman, K.U., Ali, S.I., Yousaf, J. and Zia, M. (2010).

Corporate social responsibility influences, employee commitment and

organizational performance. African Journal of Business Management, 4(13), 2796-2801.

22. Allen, N.J. and 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.

23. Allen, N.J. and Meyer, J.P. (1996). Affective, continuance, and

normative commitment to the organization: An examination of construct validity. Journal of vocational behaviour, 49(3), 252-276.

24. Alotaibi, G.A. (2001). Antecedent of Organizational Citizenship

Behaviour: A Study Public of Public Personnel in Kuwait. Public Personnel Management, 30(3), 363- 376.

25. Altbach P.G., Reisberg L. and Rumbley L.E. (2009). Trends in Global

Higher Education: Tracking an Academic Revolution a Report Prepared for the UNESCO World Conference on Higher Education.

26. Amabile, T.M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to" the social

psychology of creativity. Westview press.

27. Anderson, J. and Gerbing, D.W. (1984). The effects of sampling error on convergence, improper solutions and goodness-of-fit indices for

maximum likelihood confirmatory factor analysis. Psychometrika, 49,

155-173.

28. Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988). Structural equation

modeling in practice: A review and recommended two–step approach.

Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411-423.

188

29. Angle, H.L. and Perry, J.L. (1981). An empirical assessment of

organizational commitment and organizational effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26(1), 1-14.

30. Anigbogu, T.U., Onugu, C.U., Onyeugbo, B.N. and Okoli, M.I. (2014).

Determinants of Loan Repayment among Cooperative Farmers in Awka North Lga of Anambra State, Nigeria. European Scientific Journal,

10(22), 168-190.

31. Arasli, H., Daskin, M. and Saydam, S. (2014). Polychronicity and intrinsic motivation as dispositional determinants on hotel frontline

employees‟ job satisfaction: Do control variables make a difference?

Procedia-Social and Behavioural Sciences, 109(1), 1395-1405.

32. Arbuckle, J.L. (2005). Amos 6.0 User’s Guide, Chicago, IL: SPSS Inc.

33. Ary, D., Jacobs, L.C. and Razavieh, A. (2002). Introduction to

Research in Education. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

34. Ary, D., Jacobs, L.C., Razavieh, A. and Sorensen, C. (2006). Introduction to research in education (7th ed.). California: Thomson

Wadsworth.

35. Ashforth, B.E. and Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 20-39.

36. Ashforth, B.E. and Mael, F.A. (1996). Oranizational Identity and Strategy as a Context for the Individual. Advances in Strategic

Management, 13, 19-64.

37. Ashforth, B.E., Harrison, S.H. and Corley, K.G. (2008). Identification

in organizations: An examination of four fundamental questions. Journal of Management, 34(3), 325-374.

38. Asrar-ul-Haq, M. (2015). Human resource development in Pakistan:

evolution, trends and challenges. Hum. Resour. Dev. Int., 18(1), 97-104.

39. Asrar-ul-Haq, M., Kuchinke, K.P. and Iqbal, A. (2017). The

relationship between corporate social responsibility, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment: Case of Pakistani higher education.

Journal of Cleaner Production, 142, 2352-2363.

189

40. Atakan, M.S. and Eker, T. (2007). Corporate identity of a socially

responsible university–a case from the Turkish higher education sector. Journal of Business Ethics, 76(1), 55-68.

41. Aubé, C., Rousseau, V. and Morin, E.M. (2007). Perceived

organizational support and organizational commitment: The moderating effect of locus of control and work autonomy. Journal of

managerial Psychology, 22(5), 479-495.

42. Aupperle, K., Carroll, A., and Hatfield, J. (1985). An Empirical Examination of the Relationship between Corporate Social

Responsibility and Profitability. Academy of Management Journal, 28,

446-463.

43. Azim, M.T. (2016). Corporate Social Responsibility and employee behaviour: mediating role of organizational commitment. Revista

Brasileira de Gestão de Negócios, 18(60), 207-225.

44. Azim, M.T., Diyab, A.A. and Al-Sabaan, S.A. (2014). CSR, Employee Job Attitude and Behaviour: Saudi Bank Experience. Transylvanian

Review of Administrative Sciences, 10(43), 25-47.

45. Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1),

74-94.

46. Bakker, A.B. and Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3),

309-328.

47. Bakker, A.B., Albrecht, S.L. and Leiter, M.P. (2011). Key questions regarding work engagement. European Journal of Work and

Organizational Psychology, 20(1), 4-28.

48. Bakker, A.B., Schaufeli, W.B., Leiter, M.P. and Taris, T.W. (2008). Work engagement: An emerging concept in occupational health

psychology. Work & Stress, 22(3), 187-200.

49. Balmer, J.M., Fukukawa, K. and Gray, E.R. (2007). The nature and management of ethical corporate identity: A commentary on corporate

identity, corporate social responsibility and ethics. Journal of Business

Ethics, 76(1), 7-15.

190

50. Baptista, P.P. (2005). Lealdade do consumidor e os seus antecedentes:

um estudo aplicado ao setor varejista na internet. Tese de Doutorado. Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo.

51. Barak, M.E.M., Cherin, D.A. and Berkman, S. (1998). Organizational

and personal dimensions in diversity climate ethnic and gender differences in employee perceptions. The Journal of Applied

Behavioural Science, 34(1), 82-104.

52. Barcelos, E.M.B., de Paula Baptista, P., Maffezzolli, E.C.F., da Silva, W.V., Zancan, R. and Marchetti, C.P.D.V. (2015). Relationship

Between an Organization Evaluated as Being Socially Responsible and

the Satisfaction, Trust and Loyalty of its Clients. Australian Journal of

Basic and Applied Sciences, 9(7), 429-438.

53. Barnett, M.L. (2014). Why stakeholders ignore firm misconduct: A

cognitive view. Journal of Management, 40(3), 676-702.

54. Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and

statistical considerations. Journal of Personal Social Psychology, 51,

1173-1182.

55. Bartels, J., Peters, O., de Jong, M., Pruyn, A. and van der Molen, M.

(2010). Horizontal and vertical communication as determinants of

professional and organisational identification. Personnel Review, 39(2), 210-226.

56. Bashir, R., Hassan, A. and Cheema, F.A. (2012). Impact of corporate

social responsibility activities over the employees of the organizations: an exploratory study. Journal of Management and Social Sciences, 8(2),

11-12.

57. Bateman, T.S. and Organ, D.W. (1983). Job satisfaction and the good

soldier: The relationship between affect and employee “citizenship”. Academy of Management Journal, 26(4), 587-595.

58. Bates, S. (2004). Getting engaged. HR Magazine, 49(2), 44-51.

59. Bauman, C.W. and Skitka, L.J. (2012). Corporate social responsibility as a source of employee satisfaction. Research in Organizational

Behaviour, 32, 63-86.

191

60. Baumruk, R. (2004). The missing link: the role of employee

engagement in business success. Workspan, 47, 48-52.

61. Baxter, P. and Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology:

Study design and implementation for novice researchers. The

Qualitative Report, 13(4), 544-559.

62. Becker, T.E. (1992). Foci and bases of commitment: Are they

distinctions worth making? Academy of Management Journal, 35,

232-244.

63. Belcourt, M., Bohlander, G. and Snell, S. (2014). Managing Human

Resources. Sixth Canadian Edition. Toronto: Nelson, Education Ltd.

64. Bell, C.R. and Patterson, J.R. (2011). Wired and dangerous: how your customers have changed and what to do about it. Berrett-Koehler

Publishers.

65. Benneworth, P. and Jongbloed, B.W. (2010). Who matters to universities? A stakeholder perspective on humanities, arts and social

sciences valorisation. Higher Education, 59(5), 567-588.

66. Bergami, M. and Bagozzi, R.P. (2000). Self‐categorization, affective

commitment and group self‐esteem as distinct aspects of social identity

in the organization. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39(4), 555-

577.

67. Berger, I.E., Cunningham, P.H. and Drumwright, M.E. (2006). Identity,

identification, and relationship through social alliances. Journal of the

Academy of Marketing Science, 34(2), 128-137.

68. Berry, L.L. (1995). Relationship marketing of services—growing

interest, emerging perspectives. Journal of the Academy of Marketing

Science, 23(4), 236-245.

69. Berry, L.L. and Parasuraman, A.P. (1992). Services marketing starts

from within. Marketing Management, 1(1), 24-34.

70. Bhattacharya, C.B. and Sen, S. (2003). Consumer-Company Identification: A Framework for Understanding Consumers’

Relationship with Companies. Journal of Marketing, 67, 76-88.

192

71. Bhattacharya, C.B., Korschun, D. and Sen, S. (2009). Strengthening

stakeholder-company relationships through mutually beneficial corporate social responsibility initiatives. Journal of Business Ethics,

85(2), 257-272.

72. Bhattacharya, R., Devinney, T.M. and Pillutla, M.M. (1998). A formal model of trust based on outcomes. Academy of Management Review,

23(3), 459-472.

73. Bhattacharyya, S.S., Sahay, A., Arora, A.P. and Chaturvedi, A. (2007). Development of a CSR-Strategy-Framework. In Congress Papers

Corporate Responsibility Research Conference (pp. 7-9).

74. Bickel, P.J. and Lehman, E.L. (1975). Descriptive Statistics for Nonparametric Models. The Annals of Statistics, 3(5), 1038-1044.

75. Birch, D. (2003). Corporate social responsibility: some key theoretical

issues and concepts for new ways of doing business. Journal of New

Business Ideas and Trends, 1(1), 1-19.

76. Bishop, J.W. and Scoot, K.D. (2000). An examination of organizational

and team commitment in a self-directed team environment. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 85(3), 439-450.

77. Blader, S.L. and Tyler, T.R. (2009). Testing and extending the group

engagement model: linkages between social identity, procedural justice,

economic outcomes, and extrarole behaviour. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2), 445-464.

78. Blakely, G.L., Blakely, E.H. and Moorman, R.H. (1995). The

relationship between gender, personal experience, and perceptions of sexual harassment in the workplace. Employee Responsibilities and

Rights Journal, 8(4), 263-274.

79. Blau, P.M. (1964). Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York: Wiley.

80. Bloemer, J. and Odekerken-Schroder, G. (2002). Store satisfaction and

store loyalty explained by customer-and store-related factors. Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behaviour,

15, 68-80.

193

81. Boddy, C.R., Ladyshewsky R.K. and Gavin, P. (2010). The Influence

of Corporate Psychopaths on Corporate Social Responsibility and Organizational Commitment to Employees. Journal of Business Ethics,

97(1), 1-19.

82. Boesso, G. and Michelon, G. (2010). The effects of stakeholder prioritization on corporate financial performance: an empirical

investigation. International Journal of Management, 27(3), 470-579.

83. Bollen, K.A. (1989). Structural Equations with Latent Variables. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

84. Bolton, L.E. and Mattila, A.S. (2015). How does Corporate Social

Responsibility affect consumer response to service failure in buyer-seller relationships? Journal of Retailing, 91(1), 140-153.

85. Bonds-Raacke, J. and Raacke, J. (2012). Research Methods: Are you

equipped? (1st Edition). New Jersey, Pearson Education Inc.

86. Boons, M., Stam, D.A. and Barkema, H.G. (2015). Feelings of pride and respect as drivers of ongoing member activity on crowdsourcing

platforms. Journal of Management Studies, 52, 717-741.

87. Bowen, H.R. (1953). Social responsibilities of the businessman. New York: Harper & Row.

88. Bowling, N.A. (2007). Is the job satisfaction-job performance relationship spurious? A meta-analytic examination. Journal of

Vocational Behaviour, 71(2), 167-185.

89. Brains, C., Willnat, L., Manheim, J. and Rich, R. (2011). Empirical

Political Analysis 8th Edition. Boston, MA: Longman. p.76.

90. Brammer, S., Brooks, C. and Pavelin, S. (2005). The stock performance

of America’s 100 Best corporate citizens. The Quarterly Review of

Economics and Finance, 49(3), 1065-1080.

91. Brammer, S., He, H. and Mellahi, K. (2015). Corporate Social

Responsibility, Employee Organizational Identification, and Creative

Effort; The Moderating Impact of Corporate Ability. Group & Organization Management, 40(3), 323-352.

194

92. Brammer, S., Millington, A. and Rayton, B. (2007). The contribution of

corporation social responsibility to organizational commitment. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18(10),

1701-1719.

93. Branco, M.C. and Rodrigues, L.L. (2006). Corporate social responsibility and resource-based perspectives. Journal of Business

Ethics, 69(2), 111-132.

94. Breckler, S.J. (1984). Empirical validation of affect, behaviour, and cognition as distinct components of attitude. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 47(6), 1191-1205.

95. Brief, A.P. (1998). Attitudes in and around organizations (Vol. 9). Sage.

96. Brislin, R.W. (1980). Cross-cultural research methods. In Environment

and Culture. Springer US.

97. Brown, T.A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: The Guilford Press.

98. Brown, T.J. and Dacin, P.A. (1997). The company and the product: Corporate associations and consumer product responses. The Journal of

Marketing, 61(1), 68-84.

99. Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods (5th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

100. Burns, R.B. (2000). Introduction to Research Methods (4th ed.).

London: Sage.

101. Byrne, B.M. (2010). Structural Equation Modeling with Amos: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

102. Caldwell, M. (2010). Uncovering the hidden value in corporate social responsibility. The Journal of the EDS Agility Alliance, 3(1), 69-75.

103. Caligiuri, P., Mencin, A. and Jiang, K. (2013). Win-win-win: the

influence of company-sponsored volunteerism programs on employees,

NGOs, and business units. Personal Psychology, 66, 825-860.

195

104. Calisir, F., Gumussoy, C.A. and Iskin, I. (2011). Factors affecting

intention to quit among IT professionals in Turkey. Personnel Review, 40(4), 514-533.

105. Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, Jr, G.D. and Klesh, J.R. (1983).

Assessing the attitudes and perceptions of organizational members. In S.E. Seashore, E.E. Lawler, P.H. Mirvis and C. Cammann (Eds.)

Assessing Organizational Change. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

106. Carmeli, A. (2005). Perceived external prestige, affective commitment, and citizenship behaviours. Organization Studies, 26(3), 443-464.

107. Carmeli, A., Gilat, G. and Waldman, D.A. (2007). The role of perceived

organizational performance in organizational identification, adjustment and job performance. Journal of Management Studies, 44(6), 972-992.

108. Carmines, E.G. and Zeller, R.A. (1979). Reliability and validity

assessment (Vol. 17). Sage publications.

109. Carroll, A.B. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. Academy of Management Review, 4(4),

497-505.

110. Carroll, A.B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business

Horizons, 34(4), 39-48.

111. Carroll, A.B. (1999). Corporate social responsibility: Evolution of a definitional construct. Business and Society, 38(3), 268-295.

112. Carroll, A.B. and Buchholtz, A.K. (2014). Business and society: Ethics,

sustainability, and stakeholder management. Nelson Education.

113. Carroll, A.B. and Shabana, K.M. (2010). The business case for

corporate social responsibility: A review of concepts, research and

practice. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), 85-105.

114. Cha, J., Chang, Y.K. and Kim. T. (2013). Person- organization fit on

prosocial identity: Implications on employee outcomes. Journal of Business Ethics, 123, 57-69.

196

115. Chambers, J.M. (1983). Graphical methods for data analysis. New

York: Champman & Hall.

116. Chaudhary, A., Ahmad, M., Nayak, S., Kujur, S.S., Bhagat, V.,

Vandana, P. and Rao, P.H. (2015). In the Effect of CSR on Internal

Employee Motivation. Vishwakarma Business Review, 5(1), 19-30.

117. Chawak, S. and Dutta, D. (2014). Corporate Social Responsibility:

Trends and Challenges. Abhinav International Monthly Refereed

Journal of Research in Management and Technology, 3(4), 32-39.

118. Chen, S.C. and Dhillon, G.S. (2003). Interpreting dimensions of

consumer trust in e-commerce. Information Technology and

Management, 4(2-3), 303-318.

119. Chen, X.P., Hui, C. and Sego, D.J. (1998). The role of organizational

citizenship behaviour in turnover: Conceptualization and preliminary

tests of key hypotheses. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(6),

922-931.

120. Chen, Y.C., Wang, W.C. and Chu, Y.C. (2010). Structural investigation

of the relationship between working satisfaction and employee

turnover. The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning, 6(1), 41-50.

121. Chen, Z.X., Tsui, A.S., Farh, J.L. (2002). Loyalty to supervisor vs.

organizational commitment: Relationships to employee performance in China. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75,

339-356.

122. Cheney, G. (1983). The rhetoric of identification and the study of organizational communication. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 69(2),

143-158.

123. Cheney, G. (1991). Rhetoric in an organizational society, managing multiple identities. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.

124. Cheney, G. and Tompkins, P.K. (1987). Coming to terms with

organizational identification and commitment. Communication Studies, 38(1), 1-15.

197

125. Chepkwony, P., Kemboi, A. and Mutai, S.K. (2015). Effects of Internal

Corporate Social Responsibility Practices on Employee Job Satisfaction: Evidence from Commercial Banks in Kenya. International

Journal of Business and Management Review, 3(1),

24-40.

126. Chepkwony, P.K., Kemboi, A. and Muange, R.M. (2015). Moderating

effect of csr orientation on the relationship between internal CSR

practices and employee job satisfaction. Global Journal of Human

Resource Management, 3(3), 1-16.

127. Cheruiyot, T.K. and Maru, L.C. (2014). Corporate human rights social

responsibility and employee job outcomes in Kenya. International

Journal of Law and Management, 56(2), 152-168.

128. Chin, R. and Lee, B.Y. (1996). Principles and practice of clinical trial

medicine. Burlington, MA: Academic Press.

129. Choi, S.B., Ebrahim Ullah, S.M. and Kwak, W.J. (2015). Ethical leadership and followers' attitudes toward corporate social

responsibility: The role of perceived ethical work climate. Social

Behaviour and Personality, 43 (3), 353-366.

130. Christensen, H.K. (2010). Defining Customer Value as the Driver of

Competitive Advantage. Strategy & Leadership, 38(5), 20-25.

131. Chughtai, A.A. and Buckley, F. (2007). The relationship between work engagement and foci of trust: A conceptual analysis. In Proceedings of

the 13th Asia Pacific Management Conference, Melbourne, Australia

(pp. 73-85).

132. Churchill, G.A. Jr. (1995). Marketing research, Methodological

functions. The Draydu Press, G. Edition, New York, USA.

133. CIA 2010. The World Fact book: Pakistan-Population. http://www. theodora.com/wfb2011/pakistan/pakistan_people.html.

134. Cianni, M. and Romberger, B. (1995). Interactions with senior

managers: Perceived differences by race/ethnicity and by gender. Sex Roles, 32(5-6), 353-373.

198

135. Cinnirella, M. (1998). Manipulating stereotype rating tasks:

Understanding questionnaire context effects on measures of attitudes, social identity and stereotypes. Journal of Community and Applied

Social Psychology, 8, 345-362.

136. Closon, C., Leys, C. and Hellemans, C. (2015). Perceptions of corporate social responsibility, organizational commitment and job satisfaction.

Management Research: The Journal of the Iberoamerican Academy of

Management, 13(1), 31-54.

137. Coakes, S.J. (2006). SPSS: Analysis Without Anguish: Version 14.0 for Windows. Milton, Qld: John Wiley & Sons.

138. Cohen, B. and Greenfield, J. (1997). Double dip: How to run a value-led business and make money, too. New York, N.Y.: Simon & Schuster.

139. Cohen, L. and Manion, L. (1994). Research methods in education

(4th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

140. Cole, M.S. and Bruch, H. (2006). Organizational identity strength, identification, and commitment and their relationships to turnover

intention: Does organizational hierarchy matter? Journal of

Organizational Behaviour, 27, 585-605.

141. Collier, J. and Esteban, R. (2007). Corporate social responsibility and

employee commitment. Business ethics: A European Review, 16(1),

19-33.

142. Colquitt, J.A., Conlon, D.E., Wesson, M.J., Porter, C.O. and Ng, K.Y.

(2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years

of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 425- 445.

143. Colquitt, J.A., Scott, B.A. and LePine, J.A. (2007). Trust,

trustworthiness, and trust propensity: a meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 92(4), 909-927.

144. Cooke-Davies, T.J. (2000). The “real” success factors on projects. International Journal of Project Management, 20(3), 185-190.

199

145. Corley, K.G., Harquail, C.V., Pratt, M.G., Glynn, M.A., Fiol, C.M. and

Hatch, M.J. (2006). Guiding organizational identity through aged adolescence. Journal of Management Inquiry, 15, 85-99.

146. Cornelius, N., Todres, M., Janjuha-Jivraj, S., Woods, A. and Wallace,

J. (2008). Corporate social responsibility and the social enterprise. Journal of Business Ethics, 81(2), 355-370.

147. Coyle-Shapiro., Jacqueline, A.M. and Neuman, J.H. (2004). Individual

Dispositions and the Psychological Contract: The Moderating Effects of Exchange and Creditor Ideologies. Journal of Vocational Behaviour,

64(1), 150-164.

148. Crabtree, S. (2013). Worldwide, 13% of Employees are engaged at work. Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/poll/165269/worldwide-

employees-engaged-work.aspx.

149. Cranny, C.J., Smith, P.C. and Stone, E. (1992). Job satisfaction: How

people feel about their jobs. New York: Lexington Books.

150. Creswell, J. (2002). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and

evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River,

NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.

151. Crilly, D., Schneider, S.C. and Zollo, M. (2008). Psychological

antecedents to socially responsible behaviour. European Management

Review, 5(3), 175-190.

152. Crites, S.L., Fabrigar, L.R. and Petty, R.E. (1994). Measuring the

affective and cognitive properties of attitudes: Conceptual and

methodological issues. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(6), 619-634.

153. Cronbach, L. (1951). Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of

Tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297-334.

154. Cropanzano, R. and Mitchell, M.S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An

interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31(6), 874-900.

155. Currivan, B. (1999). U.S. Patent No. 5,970,092. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

200

156. Czarnowsky, M. (2008). Learning’s role in employee engagement: An

ASTD research study. Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training and Development.

157. D’Aprile, G. and Talò, C. (2014). Measuring corporate social

responsibility as a psychosocial construct: a new multidimensional scale. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 26(3), 153-175.

158. D’Aprile, G. and Talò, C. (2015). How Corporate Social Responsibility

Influences Organizational Commitment: A Psychosocial Process Mediated by Organizational Sense of Community. Employee

Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 27(4), 241-269.

159. da Veiga, C.P., da Veiga, C.R.P., Catapan, A., Veiga, L.G.N., Kato, H.T., Tortato, U. and da Silva, W.V. (2014b). Assortment Planning as

a Strategic Tool in the South Region of the Brazilian Retail.

International Business Management, 8(3), 172-182.

160. Datta, D.K., Guthrie, J.P. and Wright, P.M. (2005). Human resource management and labor productivity: Does industry matter? Academy of

Management Journal, 48(1), 135-145.

161. Davidson, III., Wallace, N. and Worrell, D.L. (1988). The Impact of Announcements of Corporate Illegalities on Shareholder Returns.

Academy of Management Journal, 31(1), 195-200.

162. Davis, J.H. (1973). Group decision and social interaction: a theory of social decision schemes. Psychological Review, 80(2), 97-125.

163. Davis, K. (1960). Can business afford to ignore social responsibilities?

California Management Review, 2, 70-76.

164. Davis, K. (1967). Understanding the social responsibility puzzle: What

does the businessman owe to society? Business Horizons, 10, 45-50.

165. Davis, K. and Blomstrom, R.L. (1966). Business and its Environment. New York: McGraw Hill.

166. De Roeck, K. and Delobbe, N. (2012). Do environmental CSR

initiatives serve organizations’ legitimacy in the oil industry? Exploring employees’ reactions through organizational identification theory.

Journal of Business Ethics, 110(4), 397-412.

201

167. De Roeck, K., El Akremi, A. and Swaen, V. (2016). Consistency

matters! how and when does corporate social responsibility affect employees' organizational identification? Journal of Management

Studies, 53(7), 1141-1168.

168. De Roeck, K., Marique, G., Stinglhamber, F. and Swaen, V. (2014). Understanding employees' responses to corporate social responsibility:

mediating roles of overall justice and organisational identification. The

International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(1),

91-112.

169. Deckop, J.R., Cirka, C.C. and Andersson, L.M. (2003). Doing unto

others: The reciprocity of helping behaviour in organisations. Journal

of Business Ethics, 47(2), 101-113.

170. Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B., Nachreiner, F. and Schaufeli, W.B.

(2001). The job demands-resources model of burnout. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 86, 499-512.

171. Dernovsek, D. (2008). Engaged Employees. Credit Union Magazine,

74(5), 42-46.

172. Deshpande, S.P. (1996). The impact of ethical climate types on facets of job satisfaction: An empirical investigation. Journal of Business

Ethics, 15(6), 655-660.

173. Devinney, T.M. (2009). Is the socially responsible corporation a myth? The good, the bad, and the ugly of corporate social responsibility. The

Academy of Management Perspectives, 23(2),

44-56.

174. Dhanesh, G.S. (2010). The view from within: Internal publics and CSR.

Journal of Communication Management, 16(1), 39-58.

175. Dhanesh, G.S. (2014). CSR as Organization-Employee Relationship Management Strategy a Case Study of Socially Responsible

Information Technology Companies in India. Management

Communication Quarterly, 28(1), 130-149.

176. Dirks, K.T. and Ferrin, D.L. (2001). The role of trust in organizational settings. Organization Science, 12(4), 450-467.

202

177. Dirks, K.T. and Ferrin, D.L. (2002). Trust in Leadership: Meta-Analytic

Findings and Implications for Research and Practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 611-628.

178. Donaldson, T. and Preston, L.E. (1995). The Stakeholder Theory of the

Corporation: Concepts, Evidence, and Implications. The Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65-91.

179. Drucker, P. (1954). The principles of management. New York.

180. Drucker, P. (1997). Looking ahead: implications of the present-the future that has already begun. Harvard Business Review, 75(5), 18-32.

181. Drucker, P. (2001). The essential Drucker. Oxford, UK: Butterworth-

Heinemann.

182. Dutton, J.E. and Dukerich, J.M. (1991). Keeping an eye on the mirror:

Image and identity in organizational adaptation. Academy of

Management Journal, 34(3), 517-554.

183. Dutton, J.E., Dukerich, J.M. and Harquail, C.V. (1994). Organizational

images and member identification. Administrative Science Quarterly,

39(2), 239-263.

184. Dwyer, F.R., Schurr, P.H., Oh, S. (1987). Developing buyer-seller

relationships. Journal of Marketing, 51(2), 11-27.

185. Ebeid, A.Y. (2010). Corporate social responsibility and its relation to organizational commitment. Problems and Perspectives in

Management, 8(2), 76-82.

186. Ehsan, S., Kaleem, A. (2012). An Empirical investigation of the relationship between Corporate Social Responsibility and Financial

Performance: Evidence from Manufacturing Sector of Pakistan.

Journal of Basic and Applied Scientific Research, 2(3), 2909-2922.

187. Ehsan, S., Kaleem, A. and Anwar, S. (2013). Insider stock ownership concentration and corporate social responsibility: a case from

manufacturing sector of Pakistan. Science International, 25(3),

667-672.

203

188. Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Rexwinkel, B., Lynch, P.D. and Rhoades,

L. (2001). Reciprocation of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 42-51.

189. Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P. and Davis-LaMastro, V. (1990). Perceived

organizational support and employee diligence, commitment, and innovation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(1), 51-59.

190. Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S. and Sowa, D. (1986).

Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 500-507.

191. Ekwere, G.E. and Edem, I.D. (2014). Evaluation of Agricultural Credit

Facility in Agricultural Production and Rural Development. Global Journal of Human-Social Science Research, 14(3), 19-26.

192. Ellemers, N. (2001). Social identity, commitment, and work behaviour.

In: M.A. Hogg and D.J. Terry (Eds.). Social identity processes in

organizational contexts (101-114), Psychology Press.

193. Ellemers, N., De Gilder, D. and Haslam, S.A. (2004). Motivating

individuals and groups at work: A social identity perspective on

leadership and group performance. Academy of Management Review, 29(3), 459-478.

194. Ellin, J. (2006). Introduction: the entrepreneurial university. In: Ellin, J.

(Ed.), A Selection of Papers Presented at the WMU Emeriti Council Forum. Universities and Corporations, 6(2), 4-8.

195. Ellis, A.D. (2008). The impact of corporate social responsibility on

employees’ attitudes and behaviours. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University.

196. Ellis, A.D. (2009). The Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on

Employee Attitudes and Behaviours. In G.T. Solomon (Ed.), Proceedings of the Sixty eighth Annual Meeting of the Academy of

Management.

197. Ellis, K. and Shockley-Zalabak, P. (1999). Communicating with management: Relating trust to job satisfaction and organizational

effectiveness. In National Communication Association Convention,

Chicago, IL.

204

198. Elving, W.J. and Kartal, D. (2012). Consistency in behaviour of the

CEO regarding corporate social responsibility. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 17(4), 449-461.

199. Enders, J. (2004). Higher education, internationalization, and the

nation-state: Recent developments and challenges to governance theory. Higher Education, 47(3), 361-382.

200. EU Commission. (2011). A renewed EU strategy 2011-14 for

Corporate Social Responsibility. Brussels, European Commission.

201. Farooq, M., Farooq, O. and Jasimuddin, S.M. (2014). Employees

response to corporate social responsibility: Exploring the role of

employees’ collectivist orientation. European Management Journal, 32(6), 916-927.

202. Farooq, O., Payaud, M., Merunka, D., Valette-Florence, P. (2013). The

impact of corporate social responsibility on organizational

commitment: exploring multiple mediation mechanisms. Journal of Business Ethics, 125, 563-580.

203. Ferreira, P. and Oliveira, E.R. (2014). Does corporate social

responsibility impact on employee engagement? Journal of Workplace Learning, 26(3/4), 232-247.

204. Fleming, J.H. and Asplund, J. (2007). Human sigma: Managing the

employee-customer encounter. Simon and Schuster.

205. Flick, U. (2011). Introducing Research Methodology: A Beginner's

Guide to Doing a Research Project. USA: SAGE.

206. Folger, R., Cropanzano, R. and Goldman, B. (2005). What is the relationship between justice and morality? In Handbook of

organizational justice, ed. J. Greenberg and J.A. Colquitt, 215-245.

Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

207. Fombrun, C. (1996). Reputation. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

208. Foote, N.N. (1951). Identification as the basis for a theory of

motivation. American Sociological Review, 16(1), 14-21.

205

209. Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981). Structural equation models with

unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 382-388.

210. Fraenkel, J.R. and Wallen, N.E. (2003). How to design and evaluate

research in education (5th Ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Publishing Co.

211. Frederick, W. (2006). Corporation, be good! The story of corporate

social responsibility. Indianapolis: Dog Ear Publishing.

212. Frederick, W.C. (1960). The Growing Concern Over Business

Responsibility. California Management Review, 2, 54-61.

213. Freeman, E.R. (1984). Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, Boston, MA: Pitman.

214. Friedman, M. (1962). Capitalism and Freedom, Chicago: University of

Chicago Press.

215. Friedman, M. (1970). The social responsibility of business is to increase

its profits. The New York Times Magazine.

216. Fu, F., Bolander, W., Jones, E. (2009). Managing the drivers of organizational commitment and salesperson effort: an application of

Meyer and Allen’s three component model. Journal of Marketing

Theory and Practice, 17(4), 335-350.

217. Fu, H., Ye, B.H. and Law, R. (2014). You do well and I do well? The

behavioural consequences of corporate social responsibility.

International Journal of Hospitality Management, 40(1), 62-70.

218. Fuller, J.B., Barnett, T., Hester, K. and Relyea, C. (2003). A social identity perspective on the relationship between perceived

organizational support and organizational commitment. The Journal

of Social Psychology, 143(6), 789-791.

219. Fuller, J.B., Hester, K., Barnett, T., Frey, L., Relyea, C. and Beu, D.

(2006). Perceived external prestige and internal respect: New insights

into the organizational identification process. Human Relations, 59, 815-846.

206

220. Galbreath, J., 2010. How does corporate social responsibility benefit

Firms? Evidence from Australia. Eur. Bus. Rev., 22(4), 411-431.

221. Gall, M.D., Gall, J.P. and Borg, W.R. (2007). Educational research: An

introduction, 8th Edition. Pearson.

222. Gao, J.H. (2014). Relating Corporate Social Responsibility and Employee Engagement: The Mediating Role of Perceived

Organizational Support and Chinese Values. International Journal of

Asian Business and Information Management (IJABIM), 5(2), 12-22.

223. Garbarino, E. and Johnson, M.S. (1999). The different roles of

satisfaction, trust, and commitment in customer relationships. The

Journal of Marketing, 63(2), 70-87.

224. Garriga, E. and Melé, D. (2004). Corporate social responsibility

theories: Mapping the territory. Journal of Business Ethics, 53(1-2),

51-71.

225. Gautam, R. and Singh, A. (2010). Corporate Social Responsibility Practices in India: A Study of Top 500 Companies. Global Business and

Management Research, 2(1), 41-56.

226. Gautam, T., Van Dick, R. and Wagner, U. (2004). Organizational identification and organizational commitment: Distinct aspects of two

related concepts. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 7(3), 301-315.

227. Gay, L.R. and Airasian, P. (2003). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and applications. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice

Hall.

228. George, D. and Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference. 11.0 update (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn &

Bacon.

229. Geva, A. (2008). Three models of corporate social responsibility: interrelationships between theory, research, and practice. Business and

Society Review, 113(1), 1-41.

230. Ghauri, P.N. and Grønhaug, K. (2002). Research Methods in Business Studies. Harlow: Financial Times.

207

231. Ghauri, P.N. and Grønhaug, K. (2005). Research methods in business

studies: A practical guide. Pearson Education.

232. Ghosh, D. and Gurunathan, L. (2013). An empirical study on corporate

social responsibility, intention to quit and job embeddedness. Paper

presented at 3rd biennial conference of the Indian Academy of Management.

233. Gill, J. and Johnson, P. (2002), Research methods for managers, 3rd,

SAGE publication, London.

234. Gioia, D.A. and Thomas, J.B. (1996). Identity, image, and issue

interpretation: Sense making during strategic change in academia.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(3), 370-403.

235. Gioia, D.A., Patvardhan, S.D., Hamilton, A.L. and Corley, K.G. (2013).

Organizational identity formation and change. The Academy of

Management Annals, 7(1), 123-193.

236. Glavas, A. (2016). Corporate Social Responsibility and Employee Engagement: Enabling Employees to Employ More of Their Whole

Selves at Work. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 796. doi:

10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00796

237. Glavas, A. and Godwin, L.N. (2013). Is the perception of “goodness”

good enough? Exploring the relationship between perceived corporate

social responsibility and employee organizational identification. Journal of Business Ethics, 114(1), 15-27.

238. Glavas, A. and Piderit, S.K. (2009). How does doing good matter:

Corporate citizenship behaviours and their consequences within business. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 36, 51-70.

239. Goddard, W. and Melville, S. (2004). Research Methodology: An

Introduction. Juta and Company Ltd.

240. Gonzalez, J.V. and Garazo, T.G. (2006). Structural relationships

between organizational service orientation, contact employee job

satisfaction and citizenship behaviour. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 17(1), 23-50.

241. Gouldner A.W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A Preliminary

Statement. American Sociological Review, 25(2), 161-178.

208

242. Gourova, E., Todorova, Y. and Gourov, N. (2009). Skills for future

engineers: challenges for universities in Bulgaria. WSEAS Transactions on Business and Economics, 7(6), 385-399.

243. Grant, A.M., Dutton, J.E. and Rosso, B.D. (2008). Giving commitment:

Employee support programs and the prosocial sensemaking process. Academy of Management Journal, 51(5),

898-918.

244. Graverrer, F.J. and Wallnau, L.B. (2007). Statistics for the Behavioural Sciences (8 ed). USA: Wadsworth.

245. Gray, R.H., Owen, D.L. and Adams, C.A. (1996). Accounting and

Accountability: Changes and Challenges in Corporate Social and Environmental Reporting. Prentice Hall, Europe.

246. Greenfield, K. (2005). New principles for corporate law. Hastings

Business Law Journal, 1(1), 87-117.

247. Griffith, D.A. and Lusch, R.F. (2007). Getting marketers to invest in firm-specific capital. Journal of Marketing, 71(1), 129-145.

248. Gruneberg, M.M. (1979). Understanding job satisfaction. Springer.

249. Guarnieri, R. and Kao, T. (2007). Leadership and CSR - A perfect

match: How top companies for leaders utilize CSR as a competitive

advantage. People & Strategy, 31(3), 34-41.

250. Gully, S.M., Phillips, J.M., Castellano, W.G., Han, K. and Kim, A.

(2013). A mediated moderation model of recruiting socially and

environmentally responsible job applicants. Personal Psychology,

66(4), 935-973.

251. Gumport, P.J. (2000). Academic Restructuring: Organizational Change

and Institutional Imperatives. Higher Education, 39(1), 67-91.

252. Hackett, R.D., Bycio, P. and Hausdorf, P.A. (1994). Further assessments of Meyer and Allen's (1991) three-component model

of organizational commitment. Journal of applied Psychology, 79(1),

15-23.

209

253. Haden, S.S., Oyler, P.H. and Humphreys, J.H. (2009). Historical,

practical and theoretical perspectives on green management: An exploratory analysis. Management Journal, 47(7), 41-55.

254. Hair, J.F. Jr., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. and Tatham,

R.L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis. 6th ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

255. Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. and Anderson, R.E. (2010).

Multivariate Data Analysis. Seventh Edition. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.

256. Hair, J.F., Jr., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C. (1995).

Multivariate Data Analysis. Macmillan Publishing Company, New York.

257. Hallberg, U.E. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2006). Same, same, but different”?

Can work engagement be empirically separated from job involvement

and organizational commitment? European Psychologist, 11, 119-127.

258. Hansen, S.D., Dunford, B.B., Boss, A.D., Boss, R.W. and Angermeier,

I. (2011). Corporate social responsibility and the benefits of employee

trust: A cross-disciplinary perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 102(1), 29-45.

259. Hantrais, L. (1995). Social policy in the European Union. Hampshire,

Macmillan. International Journal of Social Welfare, 5(2), 113-116.

260. Harter, J.K., Schmidt, F.L. and Hayes, T.L. (2002). Business-unit-level

relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and

business outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 268-279.

261. Harter, J.K., Schmidt, F.L. and Keyes, C.L. (2003). Well-being in the

workplace and its relationship to business outcomes: A review of the Gallup studies. In Keyes, CLM and Haidt, J (Ed.). Flourishing: Positive

psychology and the life well-lived, (Chapter 9, pp: 205-224). American

Psychological Association, Washington, DC.

262. Haslam, S.A. (2004). Psychology in organizations. Sage.

210

263. He, H. and Baruch, Y. (2010). Organizational identity and legitimacy

under major environmental changes: Tales of two UK building societies. British Journal of Management, 21(1), 44-62.

264. Henderson, D. (2004). The role of business in the modern world:

Progress, pressures and prospects for the market economy. London, UK: Institute of Economic Affairs.

265. Henriques, I. and Sadorsky, P. (1999). The relationship between

environmental commitment and managerial perceptions of stakeholder importance? Academy of Management Journal, 42(1), 89-99.

266. Herscovitch, L. and Meyer, J.P. (2002). Commitment to organizational

change: Extension of a three component model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 474-487.

267. Hickman, T.M., Lawrence, K.E. and Ward, J.C., (2005). A social

identities perspective on the effects of corporate sport sponsorship on

employees. Sports Marketing Quarterly, 14, 148-157.

268. Hillenbrand, C., Money, K. and Ghobadian, A. (2013). Unpacking the

mechanism by which corporate responsibility impacts stakeholder

relationships. British Journal of Management, 24, 127-146.

269. Hinkin, T.R. (1995). A review of scale development practices in the

study of organizations. Journal of Management, 21(5), 967-988.

270. Ho, V.E.H. (2010). Enlightened Shareholder Value': Corporate Governance Beyond the Shareholder-Stakeholder Divide. Journal of

Corporation Law, 36(1), 59-112.

271. Hoeven, C.L. and Verhoeven, J.W.M. (2013). “Sharing is caring” Corporate social responsibility awareness explaining the relationship of

information flow with affective commitment. Corporate

Communications: An International Journal, 18(2), 264-279.

272. Hoffman, A.J. and Woody, J.G. (2008). Climate change? what’s your

business strategy? Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

211

273. Hofman, P.S. and Newman, A. (2014). The impact of perceived

corporate social responsibility on organizational commitment and the moderating role of collectivism and masculinity: evidence from China.

The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(5),

631-652.

274. Hogg, M.A. (1992). The social psychology of group cohesiveness:

From attraction to social identity. New York: New York University

Press.

275. Hogg, M.A. (2001). A social identity theory of leadership. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 184-200.

276. Hogg, M.A. (2011). Uncertainty-identity theory. In P.A.M. Van Lange, A.W. Kruglanski and E.T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of Theories of

Social Psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

277. Hogg, M.A. and Abrams, D. (1988). Social identifications: A social

psychology of intergroup relations and group processes. London: Routledge.

278. Hogg, M.A. and Terry, D.I. (2000). Social identity and self-

categorization processes in organizational contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 121-140.

279. Hogg, M.A. and Terry, D.J. (2001). Social identity theory and

organizational processes. In M.A. Hogg & D.J. Terry (Eds.), Social identity processes in organizational contexts (pp. 1-12). Philadelphia:

Psychology Press.

280. Holland, P., Cooper, B.K. and Hecker, R. (2016). Use of social media at work: a new form of employee voice? The International Journal of

Human Resource Management, 27, 2621-2634.

281. Holmes-Smith, P., Cunningham, E. and Coote, L. (2006). Structural equation modeling: From the fundamentals to advanced topics.

Melbourne: Statsline.

282. Homans, G.C. (1958). Social behaviour as exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 63, 597-606.

283. Hopkins, M. (2007). Corporate social responsibility and international

development. London, U.K.: Earthscan.

212

284. Hoppock, R. (1935). Job satisfaction. Oxford, England.

285. Hosmer, L.T. (1994). Strategic planning as if ethics mattered. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 17-34.

286. Hoyle, R.H. (1995). Structural Equation Modeling: Concepts, Issues

and Applications. London: Sage.

287. Humphreys, M. and Brown, A.D. (2002). Narratives of organizational

identity and identification: A case study of hegemony and resistance.

Organization Studies, 23(3), 421-447.

288. Hunter, L.W. and Thatcher, S.M. (2007). Feeling the heat: Effects of

stress, commitment, and job experience on job performance. Academy

of Management Journal, 50(4), 953-968.

289. Idowu, S.O. (2008). An empirical study of what institutions of higher

education in the UK consider to be their corporate social responsibility.

WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, 108, 263-273.

290. Isaac Mostovicz, E., Kakabadse, A. and Kakabadse, N.K. (2011). The

four pillars of corporate responsibility: ethics, leadership, personal

responsibility and trust. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 11(4), 489-500.

291. Islam, T., Ahmed, I., Ahmed, Z., Ahmed, A., Saeed, M. and

Muhammad, S.K. (2012). Does compensation and demographical variable influence on teacher’s commitment and job satisfaction? A

study of University of the Punjab, Pakistan. International Journal of

Business and Management, 7(4), 35-43.

292. Islam, T., Ahmed, I., Ali, G. and Sadiq, T. (2016). Behavioural and psychological consequences of corporate social responsibility: need of

the time. Social Responsibility Journal, 12(2), 307-320.

293. Islam, T., Ali, F.H., Aamir, M., Khalifah, Z., Ahmad, R. and Ahmad, U.N.U.B. (2015). Employees perception of CSR and Organizational

Citizenship Behaviour. Science International, 27(3), 2417-2419.

294. Islam, T., Khan, S., Ahmad, U.N.U., Ahmed, I. (2014). Exploring the relationship between POS, OLC, Job satisfaction and OCB. Procedia-

Social and Behavioural Sciences, 114, 164-169.

213

295. Jaros, S. (2007). Meyer and Allen model of organizational commitment:

Measurement issues. The Icfai Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 6(4), 7-25.

296. Jo, S. J., and Joo, B. (2011). Knowledge sharing: The influences of

learning organization culture, organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of leadership &

Organizational Culture, 18(3), 353-364.

297. Jo, S.J., and Joo, B. (2011). Knowledge sharing: The influences of learning organization culture, organizational commitment and

organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Leadership &

Organizational Culture, 18(3), 353-364.

298. Johnson, B. and Christensen, L. (2004). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches (2nd ed.). Boston,

MA: Pearson Education Inc.

299. Johnson, B. and Christensen, L. (2008). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches. Sage.

300. Jones, D.A. (2010). Does serving the community also serve the

company? Using organizational identification and social exchange theories to understand employee responses to a volunteerism

programme. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,

83(4), 857-878.

301. Jones, D.A., Willness, C.R. and Madey, S. (2014). Why are job seekers

attracted by corporate social performance? Experimental and field tests

of three signal-based mechanisms. Academy of Management Journal, 57(2), 383-404.

302. Jones, T.M. (1980). Corporate social responsibility revisited, redefined.

California Management Review, 22(3), 59-67.

303. Jongbloed, B., Enders, J. and Salerno, C. (2008). Higher education and its communities: Interconnections, interdependencies and a research

agenda. Higher Education, 56, 303-324.

304. Joyner, B.E. and Payne, D. (2002). Evolution and Implementation: a study of values, business ethics and corporate social responsibility.

Journal of Business Ethics, 41, 297-311.

214

305. Kahn, W.A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement

and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692-724.

306. Kamalakanthan, P. (2013). Elite Universities Are Just Corporations,

Failing America's Poor Students. Policy Mic. Retrieved from: http://mic.com/articles/58753/elite-universities-are-just-corporations-

failing-america-s-poorstudents#.

307. Katz, D. (1964). The motivational basis of organizational behaviour. Behavioural Science, 9(2), 131-146.

308. Kaul, M. and Smith, J. (2012). Exploring the nature of responsibility

in Higher education. Journal of Global Responsibility, 3(1), 1-10.

309. Kaur, S. (2016). Disengaged or Highly Engaged Employees: Who

are the True Lawbreaker? Indian. Journal of Applied Research, 6(3),

540-543.

310. Keinert, C. (2008). Corporate Social Responsibility as an International Strategy. Physica-Verlag A Springer Company, Leipzig, Germany.

311. Kelman, H.C. (1958). Compliance, Identification, and Internalization: Three Processes of Attitude Change. Journal of Conflict Resolution,

2(1), 51-60.

312. Kermani, F. (2006). Why corporate social responsibility makes sense. Applied Clinical Trials, 15(5), 36-38.

313. Kim, E.E.K., Kang, J. and Mattila, A.S. (2012). The impact of

prevention versus promotion hope on CSR activities. International

Journal of Hospitality Management, 31(1), 43-51.

314. Kim, H.R., Lee, M., Lee, H.T. and Kim, N.M. (2010). Corporate social

responsibility and employee-company identification. Journal of

Business Ethics, 95(4), 557-569.

315. Kim, S.Y. and Park, H. (2011). Corporate social responsibility as an

organizational attractiveness for prospective public relations

practitioners. Journal of Business Ethics, 103(4), 639-653.

316. Kiron, D., Prentice, P.K. and Ferguson, R.B. (2012). Innovating with

analytics. MIT Sloan Management Review, 54(1), 47-52.

215

317. Kline, R.B. (1999). Review of Psychometric theory, Nunnally and

Bernstein (1994). Journal of Psycho Educational Assessment, 17, 275-280.

318. Kline, R.B. (2005). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation

Modeling (2nd Edition ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.

319. Kline, R.B. (2011). Convergence of structural equation modeling and

multilevel modeling. In M. Williams & W.P. Vogt (Eds.), Handbook of

Methodological Innovation (pp. 562-589). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

320. Knight, J.A. (2002). Performance and greed. The Journal of Business

Strategy, 23(4), 24-27.

321. Knippenberg, D. and Schie, E. (2000). Foci and correlates of organizational identification. Journal of Occupational and

Organizational Psychology, 73(2), 137-147.

322. Koh, H.C. and Boo, E.H.Y. (2001). The link between organizational ethics and job satisfaction: A study of managers in Singapore. Journal

of Business Ethics, 29(4), 309-324.

323. Koopmans, L., Bernaards, C.M., Hildebrandt, V.H., Schaufeli, W.B., De Vet Henrica, C.W. and Van Der Beek, A.J. (2011). Conceptual

frameworks of individual work performance: a systematic review.

Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 53(8),

856-866.

324. Kothari, C.R. (2004). Research methodology: Methods and techniques.

New Age International.

325. Kotler, P. and Armstrong, G. (2006). Principles of Marketing. 11th Edition, Pearson.

326. Kotler, P. and Lee, N. (2005). Corporate Social Responsibility: Doing

the Most Good for Your Company and Your Cause. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.

327. Kramer, R.M. (1999). Trust and distrust in organizations: Emerging

perspectives, enduring questions. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 569-698.

216

328. Kreiner, G.E. and Ashforth, B.E. (2004). Evidence toward an expanded

model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 25(1), 1-27.

329. Krejcie, R.V. and Morgan, D.W. (1970). Table for determining sample

size from a given population. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30(3), 607-610.

330. Kreps, D.M. (2003). Microeconomics for managers. New York, NY:

W.W. Norton.

331. Kular, S., Gatenby, M., Rees, C., Soane, E. and Truss, K. (2008).

Employee engagement: A literature review. Working Paper Series

No. 19, Kingston Business School, Kingston University.

332. Kunstler, B. (2006). The millennial university, then and now: from late

medieval origins to radical transformation. On the Horizon, 14(2),

62-69.

333. Lantos, G.P. (2001). The boundaries of strategic corporate social responsibility. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18(7), 595-632.

334. Lawler, E.E. and Mohrman, S.A. (2003). Creating a strategic human resources organization: An assessment of trends and new directions.

Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

335. Lawrence, J., Ott, M. and Bell, A. (2012). Faculty organizational commitment and citizenship behaviour. Research Higher Education,

53, 325-352.

336. Ledgerwood, J. and White, V. (2006). Transforming microfinance

institutions: providing full financial services to the poor. World Bank Publications. 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA.

337. Ledgerwood, J.R. (2010). What Is Reasonable Compensation for S

Corporation Shareholder-Employees? The CPA Journal, 80(5), 38-41.

338. Lee, C.K., Song, H.J., Lee, H.M., Lee, S. and Bernhard, B.J. (2013).

The impact of CSR on casino employees organizational trust, job

satisfaction, and customer orientation: An empirical examination of responsible gambling strategies. International Journal of Hospitality

Management, 33(1), 406-415.

217

339. Lee, K. and Allen, N.J. (2002). Organizational citizenship behaviour

and workplace deviance: the role of affect and cognitions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1), 131-142.

340. Lee, M.P. (2008). A review of the theories of corporate social

responsibility: Its evolutionary path and the road ahead. International Journal of Management Reviews, 10(1), 53-73.

341. Lee, M.W., Song, G.R. and Kim, K.S. (2015). The Effect of CSR

Participation of Employee on Employee Attitudes and Behaviours: The Moderating Role of Conscientiousness. The SIJ Transactions on

Industrial, Financial & Business Management (IFBM), 3(3), 32-35.

342. Lee, T.H., Gerhart, B., Weller, I. and Trevor, C.O. (2008). Understanding voluntary turnover: Path-specific job satisfaction effects

and the importance of unsolicited job offers. Academy of Management

Journal, 51(4), 651-671.

343. Lee, Y.K., Kim, Y.S., Lee, K.H. and Li, D.X. (2012). The impact of CSR on relationship quality and relationship outcomes: A perspective

of service employees. International Journal of Hospitality

Management, 31(3), 745-756.

344. Lefkowitz, J. (2013). The constancy of ethics amidst the changing

world of work. Human Resource Management Review, 16, 245-268.

345. Leigh, J.H., Lucas, G.H. and Woodman, R.W. (1988). Effects of perceived organizational factors on role stress-job attitude relationships.

Journal of Management, 14(1), 41-58.

346. Leong, C.S., Furnham, A. and Cooper, C.L. (1996). The moderating effect of organizational commitment on the occupational stress outcome

relationship. Human Relations, 49(10), 1345-1363.

347. Lin, C.P. (2010). Modeling corporate citizenship, organizational trust, and work engagement based on attachment theory. Journal of Business

Ethics, 94(4), 517-531.

348. Lindgreen, A., Swaen, V. and Johnston, W.J. (2009). Corporate social responsibility: An empirical investigation of US organizations. Journal

of Business Ethics, 85(2), 303-323.

218

349. Little, T.D., Card, N.A., Bovaird, J.A., Preacher, K.J. and Crandall, C.S.

(2007). Structural equation modeling of mediation and moderation with contextual factors. Modeling contextual effects in longitudinal studies,

pp: 207-230. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

350. Locke, E.A. (1976). The Nature and Consequences of Job Satisfaction. In M.D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of Industrial Organizational

Psychology (pp. 1297-1349). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.

351. Loi, R., Hang-Yue, N. and Foley, S. (2006). Linking Employees’ Justice Perceptions to Organizational Commitment and Intention to

Leave: The Mediating Role of Perceived Organizational Support.

Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79(1),

101-120.

352. Lok, P. and Crawford, J. (2001). Antecedents of organizational

commitment and the mediating role of job satisfaction. Journal of

Management Psychology, 16(8), 594-613.

353. Lowry, D.S., Simon, A. and Kimberley, N. (2002). Toward improved

employment relations practices of casual employees in the New South

Wales registered clubs’ industry. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 13(1), 53-70.

354. Luo, Y. (2014). The implication for corporate social responsibility

initiatives on employees’ perceived brand equity and their work engagement in true corporation public company limited. Theses, The

Graduate School of Bangkok University.

355. Ma, H. (2011). The effects of corporate social responsibility on employee engagement (Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern

California).

356. Macey, W.H. and Schneider, B. (2008). The meaning of employee

engagement. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1(1), 3-30.

357. MacKenzie, S.B., Podsakoff, P.M. and Ahearne, M. (1998). Some

possible antecedents and consequences of in-role and extra-role

salesperson performance. The Journal of Marketing, 62(3), 87-98.

219

358. MacKinnon, D.P. (2000). Contrasts in multiple mediator models. In

J.S., Rose, L. Chassin, C.C. Presson, S.J. Sherman (Ed). In Multivariate Applications in Substance Use Research: New Methods for New

Questions. pp. 141-60. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Publishers.

359. MacKinnon, D.P. (2008). Introduction to Statistical Mediation

Analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

360. MacKinnon, D.P., Fairchild, A.J. and Fritz, M.S. (2007). Mediation analysis. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 593-614.

361. MacKinnon, D.P., Lockwood, C.M., Hoffman, J.M., West, S.G. and

Sheets, V. (2002). A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychology Methods, 7, 83-104.

362. Mael, F. and Ashforth, B.E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A

partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification.

Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 13(2), 103-123.

363. Mael, F.A. (1988). Organizational identification: Construct

redefinition and a field application with organizational alumni.

Unpublished Doctoral Theses, Wayne State University, Detroit.

364. Mael, F.A. and Tetrick, L.E. (1992). Identifying organizational

identification. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52(4),

813-824.

365. Maharaj, I. and Schlechter, A.F. (2007). Meaning in life and meaning

of work: Relationships with organizational citizenship behaviour,

commitment and job satisfaction. Management Dynamics, 16(3), 24-41.

366. Maignan, I. and Ferrell, O.C. (2000). Measuring corporate citizenship

in two countries: The case of the United States and France. Journal of Business Ethics, 23(3), 283-297.

367. Maignan, I. and Ferrell, O.C. (2001). Antecedents and benefits of

corporate citizenship: An investigation of French businesses. Journal of Business Research, 51(1), 37-51.

220

368. Maignan, I. and Ferrell, O.C. (2001). Corporate citizenship as a

marketing Instrument-Concepts, evidence and research directions. European Journal of Marketing, 35(3/4), 457-484.

369. Maignan, I., Ferrell, O.C. and Hult, G.T.M. (1999). Corporate

citizenship: Cultural antecedents and business benefits. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27(4), 455-469.

370. Margolis J. and Walsh, J.P. (2003). Misery loves companies:

Rethinking social initiatives by business. Administrative science quarterly, 48(2), 268-305.

371. Marique, G. and Stinglhamber, F. (2011). Identification to proximal

targets and affective organizational commitment: The mediating role of organizational identification. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 10,

107-117.

372. Markos, S. and Sridevi, M.S. (2010). Employee engagement: The key

to improving performance. International Journal of Business and Management, 5(12), 89-96.

373. Marrewijk, M. Van. (2003). Concept and definitions of CSR and

corporate sustainability: between agency and communion. Journal of Business Ethics, 44(2), 95-105.

374. Marrewijk, M. Van. (2004). The social dimension of organizations

recent experiences with great place to work. Journal of Business Ethics, 55(2), 135-146.

375. Maslach, C., Schaufelli, W.B. and Leiter, M.P. (2001). Job burnout.

Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 397-422.

376. Mauno, S., Kinnunen, U., Mäkikangas, A. and Feldt, T. (2010). Job

demands and resources as antecedents of work engagement: a

qualitative review and directions for future research, in Albrecht, S.L. (Ed.), Handbook of Employee Engagement: Perspectives, Issues,

Research and Practice. pp. 111-128, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar

Publishers.

377. Maxfield, S. (2008). Reconciling corporate citizenship and competitive strategy: Insights from economic theory. Journal of Business Ethics,

80(2), 367-377.

221

378. May, T. (2011). Social research: Issues, methods and research.

London: McGraw-Hill International.

379. Mayer, R.C. and Gavin, M.B. (2005). Trust in management and

performance: Who minds the shop while the employees watch the boss?

Academy of Management Journal, 48(5), 874-888.

380. Mayer, R.C. and Schoorman, F.D. (1992). Predicting participation and

production outcomes through a two-dimensional model of

organizational commitment. Academy of Management Journal, 35(3), 671-684.

381. Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H. and Schoorman, F.D. (1995). An integrative

model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709-734.

382. McAleer, S. (2003). Friedman's Stockholder Theory of Corporate

Moral Responsibility. Teaching Business Ethics, 7(4), 437-451.

383. McAllister, D.J. (1995). Affect and Cognitive-based Trust as Foundations for Interpersonal Cooperation in Organizations. Academy

of Management Journal, 38(1), 24-59.

384. McDonald, R.P. and Ho, M.H.R. (2002). Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analyses. Psychological Methods, 7(1),

64-82.

385. McGuire, J., Sundgren, A. and Schnrrweis, T. (1988). Corporate Social Responsibility and Firm Financial Performance. Academy of

Management Journal, 31, 854-872.

386. McGuire, J.W. (1963). Business and Society. New York: McGraw-Hill.

387. McLeary, C.N. and Cruise, P.A. (2015). A context-specific model of

organizational trust: An examination of cognitive and socio-affective

trust determinants in unique cultural settings. Cross Cultural Management, 22(2), 297-320.

388. McMillan, J.H. and Schumacher, S. (1989). Research in education: A

conceptual introduction. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Company.

222

389. McWilliams, A. and Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate social responsibility:

A theory of the firm perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 117-127.

390. McWilliams, A. and Siegel, D.S. (2011). Creating and capturing value:

Strategic corporate social responsibility, resource-based theory, and sustainable competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 37(5),

1480-1495.

391. McWilliams, A., Siegel, D.S. and Wright, P.M. (2006). Corporate social responsibility: strategic implications. Journal of Management

Studies, 43(1), 1-18.

392. Melcrum (2008). Melcrum employee engagement survey 2007/08 - summary of findings”, available at: www.melcrum.com/offer/etee/

surveysummary.pdf.

393. Memon, Z.A., Wei, Y.-M., Robson, M.G. and Khattak, M.A.O. (2014).

Keeping track of “corporate social responsibility” as a business and management discipline: case of Pakistan. Journal of Cleaner

Production. 74, 27-34

394. Meyer, J.P. and Allen, N.J. (1984). Testing the "side-bet theory" of organizational commitment: Some methodological considerations.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(3), 372-378.

395. Meyer, J.P. and Allen, N.J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource

Management Review, 1(1), 61-89.

396. Meyer, J.P. and Herscovitch, L. (2001). Commitment in the workplace: Toward a general model. Human Resource Management Review, 11(3),

299-326.

397. Meyer, J.P., Allen, N.J. and Allen, N.J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace. Sage Publications.

398. Meyer, J.P., Allen, N.J. and Gellatly, I.R. (1990). Affective and

continuance commitment to the organization: Evaluation of measures and analysis of concurrent and time-lagged relations. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 75, 710-720.

223

399. Meyer, J.P., Allen, N.J. and Smith, C.A. (1993). Commitment to

organizations and occupations: Extension and test of a three-component conceptualization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(4), 538-551.

400. Meyer, J.P., Paunonen, S.V., Gellatly, I.R., Goffin, R.D. and Jackson,

D.N. (1989). Organizational commitment and job performance: It's the nature of the commitment that counts. Journal of Applied Psychology,

74, 152-156.

401. Meyer, J.P., Stanley, D.J., Herscovitch, L. and Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization:

A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal

of Vocational Behaviour, 61(1), 20-52.

402. Meyers, L.S., Gamst, G. and Guarino, A.J. (2006). Applied Multivariate Research: Design and Interpretation, London, Sage.

403. Mir, A., Mir, R. and Mosca, J.B. (2002). The new age employee: An

exploration of changing employee-organization relations. Public Personnel Management, 31(2), 187-200.

404. Mishra, S. and Suar, D. (2010). Does corporate social responsibility

influence firm performance of Indian companies? Journal of Business Ethics, 95(4), 571-601.

405. Mohamedbhai, G. (2003). Globalization and its implications for

universities in developing countries. Universities and globalization: Private linkages, public trust. (pp. 153-162). In, G. Breton & M.

Lambert (Eds.), Berlin: Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG.

406. Molm, L.D., Takahashi, N. and Peterson, G. (2000). Risk and trust in social exchange: An experimental test of a classical proposition.

American Journal of Sociology, 105(5), 1396-1427.

407. Molteni, M. (2006). The social-competitive innovation pyramid. Corporate Governance, 6(4), 516-526.

408. Mone, E.M. and London, M. (2014). Employee engagement through

effective performance management: A practical guide for managers. Routledge, New York, NY.

224

409. Moorman, C., Zaltman, G. and Deshpande, R. (1992). Relationships

between providers and users of market research: the dynamics of trust within and between organizations. Journal of Marketing Research,

29(3), 314-328.

410. Moorman, R.H. (1993). The influence of cognitive and affective based job satisfaction on the relationship between satisfaction and

organizational citizenship behaviour. Human Relations, 46, 759-776.

411. Moorman, R.H., Niehoff, B.P. and Organ, D.W. (1993). Treating employees fairly and organizational citizenship behaviour: Sorting the

effects of job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and procedural

justice. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 6, 209-225.

412. Morgan, R.M. and Hunt, S.D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 20-38.

413. Morgeson, F.P., Aguinis, H., Waldman, D.A. and Siegel, D.S. (2013).

Extending corporate social responsibility research to the human resource management and organizational behaviour domains: A look to

the future. Personnel Psychology, 66(4), 805-824.

414. Morrison, E.W. (1994). Role definitions and organizational citizenship behaviour: The importance of the employee's perspective. Academy of

Management Journal, 37(6), 1543-1567.

415. Morrow, P.C. (1993). The theory and measurement of work commitment. Jai Press.

416. Morrow, P.C. (2011). Managing organizational commitment: Insights

from longitudinal research. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 79(1), 18-35.

417. Mory, L., Wirtz, B.W. and Göttel, V. (2016). Factors of internal

corporate social responsibility and the effect on organizational commitment. The International Journal of Human Resource

Management, 27(13), 1393-1425.

418. Moura-Leite, R.C. and Padgett, R.C. (2011). Historical background of corporate social responsibility. Social Responsibility Journal, 7(4),

528-539.

225

419. Mowday, R.I. (1998). U.S. Patent No. 5,828,304. Washington, DC:

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

420. Mowday, R.T., Steers, R.M. and Porter, L.W. (1979). The measurement

of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 14(2),

224-247.

421. Mozes, M., Josman, Z. and Yaniv, E. (2011). Corporate social

responsibility organizational identification and motivation. Social

Responsibility Journal, 7(2), 310-325.

422. Mubarak, R.Z., Wahab, Z. and Khan, N.R. (2012). Faculty retention in

higher education institutions of Pakistan. Journal of Theories and

Research in Education, 7(2), 65-78.

423. Mueller, K., Hattrup, K., Spiess, S-O., Nick, L-H. (2012). The effects

of corporate social responsibility on employees' affective commitment:

A cross-cultural investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(6),

1186-1200.

424. Mukherjee, A. and Chaturvedi, R. (2013). From CSR to MCSR: The

Journey towards Mandatory Corporate Social Responsibility in India.

Golden Research Thoughts, 3(2), 1-7.

425. Muthen, B. (2011). Applications of Causally Defined Direct and

Indirect Effects in Mediation Analy`sis using SEM in Mplus. Los

Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

426. Nadeem, A. and Kakakhel, J.K. (2012). An investigation into corporate

social responsibility (CSR) of public sector universities in KPK. Abasyn

Journal of Social Sciences, 5 (2), 14-27.

427. Najafi, S., Noruzy, A., Azar, H.K., Nazari-Shirkouhi, S. and Dalvand,

M.R. (2011). Investigating the relationship between organizational

justice, psychological empowerment, job satisfaction, organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behaviour: An empirical

model. African Journal of Business Management, 5(13), 5241-5248.

428. Namjoofard, N. (2014). An examination of factors of employee-centered corporate social responsibility and their relationship with the

employee's motivation toward generating innovation. Dissertations &

Theses, Argosy University/Chicago.

226

429. Narehan, H., Hairunnisa, M., Norfadzillah, R.A. and Freziamella, L.

(2014). The effect of quality of work life (QWL) programs on quality of life (QOL) among employees at multinational companies in

Malaysia. Procedia-Social and Behavioural Sciences, 112(1), 24-34.

430. Nejati, M. and Ghasemi, S. (2013). Corporate social responsibility and organizational commitment: Empirical findings from a developing

country. Journal of Global Responsibility, 4(2), 263-275.

431. Nejati, M., Shafaei, A., Salamzadeh, Y. and Daraei, M. (2011). Corporate social responsibility and universities: A study of top 10 world

universities’ websites. African Journal of Business Management, 5(2),

440-447.

432. Netemeyer, R.G., Boles, J.S., McKee, D.O. and McMurrian, R. (1997). An investigation into the antecedents of organizational citizenship

behaviours in a personal selling context. The Journal of Marketing,

61(3), 85-98.

433. Neuman, W.L. (2003). Social Research, Methods: Qualitative and

Quantitative Approaches. Fifth edition. Allyn and Bacon. Boston.

Massachusetts.

434. Newman, A., Miao, Q., Hofman, P.S. and Zhu, C.J. (2016). The impact

of socially responsible human resource management on employees'

organizational citizenship behaviour: the mediating role of organizational identification. The International Journal of Human

Resource Management, 27(4), 440-455.

435. Newman, A., Nielsen, I. and Miao, Q. (2015). The impact of employee perceptions of organizational corporate social responsibility practices

on job performance and organizational citizenship behaviour: Evidence

from the Chinese private sector. The International Journal of Human

Resource Management, 26(9), 1226-1242.

436. Newman, A., Thanacoody, R. and Hui, W. (2011). The effects of

perceived organizational support, perceived supervisor support and

intra-organizational network resources on turnover intentions: A study of Chinese employees in multinational enterprises. Personnel Review,

41(1), 56-72.

227

437. Nguni, S., Sleegers, P. and Denessen, E. (2006). Transformational and

transactional leadership effects on teachers' job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and organizational citizenship behaviour

in primary schools: The Tanzanian case. School Effectiveness and

School Improvement, 17(2), 145-177.

438. Niehoff, B.P. and Moorman, R.H. (1993). Justice as a mediator of the

relationship between methods of monitoring and organizational

citizenship behaviour. Academy of Management Journal, 36(3),

527-556.

439. Nord, W.R. and Fuller, S.R. (2009). Increasing Corporate Social

Responsibility Through an Employee-centered Approach. Employee

Responsibilities & Rights Journal, 21, 279-290.

440. Nunnally, J.C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York:

McGraw-Hill.

441. Nunnally, J.C. and Bernstein, I.H. (1994), Psychometric Theory (3rd ed.), New York: McGraw-Hill.

442. Obeidat, B.Y. (2016). Exploring the Relationship between Corporate

Social Responsibility, Employee Engagement, and Organizational Performance: The Case of Jordanian Mobile Telecommunication

Companies. International Journal of Communications, Network and

System Sciences, 9(09), 361-386.

443. OECD (2008). Tertiary Education for the Knowledge Society: OECD

Thematic Review. Paris: Organization for Economic Co-operation and

Development.

444. Oketch, M.O. (2004). The corporate stake in social cohesion. Corporate

Governance, 4(3), 5-19.

445. Ones, D.S. and Dilchert, S. (2012). Environmental sustainability at work: A call to action. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 5(4),

444-466.

446. O'Reilly, C.A. and Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: The effects of compliance, identification,

and internalization on prosocial behaviour. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 71(3), 492-499.

228

447. Organ, D.W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behaviour: The good

soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

448. Organ, D.W. (1990). The motivational basis of organizational

citizenship behaviour. In B.M. Staw & L.L. Cummings (Eds.),

Research in organizational behaviour (Vol. 12, pp. 43-72). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

449. Organ, D.W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behaviour: It's

construct clean-up time. Human Performance, 10(2), 85-97.

450. Organ, D.W. and Konovsky, M. (1989). Cognitive vs. affective

determinants of organizational citizenship behaviour, Journal of

Applied Psychology, 74, 157-164.

451. Organ, D.W. and Ryan, K. (1995). A meta‐analytic review of attitudinal

and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behaviour.

Personnel Psychology, 48(4), 775-802.

452. Organ, D.W., Podsakoff, P.M. and MacKenzie, S.B. (2006).

Organizational Citizenship Behaviour: Its Nature, Antecedents, and

Consequences. Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.

453. Oshagbemi, T. (1999). Overall job satisfaction: how good are single

versus multiple-item measures? Journal of Managerial Psychology,

14(5), 388-403.

454. Osterhus, T.L. (1997). Pro-social consumer influence strategies: when

and how do they work? The Journal of Marketing, 61(4), 16-29.

455. Paine, J.B. and Organ, D.W. (2000). The cultural matrix of organizational citizenship behaviour: Some preliminary conceptual and

empirical observations. Human resource Management Review, 10(1),

45-59.

456. Pallant, J.F. (2011). SPSS Survival Manual: a step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS (4th ed.). Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin.

457. Panatik, S.A. (2010). Impact of work design on psychological work reactions and job performance among technical workers: A

longitudinal study in Malaysia. Thesis, Doctor of Philosophy (PhD).

University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand.

229

458. Parahoo, K. (1997). Nursing research, principles, process and issues.

Macmillan.

459. Park, S.Y. and Levy, S.E. (2014). Corporate social responsibility:

perspectives of hotel frontline employees. International Journal of

Contemporary Hospitality Management, 26(3), 332-348.

460. Parker, C.P., Baltes, B.B., Young, S.A., Huff, J.W., Altmann, R.A.,

Lacost, H.A. and Roberts, J.E. (2003). Relationships between

psychological climate perceptions and work outcomes: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 24, 389-416.

461. Parsons, A. (2014). Literature review on social responsibility in higher

education. School of Public Administration, University of Victoria.

462. Peloza, J. (2009). The challenge of measuring financial impacts from

investments in corporate social performance. Journal of Management,

35(6), 1518-1541.

463. Pepe, M. (2010). The impact of extrinsic motivational dissatisfiers on employee level of job satisfaction and commitment resulting in the

intent to turnover. Journal of Business & Economics Research, 8(9),

99-107.

464. Perks, K.J., Farache, F., Shukla, P., Berry, A. (2013). Communicating

responsibility-practicing irresponsibility in CSR advertisements.

Journal of Business Research, 66(10), 1881-1888.

465. Perrin, T. (2009). Employee engagement underpins business

transformation. Retrieved from

www.towersperrin.com/tp/getwebcachedoc?

466. Peterson, D.K. (2004). The relationship between perceptions of

corporate citizenship and organizational commitment. Business &

Society, 43(3), 296-319.

467. Peterson, R.A. (2000). Constructing Effective Questionnaires. London:

Sage.

468. Pfeffer, J. (1983). Organizational demography, In L.L. Cummings and B.M. Staw (eds.), Research in Organizational Behaviour (Vol. 5, pp.

299-357). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

230

469. Pfeffer, J. (2010). Power: Why some people have it and some people

don’t. HarperCollins Publishers, New York.

470. Pinkston, T. and Carroll, A. (1996). A retrospective examination of

CSR orientations. Have they changed? Journal of Business Ethics,

15(2), 199-207.

471. Pinnington, A., Macklin, R. and Campbell, T. (2007). Human Resource

Management: Ethics and Employment, Oxford University Press.

472. Pivato, S., Misani, N. and Tencati, A. (2008). The impact of corporate social responsibility on consumer trust: the case of organic food.

Business ethics: A European Review, 17(1), 3-12.

473. Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Paine, J.B. and Bachrach, D.G. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviours: A critical review of the

theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research.

Journal of Management, 26, 513-563.

474. Porter, L.W., Steers, R.M., Mowday, R.T. and Boulian, P.V. (1974). Organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover among

psychiatric technicians. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59(5), 603-609.

475. Porter, M.E. and Kramer, M.R. (2006). Strategy and society: The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility.

Harvard Business Review, 84(12), 78-92.

476. Porter, M.E. and Kramer, M.R. (2011). Creating Shared Value. Harvard Business Review, 89(1/2), 62-77.

477. Post, J.E., Lawrence, A.T. and Weber, J. (2002). Business and society:

Corporate strategy, public, ethics (10th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

478. Pratt, M.G. (1998). To be or not to be”: Central question in

organizational identification. D.A. Whetten and P.C. Godfrey (Eds).

Identity in Organizations: Building Theory through Conversation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

479. Preacher, K.J. and Hayes, A.F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for

estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behaviour Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36, 717-731.

231

480. Preacher, K.J. and Hayes, A.F. (2008). Contemporary approaches to

assessing mediation in communication research. In A.F. Hayes, M.D. Slater and L.B. Snyder (Eds.), The Sage sourcebook of advanced data

analysis methods for communication research. pp. 13-54, Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

481. Preston, L.E. (1975). Corporation and society: The search for a

paradigm. Journal of Economic Literature, 13(2), 434-453.

482. Quazi, A.M. and O'Brien, D. (2000). An empirical test of a cross-national model of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business

Ethics, 25(1), 33-51.

483. Rafferty A.M., Maben J., West E. and Robinson D. (2005). What makes a good employer? Issue Paper 3 for International Council of Nurses

Geneva.

484. Rahman, M.M, Rashid, M.M. and Haque, R.M. (2014). Corporate

Social Responsibility and Financial Performance: A Case Study of Jamuna Bank Limited, Bangladesh. Asian Journal of Finance &

Accounting, 6(2), 351-361.

485. Rapid Business Intelligence Success, (2012). Retrieved from http://www.rapid-business-intelligence-success.com/what-is-business-

intelligence.html.

486. Ravasi, D. and Phillips, N. (2011). Strategies of alignment organizational identity management and strategic change at Bang &

Olufsen. Strategic Organization, 9(2), 103-135.

487. Reichers, A.E. (1985). A review and reconceptualization of organizational commitment. Academy of Management Review, 10(3),

465-476.

488. Reilly, P. and Brown, D. (2008). Employee engagement: What is the relationship with reward management. World at Work Journal, 17(4),

37-49.

489. Reputation Institute (2010). Why CSR matters to corporate reputation. Reputation Intelligence, 2(1).

232

490. Rexhepi, G., Kurtishi, S. and Bexheti, G. (2013). Corporate social

responsibility (CSR) and innovation - The drivers of business growth? Procedia-Social and Behavioural Sciences, 75(1), 532-541.

491. Riantoputra, C.D. (2010). Know thyself: Examining factors that

influence the activation of organizational identity concepts in top managers' minds. Group & Organization Management, 35, 8-38.

492. Rich, B.L., Lepine, J.A. and Crawford, E.R. (2010). Job engagement:

Antecedents and effects on job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 53(3), 617-635.

493. Richman, A. (2006). Everyone wants an engaged workforce how can

you create it?’ Workspan, 49, 36-39.

494. Rigdon, E.E. (2012). Rethinking partial least squares path modeling: in

praise of simple methods. Long Range Planning, 45(5-6), 341-358.

495. Riketta, M. (2002). Attitudinal organizational commitment and job performance: a meta analysis. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 23,

257-266.

496. Riketta, M. (2005). Organizational identification: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 66(2), 358-384.

497. Riordan, C.M., Gatewood, R.D. and Bill, J.B. (1997). Corporate image:

Employee reactions and implications for managing corporate social performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 16(4), 401-412.

498. Robertson-Smith, G. and Markwick, C. (2009). Employee Engagement

A review of current thinking, Institute for Employment Studies,

University of Sussex Campus Brighton, UK.

499. Robinson, D., Perryman, S. and Hayday, S. (2004). The drivers of

employee engagement. Report-Institute for Employment Studies.

500. Robinson, S.L. (1996). Trust and breach of the psychological contract. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 574-599.

501. Rodrigo, P. and Arenas, D. (2008). Do employees care about CSR

programs? A typology of employees according to their attitudes. Journal of Business Ethics, 83(2), 265-283.

233

502. Rogers, B. (2013). Too many feelings and not enough facts in CSR

strategy. Forbes,

503. Roscoe, J.T. (1975). Fundamental Research Statistics for the

Behavioural Sciences. New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston.

504. Rossi, A., (2014). How American Universities Turned into Corporations. Time. Retrieved from: http://time.com/108311/how-

american-universities-areripping- off-your-education.

505. Rousseau, D.M., Sitkin, S.B., Burt, R.S. and Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of

Management Review, 23(3), 393-404.

506. Ruane, J.M. (2005). Essentials of Research Methods: A guide to social sciences research. London: Blackwell Publishing.

507. Rupp D.E., Shao R., Thornton M.A., Skarlicki D.P. (2013). Applicants’

and employees’ reactions to corporate social responsibility: the moderating effects of first-party justice Perceptions and Moral identity.

Personal Psychology, 66(4), 895-933.

508. Rupp D.E., Wright P.M., Aryee S. and Luo Y. (2011). Special issue on ‘behavioural ethics, organizational justice, and social responsibility

across contexts’. Management and Organization Review, 7, 185-186.

509. Rupp, D.E. and Mallory, D.B. (2015). Corporate Social Responsibility: Psychological, Person-Centric, and Progressing. Annual Review of

Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behaviour, 2(1), 211-

236.

510. Rupp, D.E., Baldwin, A.M. and Bashshur, M.R. (2006). Using developmental assessment centers to foster workplace fairness.

Psychologist-Manager Journal, 9, 145-170.

511. Rupp, D.E., Ganapathi, J., Aguilera, R.V. and Williams, C.A. (2006). Employee reactions to corporate social responsibility: An

organizational justice framework. Journal of organizational Behaviour,

27(4), 537-543.

234

512. Rupp, D.E., Skarlicki, D. and Shao, R. (2013). The Psychology of

Corporate Social Responsibility and Humanitarian Work: A Person‐Centric Perspective. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 6(4),

361-368.

513. Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational

Psychology, 25(1), 54-67.

514. Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being.

American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78.

515. Saari, L. and Judge, T. (2004). Employee attitudes and job satisfaction. Human Resource Management, 43(4), 395-407.

516. Sageer, A., Rafat, S., Agarwal, P. (2012). Identification of Variables

Affecting Employee Satisfaction and their Impact on the Organization. IOSR Journal of Business and Management, 5(1), 32-39.

517. Saks, A.M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee

engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(7), 600-619.

518. Salant, P. and Dillman, D.A. (1994). How to conduct your own survey.

New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

519. Saleh, M. (2009). Corporate social responsibility disclosure in an emerging market: A longitudinal analysis approach. International

Business Research, 2(1), 131-141.

520. Samy, M., Odemilin, G. and Bampton, R. (2010). Corporate social responsibility: a strategy for sustainable business success. An analysis

of 20 selected British companies. Corporate Governance: The

International Journal of Business in Society, 10(2), 203-217.

521. Santhosh, M. and Baral, R. (2015). A Conceptual Framework for Exploring the Impacts of Corporate Social Responsibility on Employee

Attitudes and Behaviour. Journal of Human Values, 21(2), 127-136.

522. Santos, C.P. and Rossi, C.A.V. (2002). The impact of complaint handling on consumer's trust and loyalty in the context of relational

services exchanges. Proceedings of the European Marketing Academy

Conference, Braga, Portugal, 31.

235

523. Saunders, M. (2003). Research Methods for Business Students. South

Africa: Pearson Education

524. Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2003). Research methods for

business students, 3rd, Pearson Education, England.

525. Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2007) Research Methods for Business Students (4th edn). Harlow: FT Prentice Hall.

526. Schappe, S.P. (1998). The influences of job satisfaction and

organizational commitment and fairness perception on organizational citizenship behaviour. Journal of Psychology, 132(3), 277-290.

527. Schaufeli, W.B. and Bakker, A.B. (2010). Defining and measuring

work engagement: Bringing clarity to the concept. Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research, 10-24. New York, NY,

US: Psychology Press, viii, 209 pp.

528. Scherer, A.G. and Smid, M. (2000). The downward spiral and the U.S. model business principles - Why MNEs should take responsibility for

improvement of worldwide social and environmental conditions.

Management International Review, 40, 351-371.

529. Schmidt, S.W. (2007). The relationship between satisfaction with workplace training and overall job satisfaction. Human Resource

Development Quarterly, 18(4), 481-498.

530. Schoorman, F.D., Mayer, R.C. and Davis, J.H. (2007). An integrative model of organizational trust: Past, present, and future. Academy of

Management Review, 32(2), 344-354.

531. Schreiber, J.B., Nora, A., Stage, F.K., Barlow, E.A. and King, J. (2006). Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor

analysis results: A review. The Journal of Educational Research, 99(6),

323-338.

532. Sekaran, U. (2000). Research Methods for Business: A Skill -Building

Approach. (3rd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

533. Sekaran, U. (2003). Research Methods for Business: A Skill-Building Approach. 4th ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

236

534. Sekaran, U. (2006). Research methods for business: A skill building

approach. John Wiley & Sons.

535. Senasu, K. and Virakul, B. (2015). The Effects of Perceived CSR and

Implemented CSR on Job-related Outcomes: An HR Perspective.

Journal of East-West Business, 21(1), 41-66.

536. Sethi, S.P. (1975). Dimensions of Corporate Social Responsibility.

California Management Review, 17(3), 58-64.

537. Settoon, R.P., Bennett, N. and Liden, R.C. (1996). Social exchange in organizations: perceived organizational support: Leader-member

exchange and employee reciprocity. Journal of Applied Psychology,

81(3), 219-227.

538. Shabbir, M.S., Ahmed, K., Lawler, J.J. and Shahbaz, M. (2011). Affect

of working environment on job satisfaction in Pakistan. World Review

of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development, 7(1),

52-61.

539. Shaffer, J. (2004). Measurable payoff: How employee engagement can

boost performance and profits. Communications World, 21(4), 22-27.

540. Shaw, K. (2005). An engagement strategy process for communicators. Strategic Communication Management, 9(3), 26-29.

541. Sheldon, O. (1923). The Philosophy of Management. Pitman Publishing Corp., London.

542. Shen, J. and Jiuhua Zhu, C. (2011). Effects of socially responsible

human resource management on employee organizational commitment.

The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22(15), 3020-3035.

543. Shields, P.M. and Rangarajan, N. (2013). A playbook for research

methods: Integrating conceptual frameworks and project management. New Forums Press.

544. Shuck, B. and Wollard, K. (2010). Employee engagement and HRD: A

seminal review of the foundations. Human Resource Development Review, 9(1), 89-110.

237

545. Shuck, M.B., Rocco, T.S. and Albornoz, C.A. (2011). Exploring

employee engagement from the employee perspective: implications for HRD. Journal of European Industrial Training, 35(4), 300-325.

546. Siddique, M. (2014). CSR Practices and Competitive Advantages:

A Descriptive Study. American Journal of Trade and Policy, 1(3), 109-116.

547. Sillince, J.A. and Brown, A.D. (2009). Multiple organizational

identities and legitimacy: The rhetoric of police websites. Human Relations, 62(12), 1829-1856.

548. Silverman, D. (2013). What counts as qualitative research? Some

cautionary comments. Qualitative Sociology Review, 9(2), 48-55.

549. Sims, R.L. and Kroeck, K.G. (1995). The influence of ethical fit on

employee satisfaction, commitment and turnover. Journal of Business

Ethics, 13(12), 939-947.

550. Singh, A.P. and Paithankar, S. (2015). Analysis of the effects of corporate social responsibility activities on employee satisfaction and

commitment. SIMS Journal of Management Research, 1, 34-40.

551. Singhapakdi, A., Lee, D.J., Sirgy, M.J. and Senasu, K. (2015). The impact of incongruity between an organization's CSR orientation and

its employees' CSR orientation on employees' quality of work life.

Journal of Business Research, 68(1), 60-66.

552. Singhapakdi, A., Vitell, S.J. and Kraft, K.L. (1996). Moral intensity and

ethical decision-making of marketing professionals. Journal of

Business Research, 36(3), 245-255.

553. Singleton, R.A. and Straits, B.C. (2005). Approaches to social research

(4th Ed.). Oxford University Press.

554. Skudiene, V. and Auruskeviciene, V. (2012). The contribution of corporate social responsibility to internal employee motivation. Baltic

Journal of Management, 7(1), 49-67.

555. Smidts, A., Pruyn, A.T.H. and Van Riel, C.B. (2001). The impact of employee communication and perceived external prestige on

organizational identification. Academy of Management Journal, 44(5),

1051-1062.

238

556. Smith, A.D. (2007). Making the Case for the Competitive Advantage

of Corporate Social Responsibility. Business Strategy Series, 8(3), 186-195.

557. Smith, C. (2003). Corporate Social Responsibility: Whether or How?

California Management Review, 45(4), 52-76.

558. Smith, C.A., Organ, D.W. and Near, J.P. (1983). Organizational

citizenship behaviour: Its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 68(4), 655-663.

559. Smith, P.A.C. and Sharicz, C. (2011). The shift needed for

sustainability, The Learning Organization, 18(1), 73-86.

560. Smith, V. and Langford, P. (2011). Responsible or redundant? Engaging the workforce through corporate social responsibility.

Australian Journal of Management, 36(3), 425-447.

561. Smith, W.J., Wokutch, R.E., Harrington, K.V. and Dennis B.S. (2001). An examination of the influence of diversity and stakeholder role on

corporate social orientation. Business and Society, 40,

266-294.

562. Snape, E., Redman, T. and Chen, A.W. (2000). Commitment to the union: a survey of research and the implications for industrial relations

and trade unions. International Journal of Management Reviews, 2(3),

205-230.

563. Sobel, M.E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects

in structural equation models. Sociological Methodology, 13, 290-312.

564. Song, H.J., Lee, H.M., Lee, C.K. and Song, S.J. (2015). The Role of CSR and Responsible Gambling in Casino Employees' Organizational

Commitment, Job Satisfaction, and Customer Orientation. Asia Pacific

Journal of Tourism Research, 20(4), 455-471.

565. Spector, P.E. (1997). Job Satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes,

and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

566. Stensaker, B. (2007). The relationship between branding and organisational change. Higher Education Management and Policy,

19(1), 1-17.

239

567. Story, J. and Neves, P. (2015). When corporate social responsibility

(CSR) increases performance: exploring the role of intrinsic and extrinsic CSR attribution. Business Ethics: A European Review, 24(2),

111-124.

568. Suh, Y.J. (2016). The Role of Relational Social Capital and Communication in the Relationship between CSR and Employee

Attitudes a Multilevel Analysis. Journal of Leadership &

Organizational Studies, 23(4), 410-423.

569. Sullivan, W.M. (2003). The University as Citizen: Institutional Identity and Social Responsibility, A Special Report. The Civic Arts Review,

16(1), 1-14.

570. Surroca, J., Tribo, J.A. and Waddock, S. (2010). Corporate responsibility and financial performance: The role of intangible

resources. Strategic Management Journal, 31(5), 463-490.

571. Suter, W.N. (2006). Introduction to educational research: a critical thinking approach, SAGE Publications.

572. Tabachnick, B.G. and Fidell, L.S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics

(4th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

573. Tabachnick, B.G. and Fidell, L.S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics.

Pearson.

574. Tahseen, N. and Akhtar, M.S. (2016). Impact of Organizational Justice on Citizenship Behaviour: Mediating Role of Faculty Trust. Pakistan

Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences, 10(1), 104-121.

575. Tajfel, H. (1972). Social categorization. English manuscript of ‘La catégorisationsociale.’ In S. Moscovici (Ed.), Introduction à la

Psychologie Sociale (pp. 272-302). Paris: Larousse.

576. Tajfel, H. (1978). Interindividual behaviour and intergroup behaviour. Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology

of intergroup relations, European monographs in social psychology,

(14), London: Academic Press.

577. Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories: Studies in

social psychology. Cambridge University Press Archive.

240

578. Tajfel, H. and Turner, J.C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup

conflict. In W.G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations, (pp, 33-47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

579. Tajfel, H. and Turner, J.C. (1985). The social identity theory of

intergroup behaviour. In Worchel, S. andAustin, W.G. (Eds.), Psychology of Intergroup Relations (7-24). Nelson Hall, Chicago, IL.

580. Tajfel, H. and Turner, J.C. (1986). The social identity theory of

intergroup behaviour. In S. Worchel& W. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7-24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.

581. Tan, H.H. and Tan, C.S. (2000). Toward the differentiation of trust in

supervisor and trust in organization. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 126(2), 241-260.

582. Tepper, B.J. and Taylor, E.C. (2003). Relationships among supervisors'

and subordinates' procedural justice perceptions and organizational

citizenship behaviours. Academy of Management Journal, 46(1), 97-105.

583. Terre- Blanche, M., Durrheim, K. and Painter, D. (2006). Research in

practice: Applied methods for the social sciences. Cape Town: University of Cape Town Press.

584. Tett, R.P. and Meyer, J.P. (1993). Job satisfaction, organizational

commitment, turnover intention, and turnover: path analyses based on

meta‐analytic findings. Personnel Psychology, 46(2), 259-293.

585. Thomas, G. and Nowak, M. (2006): Corporate Social Responsibility: A

definition. Graduate School of Business, Curtin University of Technology, Working Paper Series, December 2006, No. 62, 1-20.

586. Trevino, L.K. and Nelson, K.A. (2011). Managing Business Ethics:

Straight Talk about How to Do It Right, 4th ed., John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY. Trials, 15(5), 36-38.

587. Triandis, H.C., Bontempo, R., Villareal, M.J., Asai, M. and Lucca, N.

(1988). Individualism and collectivism: cross-cultural perspectives on self-in group relationships. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 54, 323-338.

241

588. Tsai, Y.H., Joe, S.W., Lin, C.P., Wang, R.T. (2014). Modeling job

pursuit intention: moderating mechanisms of socio-environmental consciousness. The Journal of Business Ethics, 125, 287-298.

589. Tse, T. (2011). Shareholder and stakeholder theory: After the financial

crisis. Qualitative Research in Financial Markets, 3(1), 51-63.

590. Turban, D.B. and Greening, D.W. (1997). Corporate Social

Performance and Organizational Attractiveness to Prospective

Employees. Academy of Management Journal, 40(3), 658-672.

591. Turker, D. (2008). Measuring Corporate Social Responsibility: a scale

development study. Journal of Business Ethics, 85 (4), 411-427.

592. Turker, D. (2009). How corporate social responsibility influences organizational commitment. Journal of Business Ethics, 89(2),

189-204.

593. Turner, J.C. (1985). Social categorization and the self-concept: A social cognitive theory of group behaviour. In E. J. Lawler (Ed.), Advances in

group processes: Theory and research (pp. 7-122). Greenwich, CT:

JAI.

594. Turner, J.C., Hogg, M.A., Oakes, P.J., Reicher, S.D. and Wetherell, M.S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization

theory. Oxford, England: Blackwell.

595. Tyler, T.R. (1999). Why people cooperate with organizations: An identity-based perspective. Sutton, Robert I. (Ed); Staw, Barry M. (Ed).

(1999). Research in organizational behaviour, Vol. 21, (pp. 201-246).

US: Elsevier Science/JAI Press, xii, 331 pp.

596. Tyler, T.R. and Blader, S.L. (2003). The group engagement model:

Procedural justice, social identity, and cooperative behaviour.

Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7(4), 349-361.

597. Tziner, A. (2013). Corporative social responsibility (CSR) activities in

the workplace: A comment on Aguinis and Glavas (2013). Journal of

Work and Organizational Psychology, 29(2), 91-93.

242

598. Tziner, A., Bar, Y., Oren, L. and Kadosh, G. (2011). Corporate social

responsibility, organizational justice and job satisfaction: How do they interrelate, if at all? Revista de Psicología del Trabajoy de las

Organizaciones, 27(1), 67-72.

599. UNESCO (1991). The Role of Higher Education in Society: Quality and Pertinence. 2nd UNESCO- Non-Governmental Organizations

Collective Consultation on Higher Education.

600. Uygur, A. (2004). Örgütsel Bağlılık ve Đşgören Performansı, Türkiye Vakıflar Bankası Ankara, Đstanbul, Đzmir Đli Şubelerine Yönelik Alan

Araştırması, Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Doktora Tezi, Ankara.

601. Valentine, S. and Fleischman, G. (2008). Ethics programs, perceived corporate social responsibility and job satisfaction. Journal of Business

Ethics, 77(2), 159-172.

602. Van Dick, R., Christ, O., Stellmacher, J., Wagner, U., Ahlswede, O.,

Grubba, C. and Tissington, P.A. (2004). Should I stay or should I go? Explaining turnover intentions with organizational identification and

job satisfaction. British Journal of Management, 15(4), 351-360.

603. Van Dick, R., Grojean, M.W., Christ, O. and Wieseke, J. (2006). Identity and the extra mile: Relationships between organizational

identification and organizational citizenship behaviour. British Journal

of Management, 17(4), 283-301.

604. Van Dick, R., Ullrich, J., Tissington, P. A. (2006). Working under a

black cloud: How to sustain an organizational identification after a

Merger. British Journal of Management, 17, 69-79.

605. Van Dick, R., Wagner, R.U. and Lemmer, G. (2004). Research note:

The winds of change: Multi Identifications in the case of organizational

merger. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,

13(2), 121-138.

606. Van Dyne, L., Graham, J.W. and Dienesch, R.M. (1994).

Organizational citizenship behaviour: Construct redefinition,

measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 37(4), 765-802.

243

607. Van Knippenberg, D. and Van Schie, E.C.M. (2000). Foci and

correlates of organizational identification. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73, 137-147.

608. Vandenberg, R.J. and Lance, C.E. (1992). Examining the causal order

of job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Journal of Management, 18(1), 153-167.

609. Vandenberghe, C. and Tremblay, M. (2008). The role of pay

satisfaction and organizational commitment in turnover intentions: A two-sample study. Journal of Business and Psychology, 22(3),

275-286.

610. Vandyne, L., Cummings, L.L. and Parks, J.M. (1995). Extra-role behaviours-in pursuit of construct and definitional clarity (a bridge over

muddied waters). Research in Organizational Behaviour: An Annual

Series of Analytical Essays and Critical Reviews, 17, 215-285.

611. Vanhala, M. and Ritala, P. (2016). HRM practices, impersonal trust and organizational innovativeness. Journal of Managerial Psychology,

31(1), 95-109.

612. Vazirani, N. (2007). Employee engagement. SIES College of Management Studies, Working Paper Series.

613. Vilanova, M., Lozano, J.M. and Arenas, D. (2008) Exploring the nature

of the relationship between CSR and competitiveness. Journal of Business Ethics, 87, 57-69.

614. Viswesvaran, C., Deshpande, S.P. and Joseph, J. (1998). Job

satisfaction as a function of top management support for ethical behaviour: A study of Indian managers. Journal of Business Ethics,

17(4), 365-371.

615. Viswesvaran, C., Deshpande, S.P. and Milman, C. (2004). The effect of corporate social responsibility on employee counterproductive

behaviour. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal,

5(4), 5-12.

616. Viteles, M.S. (1932). The Industrial psychology. New York: Norton.

244

617. Vitell, S.J. and Davis, D.L. (1990). The relationship between ethics and

job satisfaction: An empirical investigation. Journal of Business Ethics, 9(6), 489-494.

618. Vlachos P.A., Panagopoulos N.G. and Rapp A.A. (2013). Feeling good

by doing good: employee CSR-induced attributions, job satisfaction, and the role of charismatic leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 118,

577-588.

619. Vlachos, P.A., Panagopoulos, N.G. and Rapp, A.A. (2014). Employee judgments of and behaviours toward corporate social responsibility: A

multi‐study investigation of direct, cascading, and moderating effects.

Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 35(7), 990-1017.

620. Vlachos, P.A., Theotokis, A. and Panagopoulos, N. G. (2010). Sales

force reactions to corporate social responsibility: Attributions,

outcomes, and the mediating role of organizational trust. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(7), 1207-1218.

621. Waddock, S. (2004). Creating corporate accountability: Foundational

principles to make corporate citizenship real. Journal of Business

Ethics, 50(4), 313-327.

622. Waddock, S.A. and Graves, S.B. (1997). The corporate social

performance-financial performance link. Strategic Management

Journal, 18(4), 303-319.

623. Wahn, J. (1993). Organizational dependence and the likelihood of

complying with organizational pressures to behave unethically. Journal

of Business Ethics, 12(3), 245-251.

624. Walumbwa, F.O., Luthans, F., Avey, J.B. and Oke, A. (2011).

Retracted: Authentically leading groups: The mediating role of

collective psychological capital and trust. Journal of organizational behaviour, 32(1), 4-24.

625. Wang, Y.J., Tsai, Y.H. and Lin, C.P. (2013). Modeling the relationship

between perceived corporate citizenship and organizational commitment considering organizational trust as a moderator. Business

Ethics: A European Review, 22(2), 218-233.

245

626. Wartick, S.L. and Cochran, P.L. (1985). The evolution of the corporate

social performance model. Academy of management review, 10(4), 758-769.

627. Wat, D. and Shaffer, M.A. (2005). Equity and relationship quality

influences on organizational citizenship behaviours: The mediating role of trust in the supervisor and empowerment. Personnel Review, 34(4),

406-422.

628. WBCSD (2000). Corporate Social Responsibility: Making good business sense. World Business Council for Sustainable

Development. ISBN. 2-94-024007-8.

629. WBCSD (2002). Corporate Social Responsibility. World Business Council for Sustainable Business Development, Geneva.

630. Weber, M. (2008). The Business Case for Corporate Social

Responsibility: A Company-Level Measurement Approach for CSR.

European Management Journal, 26, 247-261.

631. Wegge, J., Schmidt, K.H., Parkes, C. and Dick, R. (2007). Taking a

sickie: Job satisfaction and job involvement as interactive predictors of

absenteeism in a public organization. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80(1), 77-89.

632. Welbourne, T.M. (2007). Employee Engagement: Beyond the Fad and

into the Executive Suite. Leader to Leader, 44, 45-51.

633. Weymans, W. (2010). Democracy, knowledge and critique: rethinking

European universities beyond tradition and the market. London Review

of Education, 8(2), 117-126.

634. Whitaker, D. and Wilson, L. (2007). Human capital measurement: From

insight to action. Organization Development Journal, 25(3),

59-64.

635. Whitener, E.M. (2001). Do ‘‘high-commitment’’ human resource

practices affect employee commitment? A cross-level analysis

using hierarchical linear modelling. Journal of Management, 27(5), 515-535.

246

636. Williams, L.J. and Anderson, S.E. (1991). Job satisfaction and

organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviours. Journal of Management, 17(3), 601-617.

637. Williams, M. (2001). In whom we trust: Group membership as an

affective context for trust development. Academy of Management Review, 26, 377-396.

638. Windsor, D. (2001). The future of corporate responsibility.

International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 9(3), 225-256.

639. Wong, I.A. and Gao, J.H. (2014). Exploring the direct and indirect

effects of CSR on organizational commitment The mediating role of

corporate culture. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 26(4), 500-525.

640. Wood, D.J. (1991). Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of

Management Review, 16, 691-718.

641. Wood, D.J. and Jones, R.E. (1995). Stakeholder mismatching: A theoretical problem in empirical research on corporate social

performance. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 3,

229-267.

642. Wright, T. (2010). University presidents' conceptualizations of

sustainability in higher education. International Journal of

Sustainability in Higher Education, 11(1), 61-73.

643. Yee, J.L. and Niemeier, D. (1996). Advantages and disadvantages:

longitudinal vs. repeated cross-section surveys. Project Battelle, 94,

16-22.

644. Yin, K. (2003). Case study research: design and methods, 3rd, SAGE

publications, Inc., California.

645. You, C.S., Huang, C.C., Wang, H.B., Liu, K.N., Un, C.H. and Tseng, J.S. (2013). The relationship between corporate social Responsibility,

job satisfaction and Organizational commitment. International Journal

of Organizational Innovation, 5(4), 65-77.

646. Zajac, E.J. and Westphal, J.D. (2004). The social construction of market

value: Institutionalization and learning perspectives on stock market

re-actions. American Sociological Review, 69(3), 433-457.

247

647. Zeinabadi, H. (2010). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment

as antecedents of organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB) of teachers. Procedia-Social and Behavioural Sciences, 5, 998-1003.

648. Zhang, M., Di Fan, D. and Zhu, C.J. (2014). High-performance work

systems, corporate social performance and employee outcomes: Exploring the missing links. Journal of Business Ethics, 120(3),

423-435.

649. Zheng, D. (2010). The Impact of Employees' Perception of Corporate Social Responsibility on Job Attitudes and Behaviours: A Study in

China. Doctoral dissertation, Singapore Management University.

650. Zheng, R. (2011). Does Social Responsible Investment Really Work? An Empirical Study on Chinese Case. Working Paper.

651. Zientara, P., Kujawski, L. and Bohdanowicz-Godfrey, P. (2015).

Corporate social responsibility and employee attitudes: evidence from

a study of Polish hotel employees. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 23(6), 859-880.

652. Zikmund, W.G. (2003). Exploring Marketing Research. Cincinnati,

Ohio: Thomson/South Western.

248

SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

Dear Sir/Madam!

I am a PhD scholar, working on a PhD research titled “The Impact of Employees’

Perceptions of Corporate Social Responsibility on Employees’ Outcomes”. This

questionnaire is designed to elicit your responses regarding various job aspects. Your true and

fair responses will assist me in moving a step further. You are kindly requested to answer all

the questions carefully. It is to declare that your anonymity will be ensured by keeping your

responses confidential and using them for research purpose only.

Thanking you in anticipation for your co-operation and precious time.

Rashid Ahmad

Research Scholar,

National College of Business Administration & Economics

Lahore

Contact: rakhan@ciitlahore.edu.pk

Job Designation RA/TA Lecturer Assistant Professor

Associate Professor Professor Other (if any)

Age (Years) Below 30 31-40 41-50 51-60 Above 60

Gender Male Female

Marital Status Single Married

Qualification Master MS PhD PostDoc

Job Category Permanent Contractual Other (Please specify)……………

Organization Name

Email/Contact (optional)

249

Please read the following before giving answers.

Please try to be realistic in your answer.

Use the following rating scale to answer the questions given below

1 = Strongly Disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Neutral 4 = Agree 5 = Strongly Agree

Please encircle only one number from 1-5 that indicates

your disagreement or agreement

Str

on

gly

Dis

ag

ree

Dis

ag

ree

Ne

utr

al

Ag

ree

Str

on

gly

Ag

ree

1.a) My university has a procedure in place to respond to

every student’s complaint. 1 2 3 4 5

b) My university continually improves the quality of

education. 1 2 3 4 5

c) My university use student’s satisfaction as an

indicator of university’ performance. 1 2 3 4 5

d) University has been successful in maximizing its

profits. 1 2 3 4 5

e) My university strives to lower its operating costs. 1 2 3 4 5

f) My University closely monitors teachers'

productivity. 1 2 3 4 5

g) Top management establishes long-term strategies

for the university. 1 2 3 4 5

2.a) Faculty members are informed about relevant

environmental laws. 1 2 3 4 5

b) All our academic degree programs meet legal

standards given by HEC. 1 2 3 4 5

c) All the contractual obligations are always honored

by my university. 1 2 3 4 5

d) The management of my university trys to comply

with the law. 1 2 3 4 5

e) My university seeks to comply with all laws

regulating to hiring and employee benefits. 1 2 3 4 5

f) We have programs that encourage the diversity of

our workplace (in terms of age, gender, or race). 1 2 3 4 5

g)

Internal policies of my university prevent

discrimination in employees’ compensation and

promotion.

1 2 3 4 5

3.a) My university has a comprehensive code of conduct

including students and employees. 1 2 3 4 5

b) Faculty members of my universiy follow

professional standards. 1 2 3 4 5

c)

Top management of my university monitors the

potential negative impacts of our activities on our

community.

1 2 3 4 5

d) We are recognized as a trustworthy University. 1 2 3 4 5

e)

Fairness toward co-workers and business partners is

an integral part of our university's employee

evaluation process.

1 2 3 4 5

250

Please encircle only one number from 1-5 that indicates

your disagreement or agreement

Str

on

gly

Dis

ag

ree

Dis

ag

ree

Ne

utr

al

Ag

ree

Str

on

gly

Ag

ree

f)

My university has a confidential procedure in place

for employees to report any misconduct at work (such

as stealing or sexual harassment).

1 2 3 4 5

g) Our teachers and all other employees are required to

provide full and accurate information to students. 1 2 3 4 5

4.a) My university tries to improve the image of its

graduates. 1 2 3 4 5

b) My university tries to improve perception of its

business conduct. 1 2 3 4 5

c) My university tries to improve its educational

image. 1 2 3 4 5

d) My university tries to help the poors. 1 2 3 4 5

e) My university tries to contribute toward betterment

of the local community. 1 2 3 4 5

f) My university tries to fulfill its social

responsibilities. 1 2 3 4 5

g) The university tries to accommodate governmental

requests. 1 2 3 4 5

h) The university tries to accommodate requests for

NGOs. 1 2 3 4 5

5.a) All in all, I am satisfied with my job. 1 2 3 4 5

b) In general, I like working at my university. 1 2 3 4 5

c) In general, I like my job. 1 2 3 4 5

6.a) My university tries to meet my expectations. 1 2 3 4 5

b) My university is committed to the use of proper

management practices. 1 2 3 4 5

c) My university is committed to understand

employees. 1 2 3 4 5

d) Overall, my university is a responsible

organization. 1 2 3 4 5

e) I trust my university. 1 2 3 4 5

7.a) I feel like ‘part of the family’ at this university. 1 2 3 4 5

b) I feel ‘emotionally attached’ to this university. 1 2 3 4 5

c) This university has a great deal of personal meaning

for me. 1 2 3 4 5

d) I feel a strong sense of belonging to this university. 1 2 3 4 5

251

Please encircle only one number from 1-5 that indicates

your disagreement or agreement

Str

on

gly

Dis

ag

ree

Dis

ag

ree

Ne

utr

al

Ag

ree

Str

on

gly

Ag

ree

e) It would be very hard for me to leave this university

right now, even if I wanted to. 1 2 3 4 5

f) Right now, staying with this university is a matter of

necessary as much as desired. 1 2 3 4 5

g) I feel that I have too few options to consider leaving

this university. 1 2 3 4 5

h)

One of the few serious consequences of leaving this

university would be the scarcity of available

employment alternatives.

1 2 3 4 5

8. a) When someone criticizes my university, it feels like

a personal insult to me. 1 2 3 4 5

b) I am very interested in what others think about my

university. 1 2 3 4 5

c) When I talk about my university, I usually say ‘we’

rather than ‘they’. 1 2 3 4 5

d) When someone praises this university, I feel like a

personal compliment. 1 2 3 4 5

e) If a story in the media criticized this university, I

would feel embarrassed. 1 2 3 4 51

9.a) I really “throw” myself into my job/teaching. 1 2 3 4 5

b) Sometimes, I am so into my job/work that I lose

track of time. 1 2 3 4 5

c) This job is all consuming; I am totally into it. 1 2 3 4 5

d) My mind often wanders and I think of other things

when doing my job/teaching. 1 2 3 4 5

e) I am highly engaged in my job. 1 2 3 4 5

10.a) Being a member of this university is very

captivating/attractive. 1 2 3 4 5

b) One of the most exciting things for me is getting

involved with things happening in this university. 1 2 3 4 5

c) I am really not into the “goings-on” in this

university. 1 2 3 4 5

d) Being a member of this university makes/keeps me

“alive.” 1 2 3 4 5

e) Being a member of this organization is

exhilarating/exciting for me. 1 2 3 4 5

f) I am highly engaged in this university. 1 2 3 4 5

11.a) I willingly give my time to help others who have

work-related problems. 1 2 3 4 5

b) I adjust my work schedule to accommodate other

employees’ requests for time off. 1 2 3 4 5

252

Please encircle only one number from 1-5 that indicates

your disagreement or agreement

Str

on

gly

Dis

ag

ree

Dis

ag

ree

Ne

utr

al

Ag

ree

Str

on

gly

Ag

ree

c) I give up time to help others who have work or non-

work problems. 1 2 3 4 5

d) I assist others with their duties. 1 2 3 4 5

12. a) I attend functions that are not compulsary but that

help boosting university’ image. 1 2 3 4 5

b) I offer ideas to improve the functioning of my

university. 1 2 3 4 5

c) I take action to protect the university from potential

problems. 1 2 3 4 5

d) I defend my university when other employees

criticize it. 1 2 3 4 5

Thank You for Your Precious Time

253

APPENDIX-A:

177- HEC RECOGNIZED UNIVERSITIES AND

DEGREE AWARDING INSTITUTIONS

PUBLIC SECTOR UNIVERSITIES/DEGREE AWARDING INSTITUTIONS

Universities/DAIs chartered by the Government of Pakistan

S.

No University/DAI Name

Main

Campus Website Address

1 Air University, Islamabad Islamabad www.au.edu.pk

2 Allama Iqbal Open University,

Islamabad (AIOU) Islamabad www.aiou.edu.pk

3 Bahria University, Islamabad Islamabad www.bahria.edu.pk

4 COMSATS Institute of Information

Technology, Islamabad Islamabad www.ciit.edu.pk

5 Dawood University of Engineering &

Technology, Karachi Karachi www.dcet.edu.pk

6 Federal Urdu University of Arts, Sciences

& Technology, Islamabad Islamabad www.fuuast.edu.pk

7 Institute of Space Technology,

Islamabad (IST) Islamabad www.ist.edu.pk

8 International Islamic University,

Islamabad Islamabad www.iiu.edu.pk

9 Karakurum International University,

Gilgit, Gilgit Baltistan Gilgit www.kiu.edu.pk

10 National College of Arts,

Lahore (NCA) Lahore www.nca.edu.pk

11 National Defense University,

Islamabad (NDU) Islamabad www.ndu.edu.pk

12 National Textile University,

Faisalabad Faisalabad www.ntu.edu.pk

13 National University of Modern

Languages, Islamabad (NUML) Islamabad www.numl.edu.pk

14

National University of Sciences &

Technology, Rawalpindi/ Islamabad

(NUST)

Islamabad www.nust.edu.pk

15 National University of Medical Sciences,

Islamabad Islamabad under construction

16 NFC Institute of Engineering &

Technology, Multan Multan www.nfciet.edu.pk

17 Pakistan Institute of Development

Economics (PIDE), Islamabad Islamabad www.pide.org.pk

254

18 Pakistan Institute of Engineering &

Applied Sciences, Islamabad (PIEAS) Islamabad www.pieas.edu.pk

19 Pakistan Institute of Fashion and Design,

Lahore Lahore www.pifd.edu.pk

20 Pakistan Military Academy,

Abbottabad (PMA) Abbottabad Not Available

21 Pakistan Naval Academy, Karachi Karachi www.paknavy.gov.pk

22 Shaheed Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto Medical

University, Islamabad Islamabad

23 Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad Islamabad www.qau.edu.pk

24 University of FATA, Kohat Kohat

25 Virtual University of Pakistan, Lahore Lahore www.vu.edu.pk

Universities/DAIs chartered by Government of the Punjab

S.

No University/DAI Name

Main

Campus Website Address

1 Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan Multan www.bzu.edu.pk

2 Fatima Jinnah Women University,

Rawalpindi Rawalpindi www.fjwu.edu.pk

3 Government College University,

Faisalabad Faisalabad www.gcuf.edu.pk

4 Government College University, Lahore Lahore www.gcu.edu.pk

5 Government College for Women

University, Faisalabad Faisalabad www.gcuf.edu.pk

6 Ghazi University, Dera Ghazi Khan Dera Ghazi

Khan www.gudgk.edu.pk

7 Government College for Women

University, Sialkot Sialkot www.gcwus.edu.pk/

8 Government Sadiq College Women

University, Bahawalpur Bahawalpur www.gscwu.edu.pk

9 Islamia University, Bahawalpur Bahawalpur www.iub.edu.pk

10 Information Technology University of the

Punjab, Lahore Lahore www.itu.edu.pk

11 King Edward Medical University, Lahore Lahore www.kemu.edu.pk

12 Kinnaird College for Women, Lahore Lahore www.kinnaird.edu.pk

13

Khawaja Freed University of Engineering

& Information Technology, Rahim Yar

Khan

Rahim Yar

Khan Under Construction

255

14 Lahore College for Women University,

Lahore Lahore www.lcwu.edu.pk

15 Muhammad Nawaz Shareef University of

Agriculture, Multan Multan www.mnsuam.edu.pk

16 Pir Mehr Ali Shah Arid Agriculture,

University Rawalpindi Rawalpindi www.uaar.edu.pk

17 University of Agriculture, Faisalabad Faisalabad www.uaf.edu.pk

18 University of Education, Lahore Lahore www.ue.edu.pk

19 University of Engineering & Technology,

Lahore Lahore www.uet.edu.pk

20 University of Engineering & Technology,

Taxila Taxila www.uettaxila.edu.pk

21 University of Gujrat, Gujrat Gujrat www.uog.edu.pk

22 University of Health Sciences, Lahore Lahore www.uhs.edu.pk

23 University of Sargodha, Sargodha Sargodha www.uos.edu.pk

24 University of the Punjab, Lahore Lahore www.pu.edu.pk

25 University of Veterinary & Animal

Sciences, Lahore Lahore www.uvas.edu.pk

26 The Women University, Multan Multan www.wum.edu.pk

27 Muhammad Nawaz Sharif University of

Engineering & Technology, Multan Multan www.uet.edu.pk/mns

Universities/DAIs chartered by Government of Sindh

S.

No University/DAI Name

Main

Campus Website Address

1 Benazir Bhutto Shaheed University Lyari,

Karachi Karachi www.bbsul.edu.pk

2 DOW University of Health Sciences,

Karachi Karachi www.duhs.edu.pk

3 Gambat Institute of Medical Sciences,

Khairpur Khairpur Under construction

4 Institute of Business Administration,

Karachi Karachi www.iba.edu.pk

5 Jinnah Sindh Medical University Karachi www.jsmu.edu.pk

6 Liaquat University of Medical and Health

Sciences, Jamshoro Sindh. Jamshoro www.lumhs.edu.pk

7 Mehran University of Engineering &

Technology, Jamshoro Jamshoro www.muet.edu.pk

8 NED University of Engineering &

Technology, Karachi Karachi www.neduet.edu.pk

256

9

Peoples University of Medical and Health

Sciences for Women, Nawabshah

(Shaheed Benazirabad)

Nawabshah www.pumhs.edu.pk

10 Quaid-e-Awam University of Engineering,

Sciences & Technology, Nawabshah Nawabshah www.quest.edu.pk

11 Shah Abdul Latif University, Khairpur Khairpur www.salu.edu.pk

12 Shaheed Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto

Medical University, Larkana Larkana www.smbbmu.edu.pk

13 Sindh Agriculture University, Tandojam Tandojam www.sau.edu.pk

14 Sukkur Institute of Business

Administration, Sukkur Sukkur www.iba-suk.edu.pk

15 Sindh Madresatul Islam University,

Karachi Karachi www.smiu.edu.pk

16 Shaheed Benazir Bhutto University

Shaheed Benazirabad Nawabshah www.sbbusba.edu.pk

17 Shaheed Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto University of

Law, Karachi Karachi www.szabul.edu.pk

18 University of Karachi, Karachi Karachi www.uok.edu.pk

19 University of Sindh, Jamshoro Jamshoro www.usindh.edu.pk

20 Shaheed Benazir Bhutto University of

Veterinary And Animal Sciences Sakrand Sakrand www.sbbuvas.edu.pk

Universities/DAIs chartered by Government of Khyber Pakhtoonkhwa

S.

No University/DAI Name

Main

Campus Website Address

1 Abdul Wali Khan University, Mardan Mardan www.awkum.edu.pk

2 Bacha Khan University, Charsadda Charsadda www.bkuc.edu.pk/

3 Frontier Women University, Peshawar Peshawar www.fwu.edu.pk

4 Gomal University, D.I. Khan D.I.Khan www.gu.edu.pk/

5 Hazara University, Dodhial, Mansehra Manshera www.hu.edu.pk/

6 Institute of Management Science,

Peshawar (IMS) Peshawar www.imsciences.edu.pk

7 Islamia College University, Peshawar Peshawar www.icp.edu.pk

8 Khyber Medical University, Peshawar Peshawar www.kmu.edu.pk

9 Kohat University of Science and

Technology, Kohat Kohat www.kust.edu.pk

257

10 Khushal Khan Khattak University, Karak Karak Under construction

11 Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Agricultural

University, Peshawar Peshawar www.aup.edu.pk

12 University of Engineering & Technology,

Peshawar Peshawar www.uetpeshawar.edu.pk

13 Shaheed Benazir Bhutto University,

Sheringal, Dir Dir www.sbbu.edu.pk

14 University of Malakand, Chakdara, Dir,

Malakand Malakand www.uom.edu.pk

15 University of Peshawar, Peshawar Peshawar www.upesh.edu.pk

16 University of Science & Technology,

Bannu Bannu www.ustb.edu.pk

17 University of Swat, Swat Swat www.swatuniversity.edu.p

k/

18 University of Haripur, Haripur Haripur www.uoh.edu.pk/

19 University of Swabi Swabi www.uoswabi.edu.pk/

Universities/DAIs chartered by Government of Balochistan

S.

No University/DAI Name

Main

Campus Website Address

1 Balochistan University of Engineering &

Technology, Khuzdar Khuzdar buetk.edu.pk

2

Balochistan University of Information

Technology & Management Sciences,

Quetta

Quetta www.buitms.edu.pk

3 Lasbela University of Agriculture, Water

and Marine Sciences Lasbela www.luawms.edu.pk

4 Sardar Bahadur Khan Women University,

Quetta Quetta www.sbkwu.edu.pk

5 University of Balochistan, Quetta Quetta www.uob.edu.pk

6 University of Turbat, Turbat Turbat www.uot.edu.pk

7 University of Loralai, Loralai Loralai http://www.uoli.edu.pk/

258

Universities/DAIs chartered by Government of Azad Jammu & Kashmir

S.

No University/DAI Name

Main

Campus Website Address

1 Mirpur University of Science and

Technology (MUST), AJ&K Mirpur www.must.edu.pk

2

University of Azad Jammu & Kashmir,

Muzaffarabad, Azad Kashmir,

Muzaffarabad

Muzaffarabad www.ajku.edu.pk

3 University of Poonch, Rawalakot Rawalakot www.upr.edu.pk

4 Women University of Azad Jammu and

Kashmir Bagh Bagh under construction

5 University of Management Sciences and

Information Technology, Kotli Kotli under construction

PRIVATE SECTOR UNIVERSITIES/DEGREE AWARDING INSTITUTIONS

Universities/DAIs chartered by the Government of Pakistan

S.

No University/DAI Name

Main

Campus Website Address

1 Aga Khan University, Karachi Karachi www.aku.edu

2 Capital University of Science and

Technology, Islamabad Islamabad www.cust.edu.pk

3 Foundation University, Islamabad Islamabad www.fui.edu.pk

4 Lahore University of Management

Sciences (LUMS), Lahore Lahore www.lums.edu.pk

5 MY University, Islamabad Islamabad www.myu.edu.pk

6 National University of Computer and

Emerging Sciences, Islamabad Islamabad www.nu.edu.pk

7 Riphah International University,

Islamabad Islamabad www.riphah.edu.pk

8 Shifa Tameer-e-Millat University,

Islamabad Islamabad www.stmu.edu.pk

Universities/DAIs chartered by Government of the Punjab

S.

No University/DAI Name

Main

Campus Website Address

1 Ali Institute of Education Lahore www.aie.edu.pk

2 Beaconhouse National University, Lahore Lahore www.bnu.edu.pk

259

3 Forman Christian College, Lahore

(university status) Lahore www.fccollege.edu.pk

4 Global Institute, Lahore Lahore www.global.edu.pk

5 Hajvery University, Lahore Lahore www.hajvery.edu.pk

6 HITEC University, Taxila Taxila www.hitecuni.edu.pk

7 Imperial College of Business Studies,

Lahore Lahore www.imperial.edu.pk

8 Institute of Management Sciences, Lahore Lahore www.pakaims.edu.pk

9 Institute of Southern Punjab, Multan Multan www.usp.edu.pk

10 Lahore Leads University, Lahore Lahore www.leads.edu.pk

11 Lahore School of Economics, Lahore Lahore www.lahoreschoolofecono

mics.edu.pk

12 Lahore Garrison University, Lahore Lahore lgu.edu.pk/

13 Minhaj University, Lahore Lahore www.mul.edu.pk

14 National College of Business

Administration & Economics, Lahore Lahore www.ncbae.edu.pk

15 Nur International University, Lahore Lahore Under construction

16 Qarshi University Lahore www.qu.edu.pk

17 The GIFT University, Gujranwala Gujranwala www.gift.edu.pk

18 The Superior College, Lahore Lahore www.superior.edu.pk

19 The University of Faisalabad, Faisalabad Faisalabad www.tuf.edu.pk

20 University of Central Punjab, Lahore Lahore www.ucp.edu.pk

21 University of Lahore, Lahore Lahore www.uol.edu.pk

22 University of Management & Technology,

Lahore Lahore www.umt.edu.pk

23 University of South Asia, Lahore Lahore www.usa.edu.pk

24 University of Wah, Wah Wah www.uw.edu.pk

260

Universities/DAIs chartered by Government of Sindh

S.

No University/DAI Name

Main

Campus Website Address

1 Baqai Medical University, Karachi Karachi www.baqai.edu.pk

2 Commecs Institute of Business &

Emerging Sciences, Karachi Karachi

www.commecsinstitute.

edu.pk

3 Dadabhoy Institute of Higher

Education,Karachi Karachi www.dadabhoy.edu.pk

4 DHA Suffa University, Karachi Karachi www.dsu.edu.pk

5 Greenwich University, Karachi Karachi www.greenwichuniversity.

edu.pk

6 Hamdard University, Karachi Karachi www.hamdard.edu.pk

7 Habib University, Karachi Karachi www.habib.edu.pk

8 Indus University, Karachi Karachi www.indus.edu.pk

9 Indus Valley School of Art and

Architecture, Karachi Karachi www.indusvalley.edu.pk

10 Institute of Business Management,

Karachi Karachi www.iobm.edu.pk

11 Institute of Business and Technology,

Karachi Karachi www.biztek.edu.pk

12 Iqra University, Karachi Karachi www.iqra.edu.pk

13 Isra University, Hyderabad Hyderabad www.isra.edu.pk

14 Jinnah University for Women, Karachi Karachi www.juw.edu.pk

15 Karachi Institute of Economics &

Technology, Karachi Karachi www.pafkiet.edu.pk

16 KASB Institute of Technology, Karachi Karachi www.kasbit.edu.pk

17 Karachi School for Business & Leadership Karachi www.ksbl.edu.pk

18 Muhammad Ali Jinnah University,

Karachi Karachi www.jinnah.edu

19 Newport Institute of Communications &

Economics, Karachi Karachi www.newports.edu.pk

20 Preston Institute of Management, Science

and Technology, Karachi Karachi pimsat-khi.edu.pk

21 Preston University, Karachi Karachi www.preston.edu.pk

22 Shaheed Zulfikar Ali Bhutto Institute of

Sc. & Technology (SZABIST), Karachi Karachi www.szabist.edu.pk

261

23 Shaheed Benazir Bhutto City University,

Karachi Karachi www.sbbcu.edu.pk

24 Sir Syed University of Engg. &

Technology, Karachi Karachi www.ssuet.edu.pk

25 Sindh Institute of Medical Sciences,

Karachi Karachi www.siut.org

26 Textile Institute of Pakistan, Karachi Karachi www.tip.edu.pk

27 The Nazeer Hussian University, Karachi Karachi www.nhu.edu.pk

28 Zia-ud-Din University, Karachi Karachi www.zu.edu.pk

29 Shaheed Benazir Bhutto Dewan

University, Karachi Karachi Under Construction

Universities/DAIs chartered by Government of Khyber Pakhtoonkhwa

S.

No University/DAI Name

Main

Campus Website Address

1 Abasyn University, Peshawar Peshawar www.abasyn.edu.pk

2

CECOS University of Information

Technology and Emerging Sciences,

Peshawar

Peshawar www.cecos.edu.pk

3 City University of Science and

Information Technology, Peshawar Peshawar www.cityuniversity.edu.pk

4 Gandhara University, Peshawar Peshawar www.gandhara.edu.pk

5 Ghulam Ishaq Khan Institute of

Engineering Sciences & Technology, Topi Topi www.giki.edu.pk

6 Iqra National University, Peshawar Peshawar www.iqrapsh.edu.pk

7 Northern University, Nowshera Nowshera www.northern.edu.pk

8 Preston University, Kohat Kohat www.preston.edu.pk

9 Qurtaba University of Science and

Information Technology, D.I. Khan D.I.Khan www.qurtuba.edu.pk

10 Sarhad University of Science and

Information Technology, Peshawar Peshawar www.suit.edu.pk

262

Universities/DAIs chartered by Government of Balochistan

S.

No University/DAI Name

Main

Campus Website Address

1 Al-Hamd Islamic University, Quetta Quetta http://www.aiu.edu.pk

Universities/DAIs chartered by Government of Azad Jammu & Kashmir

S.

No University/DAI Name

Main

Campus Website Address

1

Al-Khair University, AJ&K

(The University is restricted for

MS/M.Phil/PhD admissions/programs and

can only offer admissions upto Masters’

level at its Bhimber campus, AJK, from

Fall 2014)

Bhimber www.alkhair.edu.pk

2 Mohi-ud-Din Islamic University, AJK Nerain Sharif http://www.miu.edu.pk

Source:

www.hec.gov.pk/english/universities/Pages/DAIs/HEC-Recognized-Universities.aspx,

(as on 14.04. 2015)

263

APPENDIX-B:

HEC RECOGNIZED 103 PUBLIC SECTOR UNIVERSITIES

S# University/DAI Name

1 COMSATS Institute of Information Technology, Islamabad

2 Karakurum International University, Gilgit, Gilgit Baltistan

3 National University of Modern Languages, Islamabad (NUML)

4 National University of Sciences & Technology, Rawalpindi/ Islamabad (NUST)

5 Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad

6 Virtual University of Pakistan, Lahore

7 Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan

8 Government College University, Faisalabad

9 Government College University, Lahore

10 Ghazi University, Dera Ghazi Khan

11 Government Sadiq College Women University, Bahawalpur

12 Government College for Women University, Sialkot

13 Islamia University, Bahawalpur

14 Information Technology University of the Punjab, Lahore

15 Lahore College for Women University, Lahore

16 Muhammad Nawaz Shareef University of Agriculture, Multan

17 University of Education, Lahore

18 University of Engineering & Technology, Lahore

19 University of Gujrat, Gujrat

20 University of Sargodha, Sargodha

21 University of the Punjab, Lahore

22 The Women University, Multan

23 Sukkur Institute of Business Administration

24 University of Engineering & Technology, Peshawar

25 University of Peshawar, Peshawar

26 Hazara University, Mansehra

27 University of Science & Technology, Bannu

28 University of Swabi

29 Balochistan University of Information Technology & Management Sciences,

Quetta

30 Sardar Bahadur Khan Women University, Quetta

31 University of Balochistan, Quetta

264

APPENDIX-C:

HEC RECOGNIZED 74 PRIVATE SECTOR UNIVERSITIES

S# University/DAI Name

1 Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS), Lahore

2 National University of Computer and Emerging Sciences, Islamabad

3 Riphah International University, Islamabad

4 Foundation University, Islamabad

5 Global Institute, Lahore

6 Beaconhouse National University, Lahore

7 Forman Christian College, Lahore

8 Imperial College of Business Studies, Lahore

9 Institute of Southern Punjab, Multan

10 Lahore School of Economics, Lahore

11 Lahore Garrison University, Lahore

12 Minhaj University, Lahore

13 National College of Business Administration & Economics, Lahore

14 The Superior College, Lahore

15 University of Central Punjab, Lahore

16 University of Lahore, Lahore

17 University of Management & Technology, Lahore

18 University of South Asia, Lahore

19 Hamdard University, Karachi

20 Iqra University, Karachi

21 Muhammad Ali Jinnah University, Karachi

22 Ghulam Ishaq Khan Institute of Engineering Sciences & Technology, Topi,

KPK

23 Preston University, Kohat, KPK

265

APPENDIX-D:

DETAIL OF FULL TIME FACULTY MEMBERS IN HEIS

Year-2012-13 Faculty %age

of PhD

Faculty PhD Non-PhD Total

Public 7449 16891 24340 30.60

Private 1804 8300 10104 17.85

Overall 9253 25191 34444 26.86

Source: HEC annual report for the year 2012-13

266

APPENDIX-E:

DETERMINING SAMPLE SIZE FOR FINITE POPULATION

Sample size for finite population (known target population) can also be determined with the

help of Krejcie and Morgan Table of determining sample size for finite population.

267

APPENDIX-F:

HEC RECOGNIZED 74 PRIVATE SECTOR UNIVERSITIES

Universities/DAIs chartered by the Government of Pakistan

S.

No University/DAI Name

Total

Faculty Strength

No. of

Respondents Approached

No. of

Response Received

1 Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS), Lahore

390 15 11

2 National University of Computer and Emerging Sciences, Islamabad

289 20 15

3 Riphah International University, Islamabad 356 15 13

4 Foundation University, Islamabad 332 15 09

5 Capital University of Science & Technology 150 10 07

Universities chartered by Government of the Punjab

6 Global Institute, Lahore 50 5 02

7 Beaconhouse National University, Lahore 85 20 16

8 Forman Christian College, Lahore 225 20 12

9 Imperial College of Business Studies, Lahore 39 10 08

10 Institute of Southern Punjab, Multan 250 15 15

11 Lahore School of Economics, Lahore 200 15 15

12 Lahore Garrison University, Lahore 172 20 16

13 Minhaj University, Lahore 91 12 10

14 National College of Business Administration & Economics, Lahore

75 15 13

15 The Superior College, Lahore 154 10 05

16 University of Central Punjab, Lahore 250 15 07

17 University of Lahore, Lahore 496 35 14

18 University of Management & Technology,

Lahore 372 10 10

19 University of South Asia, Lahore 75 05 04

Universities chartered by Government of Sindh

20 Hamdard University, Karachi 250 20 07

21 Iqra University, Karachi 170 20 12

22 Muhammad Ali Jinnah University, Karachi 150 20 07

Universities chartered by Government of Khyber Pakhtoonkhwa

23 Ghulam Ishaq Khan Institute of Engineering

Sciences & Technology, Topi 100 15 07

Total 4721 357 235

268

APPENDIX-G:

STRATA BASED ON HEC RECOGNIZED

PUBLIC SECTOR UNIVERSITIES Universities chartered by Federal Government

S.

No University/DAI Name

Total

Faculty Strength

No. of

Respondents Approached

No. of

Response Received

1 COMSATS Institute of Information

Technology, Islamabad 2908 60 57

2 Karakurum International University, Gilgit,

Gilgit Baltistan 150 03 03

3 National University of Modern Languages,

Islamabad (NUML) 585 12 12

4 National University of Sciences &

Technology, Rawalpindi/ Islamabad (NUST) 774 15 15

5 Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad 342 08 07

6 Virtual University of Pakistan, Lahore 270 10 09

7 Bahria University, Islamabad 436 12 12

Universities chartered by Government of the Punjab

8 Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan 490 12 12

9 Government College University, Faisalabad 708 15 15

10 Ghazi University, Dera Ghazi Khan 210 08 08

11 Government Sadiq College Women

University, Bahawalpur 200 10 09

12 Government College for Women University,

Sialkot 150 08 08

13 Islamia University, Bahawalpur 505 13 13

14 Information Technology University of the

Punjab, Lahore 40 02 01

15 Lahore College for Women University, Lahore 438 12 12

16 Muhammad Nawaz Shareef University of

Agriculture, Multan 150 05 05

17 University of Education, Lahore 350 08 07

18 University of Engineering & Technology,

Lahore 796 15 15

19 University of Gujrat, Gujrat 690 20 19

20 University of Sargodha, Sargodha 650 15 13

21 University of the Punjab, Lahore 1485 32 32

22 The Women University, Multan 250 10 09

269

Universities chartered by Government of Sindh

S.

No University/DAI Name

Total

Faculty Strength

No. of

Respondents Approached

No. of

Response Received

23 Sukkur Institute of Business Administration 175 05 04

Universities chartered by Government of Khyber Pakhtoonkhwa

24 University of Engineering & Technology,

Peshawar 400 08 08

25 University of Peshawar, Peshawar 670 15 14

26 Hazara University, Mansehra 382 10 10

27 University of Science & Technology, Bannu 125 04 03

28 University of Swabi 100 04 03

Universities chartered by Government of Balochistan

29 Balochistan University of Information

Technology & Management Sciences, Quetta 467 10 09

30 Sardar Bahadur Khan Women University,

Quetta 150 08 06

31 University of Balochistan, Quetta 479 10 10

Total 15525 379 360

270

APPENDIX-H:

RESIDUAL HISTOGRAM AND P-PLOTS OF THE VARIABLES

271

272

APPENDIX-I:

SKEWNESS AND KURTOSIS VALUES FOR DATA NORMALITY

CSR and EE CSR and OCB

Item Skewness Kurtosis Item Skewness Kurtosis

CSR1 -.614 -.080 OT4 -.718 .348

CSR2 -.655 .454 OT5 -.759 .438

CSR3 -.504 -.201 OC1 -.592 -.195

CSR4 -.604 .158 OC2 -.569 -.123

CSR5 -.344 .013 OC3 -.464 -.044

CSR6 -.709 .169 OC4 -.646 .241

CSR7 -.383 -.331 OC5 -.342 -.654

CSR8 -.285 -.715 OC6 -.476 -.181

CSR9 -.866 .708 OC7 -.185 -.682

CSR10 -.528 .301 OC8 -.101 -.506

CSR11 -.665 .508 OI1 -.510 -.222

CSR12 -.429 -.159 OI2 -.604 .215

CSR13 -.466 -.055 OI3 -.652 .075

CSR14 -.357 -.298 OI4 -.688 .298

CSR15 -.464 -.050 OI5 -.522 -.069

CSR16 -.610 .077 EE1 -.696 .438

CSR17 -.326 -.278 EE2 -.420 -.089

CSR18 -.706 .386 EE3 -.403 -.025

CSR19 -.397 .003 EE4 -.136 -.685

CSR20 -.492 -.139 EE5 -.697 .863

CSR21 -.711 .242 EE6 -.660 .439

CSR22 -.800 .583 EE7 -.549 .231

CSR23 -.599 .568 EE8 -.201 -.093

CSR24 -.908 .893 EE9 -.584 .326

CSR25 -.424 -.307 EE10 -.560 .356

CSR26 -.284 -.444 EE11 -.517 .140

CSR27 -.378 -.288 OCB1 -.746 .764

CSR28 -.372 .270 OCB2 -.523 .323

CSR29 -.227 .459 OCB3 -.655 .561

JS1 -.819 .805 OCB4 -.697 .639

JS2 -.820 .812 OCB5 -.573 .049

JS3 -.958 1.294 OCB6 -.680 .648

OT1 -.345 -.233 OCB7 -.697 .691

OT2 -.365 -.208 OCB8 -.799 .570

OT3 -.250 -.529

273

APPENDIX-J:

CFA MEASUREMENT MODEL

CFA Measurement Models for CSR

Initial Values of Standardized Parameter Estimates:

x2 =1900.362, df =377, x2/df = 5.041, p = 0.00, NFI = 0.727, GFI = .795,

AGFI = .763, CFI = .768, TLI = .750, RMSEA = 0.083

CFA Measurement Model for OT

274

Initial Values of Standardized Parameter Estimates:

x2 =109.477, df = 5, x2/df = 21.895, p = 0.00, NFI = 0.931, GFI = 1.924,

AGFI = 0.773, CFI = 0.933, TLI = 0.867, RMSEA = 0.189.

CFA Measurement Model for JS

Initial Values of Standardized Parameter Estimates:

x2 =8.139, df = 2, x2/df = 4.07, p = 0.017, NFI = 0.992, GFI = 0.993,

AGFI = 0.978, CFI = 0.994, TLI = 0.991, RMSEA = 0.064

CFA Measurement Model for OI

Initial Values of Standardized Parameter Estimates:

x2 =14.506, df = 5, x2/df = 2.901, p = 0.013, NFI = 0.985, GFI = 0.990,

AGFI = 0.969, CFI = 0.990, TLI = 0.980, RMSEA = 0.057

275

CFA Measurement Model for OC

Initial Values of Standardized Parameter Estimates:

x2 =114.867, df = 9, x2/df = 12..763, p = 0.00, NFI = 0.929, GFI = 0.939,

AGFI = 0.858, CFI = 0.934, TLI = 0.890, RMSEA = 0.142.

CFA Measurement Model for EE

Initial Values of Standardized Parameter Estimates:

x2 = 477.886, df = 44, x2/df = 10.861, p = 0.00, NFI = 0.767, GFI = 0.852,

AGFI = 0.778, CFI = 0.783, TLI = 0.728, RMSEA = 0.130.

CFA Measurement Model for OCB

Initial Values of Standardized Parameter Estimates:

x2 =322.438, df = 20, x2/df = 16.122, p = 0.00, NFI = 0.807, GFI = 0.850,

AGFI = 0.729, CFI = 0.816, TLI = 0.742, RMSEA = 0.161

276

APPENDIX-K:

DIAGRAMS FOR STRUCTURAL MODELS OF THE STUDY

Hypothesized Structural Model-1

277

Model -2, path removed CSR-EE

278

Model-3, path removed OT-OI

279

Model-4, path removed CSR-OC

280

Model-5, path removed JS-OCB

281

Model-6, path removed OT-OCB

282

Final Model

283

Model Fit with Covariance of error terms

284

APPENDIX-L:

MEDIATION MODELS

CSR-JS-OCB

285

CSR-OI-OCB

286

CSR-OT-OCB

287

CSR-JS-OC

288

CSR-OT-OC

289

CSR-OI-OC

290

CSR-JS-EE

291

CSR-OT-EE

292

CSR-OI-EE