The relationship between internal
and external CSR and affective
employee commitment
Student: Andrea Boerendonk, No. 10123393,
University of Amsterdam, Executive Master Business Studies - Strategy First Supervisor: E. Dirksen MSc.
ABSTRACT
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) has proven to influence customer behavior. Research on the relationship with CSR and employees is still in its infancy. Stakeholder theory aims to explain the nature of relationships between organizations and those persons with a ‘stake’ in the operations and outcomes of business activity. Employees are important primary stakeholders for a firm. To retain these assets, building on employee commitment is what organizations strive for. Some literature shows that CSR can be a tool to influence employees’ behavior.
To follow a stream of currently published research, a distinction between internal and external CSR has been made. For the purpose of this study, external CSR is also divided in CSR to customers (external CSR-1) and CSR to society, natural environment, next generations, and non-governmental organizations (external CSR-2). The relationship between internal and external CSR and affective employee commitment (AEC) is
investigated. Attempting to explain what influences this relationship, this thesis focuses on gender as a moderator. The results show that for internal CSR and external CSR-1 there was no moderating effect of gender. For the relationship of External CSR – 2 and AEC, women are seen to have a stronger relationship than men. Regardless of gender differences, employees’ affective commitment is most significant influenced by the internal CSR of an organization.
ABSTRACT………..2
I Introduction………...4
II Literature review………..………7
1. Corporate Social Responsibility………..7
2. Stakeholder theory………..9
3. Social identity theory………..………11
4. Employee commitment……….13
5. Gender differences……….………..16
6. Literature gap and research question………..17
III Theoretical framework………..21
1. Internal CSR, gender differences and affective employee commitment……….21
2. External CSR, gender differences and affective employee commitment………24
IV Methodology……….……..29
1. The research design……….29
2. Sample………..30 3. Independent variables……….………..……31 4. Dependent variable………..……33 5. Moderator……….….34 6. Control variables………34 V Results……….36 1. Reliability analysis………...…36 2. Normality analysis………..…………..37 3. Descriptive statistics……….……..39 4. Correlation analysis……….……41 5. Regression analysis………..………45
6. Moderated regression analysis………...…..49
7. Control variables………...52
VI Discussion………57
1. Internal CSR, gender differences and affective employee commitment ……….57
2. External CSR, gender differences and affective employee commitment………...……..59
3. Control variables……….…..62
4. Implications for theory and practice……….………63
5. Limitations and avenues for further research……….65
VII Conclusion……….……….………..67
References………..……….68
Appendix A: questionnaire………...……….…….74
Appendix B……….……….84
Histograms, normality plots and box plots……….84
I Introduction
Firms are under increasing pressure to pursue socially responsible behavior from a variety of stakeholder groups (Donaldson and Preston, 1995; Kapstein, 2001; Smith, 2003; Waddock, 2008). CSR has its roots in stakeholder theory; it attempts to address the principle about ‘who and what really counts’ (Freeman, 1984).
Therefore, Corporate social responsibility (CSR) has emerged as a significant and salient issue for companies. Boards of directors are becoming more and more involved in shaping corporate policies in accordance with social and environmental considerations (Ayuso and Argandoña, 2007). Green management is needed; the extraction of non-renewable resources isn’t unlimited, so it makes the future generations vulnerable (Alfred and Adam, 2009).
Previous research on CSR has focused mainly on the influence of financial performance, (Halme and Laurila, 2009; Husted and Salazar, 2006; Waddock and Graves, 1997)
environmental effects, (Neu et al., 1998) and consumer behavior (Bhattacharya and Sen, 2004; Brown and Dacin, 1997; Mohr and Webb, 2005). However, employees’ view of CSR remains largely unexplored (Jones, 2010; Lee et al., 2013) Employees are important stakeholders for a firm. The long term value of a company rests as much on the
knowledge, abilities, and commitment of its employees as on its relationship with investors, customers and other stakeholders (Wheeler and Sillanpaä, 1998).
Companies worry about employee turnover, absenteeism and employee motivation towards organization and work. In order to ensure a low turnover rate, many firms seek
to ensure that their employees feel attached to their organization. A good CSR
reputation may indirectly contribute to job satisfaction and lower employee turnover by invoking positive reactions from external groups, such as family and friends (Riordan et al., 1997). Several studies find a direct positive relationship between a company's ethical climate and employee job satisfaction (Valentine and Fleischman, 2008) and decreased turnover intention (Valentine et al., 2011).
This study investigates the relationship between CSR and employee commitment. In particulair, the distinction of CSR is investigated as internal and external CSR. Employee commitment is measured as affective employee commitment (AEC).
Social identity theory proposes that individuals view themselves as members of social categories (Ashforth and Mael, 1989). The beliefs held by a member of an organization, an employee, regarding the ‘distinctive, central, and enduring attributes of the
organization’ (Dutton et al., 1994), can have an influence on the identification of an employee in the organization.
The perception of employees with respect to several aspects (e.g. reputation, attitude toward philantrophy, climate policy) is an important antecedent for building employee commitment (Collier and Esteban, 2007; Cullen et al., 2003). Employee perceptions of CSR can have an influence on employee commitment (Brammer et al., 2007). Brammer et al. (2007) stated that contribution of CSR towards employee commitment is as great as job satisfaction. Research on corporate social responsibility and employee behavior shows that the use of CSR can help to build employee commitment within firms
The aim of the current study is to contribute to the CSR literature, stakeholder theory and social identity theory. In particular, the relationship is measured between internal and external CSR on affective employee commitment. Gender is tested as a moderator.
II
Literature review
The following sections discuss the main insights of the existing literature on the topic. It focuses on the relationship between internal and external CSR and affective employee commitment. Also, this relation is investigated for gender differences. Therefore; the term CSR, stakeholder theory, social identity theory and also a part of commitment theory will be discussed.
1. Corporate social responsibility
The European Commission defines CSR as “a concept whereby companies integrate social and environmental concerns in their business operations and in their interaction with their stakeholders on a voluntary basis” (European Commission, 2001).
Based on the definition of Carroll in 1979; business has an entire range of obligations to
society, and therefore CSR must embody the economic, legal, ethical and discretionary categories of business performance, Turker (2009) defined CSR as corporate behaviors
which aim to affect stakeholders positively and go beyond its economic interest. CSR is about socially responsible practices, promoting good causes and also philanthropy. These all show what the ethical stance of an organization is.
It took quite a long time for the development of the broad definition of CSR for
corporates. According to the neo-classical view, the firm had the social responsibility to pay taxes and provide employment. Friedman (1970) argued that the only responsibility of business is to maximize profits. CSR was seen as a dangerous concept and threatens the foundations of the market economy.
Nowadays, institutions are exerting more and more pressure on organizations to be responsible. There is an emerging ‘instutional infrastructure’ on corporate
responsibility. New institutions are reshaping the rules by which companies play and create a new context. For example AA1000; this helps business to improve overall corporate responsibility (Waddock, 2008). Merely as a result, CSR has emerged as a significant and salient issue for companies. Boards of directors are becoming more and more involved in shaping corporate policies in accordance with social and
environmental considerations (Ayuso and Argandoña, 2007).
There are many specific definitions of CSR, but analysis shows that the existing
definitions are to a large degree congruent (Dahlsrud, 2008). Therefore, important for CSR in research is how the dimensions or components compromising CSR are defined. Recently published research makes a classification of two societal initiatives; the first one directed at internal stakeholders: internal CSR. The second one directed at external stakeholders: external CSR (Brammer et al., 2007; Cornelius et al., 2008; De Roeck et al., 2013; Chun et al., 2013; Turker 2009). This thesis will use this division.
Internal CSR is associated with an organization’s policy and practices related to the
physical and psychological well-being of employees (Brammer et al, 2007; De Roeck et al., 2013; Shen and Zhu, 2001;). For example; employees’ health and safety, work-life balance and the organization’s respect for human rights (Brammer et al., 2007; Cornelius et al., 2008; Turker 2009).
External CSR refers to an organization’s social and environmental practices to reinforce
Roeck et al., 2013). For example; corporate philantrophy, cause-related marketing, environmental protection (Brammer et al., 2007; Cornelius et al. 2008).
Previous research has focused mainly on the relationship between CSR in general and external stakeholders; most research about CSR has been done on the relationship with customers. Organizations taking a range of CSR initiatives can build a good corporate reputation (Turban and Greening, 1996) and generate customer loyalty (Bhattacharya and Sen, 2004). Employees as primary internal stakeholders have not received much attention (Jones, 2010; Shen and Zhu, 2011).
As mentioned already by Carroll (1979), later on by the Europenean Commission (2001) and also Turker (2009); organizations should take the various interests of stakeholders into consideration when doing business. CSR has its roots in stakeholder theory (Carroll, 1991; Freeman, 1984). This thesis focuses on employees. Therefore, stakeholder theory will be discussed.
2. Stakeholder theory
Firms are under increasing pressure to pursue socially responsible behavior from a variety of stakeholder groups (Donaldson and Preston, 1995; Kapstein, 2001; Smith, 2003; Waddock 2008).
Campbell (2007) complements the position of the European Commission about CSR, by stressing the centrality of stakeholders. He suggests that acting responsible for
corporations means that they don’t harm their stakeholders and if they do, they must rectify it.
Stakeholder theory aims to explain the nature of relationships between organizations and those persons with a ‘stake’ in the operations and outcomes of business activity. A stakeholder is “any group or individual that can affect or is affected by the achievement of an organization’s objectives” (Freeman, 1984). Stakeholder theory says that managers should make decisions and take into account the interests of all the stakeholders in a firm (Jensen, 2001).
Scholars often distinguish societal initiatives directed at primary (e.g. customers, employees, shareholders, suppliers) versus secondary stakeholders (e.g.
non-governmental organizations, local community, natural environment, future generations) (Clarkson, 1995). A primary stakeholder group is one without whose continuing
participation the corporation cannot survive as a going concern. Secondary stakeholder groups are defined as those who influence or affect, or are influenced or affected by, the corporation, but they are not engaged in transactions with the corporation and are not essential for its survival (Clarkson, 1995).
Employees are important primary stakeholders, resources, for a firm. According to the resource based view; sustained competitive advantage is based on the attraction, accumulation, and retention of resources that are difficult to substitute and hard to imitate (Barney, 1995). Knowledge is embedded in human resources. According to the knowledge-based view; the strategically most important resource of the firm is
knowledge; firms are deposits of knowledge and competencies (Grant, 1996). According to this view, prior studies recognize the knowledge and competencies of human
socially complex, and path-dependent (Collins and Clark, 2003). Therefore the retention of employees (human resources) can be seen as a firm-specific advantage.
The long term value of a company rests as much on the knowledge, abilities, and
commitment of its employees as on its relationship with investors, customers and other stakeholders (Wheeler and Sillanpaä, 1998). Employees are highly salient stakeholders; they have significant power and legitimacy with which to influence the firm
(Greenwood, 2007). Employees are an important asset of the company. Therefore a firm has good reasons to create committed employees. Good corporate social responsibility (CSR) reputation can generate positive attention from both current and prospective employees (Turban and Greening, 1996).
Employees (primary stakeholders) have perceptions of internal and external CSR activities. Social identity theory can explain how perceptions of individuals, like employees, arise and what they accomplish.
3. Social identity theory
The social identity approach is an integrated theoretical perspective on the relationship between self-concept and group behavior (Hogg and Terry, 2001).
Social identity theory is a social psychological theory on the role of self-conception in group membership, group processes, and intergroup relations (Hogg, 2006). Social identity rests on intergroup social comparisons which seek to confirm or establish intergroup-favoring evaluative distinctiveness between ingroup and outgroup, motivated
by an underlying need for self-esteem (Ashfort and Mael, 1989; Hogg and Terry, 2001).
Social identity theory suggests that people classify themselves into social categories on the basis of various factors, such as the organization they work for (Ashforth and Mael, 1989; Dutton et al., 1994). Membership in these social categories influences an
individual's self-concept (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Dutton et al., 1994). Through the comparison of the characteristics of themselves and the groups they belong to with other individuals and groups, individuals attempt to establish or enhance their positive self-concept (Ashforth and Mael, 1989).
Social identity theory invokes two underlying cognitive social processes: categorization and self-enhancement.
Categorization is a basic cognitive process, which perceptually segments the social
world into ingroups and outgroups that are cognitively represented as prototypes (Hogg, 2001). Self-enhancement guides the social categorization process. It invokes that ingroup norms and stereotypes are seen as favor compared to outgroup norms (Hogg and Terry, 2001). Uncertainty reduction and self-enhancement are seen as motivations for social identity processes.
Individuals tend to choose activities congruent with salient aspects of their identities and they support the institutions embodying those identities (Ashfort and Mael, 1989). For example; Being religious and a member of a religious group can provide immense cognitive and emotional values, which also leads to more well-being of individuals (Ysseldyk, 2010).
significant role in shaping employees perceptions of the attractiveness of particular organizations (Greening and Turban, 2000). The perceptions of employees about the organization’s identity may influence the strength of identification of an individual with an organization. According to social identity theory, individuals are most happy if they associate themselves with organizations that have positive reputations, they are proud to identify with such organizations, these associations will enhance self-concept (Ashfort and Mael, 1989; Maignan and Ferrell, 2001).
Stakeholders; employees and people in general, give growing importance to the values of corporations and socially responsible behavior by these organizations (Brammer and Millington, 2003).
As mentioned above; distinctiveness is one the key factors influencing the tendency to identify with a given group (Ashforth and Mael, 1989). Perceived internal and external CSR can foster employees’ organizational identification because it can signal attractive, distinctive, and shared identity attributes that reinforce self-concepts (Ashfort and Mael, 1989; De Roeck et al., 2013; Turker, 2009).
There is some evidence that benevolent climates will tend to trigger employee identification and hence elicit greater employee commitment (Cullen et al., 2003).
4. Employee commitment
Work on commitment over the last decade has established that commitment can take various forms (Meyer et al., 2004). Motivation and commitment theory both have their roots in a need to understand, predict and influence employee behaviour (Meyer et al., 2004).
Organizational commitment (OC) is the employee’s psychological attachment to the organization (Meyer and Allen, 1991). In the literature, the three-component model (TCM) of OC of Meyer and Allen (1991) characterizing an employee’s commitment to the organization, has been the dominant framework (Shen and Zhu, 2011). Despite
variations in how the themes or issues were measured, past studies have suggested that the three components of the OC model have a valid global application (Shen and Zhu, 2011).
Affective commitment (AC) is defined as the employee’s positive emotional attachment
to, and an emotional sense of identification with the organization. An employee who has affective commitment to his/her workplace desires to remain part of the organization.
Continuance commitment (CC) is defined as employee commitment based on the
economic and social costs of leaving the organization. An employee who has continuance commitment chooses to stay with the organization because of a lack of a better
alternative. Normative commitment (NC) is defined as sense of moral obligation to the organization. An employee who has normative commitment stays with the organization to reciprocate the benefits he/she receives.
These forms of commitment not only stem from different bases, but are also grounded in different ‘mindsets’ and will have different implications for workplace behaviours
because they can be directed to differing foci (Meyer and Allen, 1991). The bases of commitment vary: affective commitment is based on personal identification and value congruence with the target, normative commitment is grounded by organizational socialization and a feeling of obligation for benefits received, and continuance
commitment is related to the perception that it is more beneficial to remain with the organization than to leave.
Although, there is some criticism of authors on this model (Solinger et al., 2008; Jaros 1997). Solinger et al. (2008) demonstrates that the TCM combines fundamentally different attitudinal phenomena; Affective organizational commitment is an attitude toward the organization, whereas continuance and normative organizational
commitment are attitudes toward leaving the organization derived from imagined consequences. According to them; TCM fails to qualify as a general model of
organizational commitment, but instead represents a model for predicting turnover. They recommend to use the Eagly and Chaiken (1993) model.
Nevertheless, the three-component model (TCM) of OC of Meyer and Allen (1991) characterizing an employee’s commitment to the organization, has been the dominant framework (Shen and Zhu, 2011).
Comparing the three components, the first component; affective commitment, holds the most significant implications for intention to remain (Kehoe and Wright, 2013),
decreasing turnover and increasing performance (Cooper-Hakim and Viswesvaran, 2005; Riketta, 2002), organizational citizenship behavior (Kehoe and Wright, 2013) and indirectly for firm financial performance (Chun et al., 2013). Kehoe and Wright (2013) showed that affective employee commitment partially mediated the relationship between HR practice perceptions and organizational citizenship behavior, and it fully mediated the relationship between HR practice perceptions and intent to remain with the organization.
AC also had the strongest and most favorable correlations with organization-relevant (attendance, performance, and organizational citizenship behavior) and employee-relevant (stress and work–family conflict) outcomes (Meyer et al., 2002). Therefore, this thesis focuses on affective commitment.
A workforce is more effective and efficient when workers are committed, motivated and if they can identify themselves with the organization. A distinctive corporate identity may enhance identification and organizational commitment (Ashforth and Mael, 1989; Dutton et al., 1994) Organizational behavior can be influenced by sustainability.
5. Gender differences
Previous studies suggest that gender differences influence attitudes and values
(Greening and Turban, 2000). Specifically, social identity theory proposes that gender associations influence an individual’s self-concept and values (Hogg and Terry, 2001).
Women may face gender discrimination in the organizations. This is reflected in both their presence in senior management and board positions (Grosvold, 2011; Singh et al., 2001) and in pay inequities within the organization (Khoreva, 2011).
Studies indicate that women report more ethical intentions (Cohen et al., 2001)
judgments (Fleischman and Valentine, 2003) and behaviors (Ross and Robertson, 2003). When gender differences are observed, the evidence indicates women tend to adhere to higher ethical standards. Kennedy and Kray (2013) showed an interaction between gender and presence of ethical compromises. They established a causal relationship between aversion to ethical compromises and disinterest in business careers. Women only reported less interest in the jobs than men when jobs involved making ethical compromises. Women’s moral reservations mediated these effects.
Peterson (2004) showed that the relationship between the discretionary measure of corporate social orientation and organizational commitment is stronger among female employees than in the case of male employees. With discretionary measure is meant voluntary programmes (external CSR) (Carroll, 1979). Also Brammer et al. (2007)
showed that the relationship between external CSR and employee commitment is stronger for women than for men.
Further, Bear et al. (2010) showed that the number of women board members is positively associated with CSR strength ratings. Indicating women will put more emphasis on CSR than men.
6. Literature gap and research question
Firms are under increasing pressure to pursue socially responsible behavior from a variety of stakeholder groups (Donaldson and Preston, 1995; Kapstein, 2001; Smith, 2003; Waddock, 2008). CSR has its root in stakeholder theory, it attempts to address the principle about ‘who and what really counts’ (Freeman, 1984).
Therefore, Corporate Social Responsibility has emerged as a significant and salient issue for companies. Boards of directors have become more and more involved in shaping corporate policies in accordance with social and environmental considerations (Ayuso and Argandoña, 2007).
Previous research on CSR has focused mainly on the influence of financial performance, (Halme and Laurila, 2009; Husted and Salazar, 2006; Waddock & Graves, 1997)
environmental effects, (Neu et al., 1998) and consumer behavior (Bhattacharya and Sen, 2004; Brown and Dacin, 1997; Mohr and Webb, 2005) Organizations taking a range of CSR initiatives can build a good corporate reputation (Turban and Greening, 1996) and generate customer loyalty (Bhattacharya and Sen, 2004). However, employees’ view of CSR remains largely unexplored (Jones, 2010; Lee et al., 2013). Employees are important stakeholders for a firm. The long term value of a company rests as much on the
investors, customers and other stakeholders (Wheeler and Sillanpaä, 1998). Attracting and retaining superior human resources can provide organizations with a sustained competitive advantage (Collins and Clark, 2003; Wright et al., 1994).
Companies worry about employee turnover, absenteeism and employee motivation towards organization and work. In order to ensure a low turnover rate, many firms seek to ensure that their employees feel attached to their organization. A good CSR
reputation may indirectly, by invoking positive reactions from external groups (such as family and friends), contribute to job satisfaction and lower employee turnover (Riordan et al., 1997). Several studies find a direct positive relationship between a company's ethical climate and employee job satisfaction (Valentine and Fleischman, 2008) and a decreasing turnover intention (Valentine et al., 2011).
Research on the effect of CSR on employee commitment is still in its infancy. Recently published research makes a classification of two societal initiatives; first one directed at internal stakeholders: internal CSR. Second one directed at external stakeholders: external CSR (Brammer et al., 2007; Cornelius et al., 2008; De Roeck et al., 2013; Chun et al., 2013; Turker 2009). Therefore, to help create more research for this recently chosen division, this thesis makes the same distinction. Also, the moderating effect of gender will be looked at. Gender is chosen based on SIT, which proposes that gender differences will influence values (Hogg and Terry, 2001).
Articles published about CSR and commitment, didn’t look at these two dimensions of CSR (Brammer et al., 2007; Peterson, 2004; Shen and Zhu, 2011). Some articles focused on internal CSR (Shen et Zhu, 2011) some articles on external CSR (Brammer et al., 2007).
This distinction made in internal and external CSR is based on Turker (2009) and De Roeck et al. (2013). Turker (2009) looks at the relationship between internal and external CSR and organizational commitment. However, he didn’t look at affective employee commitment and gender differences, and only investigated in Turkey. This thesis focuses on affective commitment, because literature has shown that this will be most predictive in job turnover and withdrawal cognition (Meyer et al., 2002) and also holds the most significant implications for the intention to remain with the organization and organizational citizenship behavior (Kehoe and Wright, 2013).
Peterson (2004) and Brammer et al. (2007) both only looked at gender differences in the relationship between external CSR, and not internal CSR, and employee
commitment. Peterson (2004) also used another scale for commitment. Brammer et al. (2007) only investigated in the financial sector and did his research in just one firm. Therefore, this research is broader, deeper and more detailed than has been done before. It fits the most recent theory about CSR to make the distinctions in two dimensions; internal and external CSR, investigates more than one firm, looks at
affective employee commitment (which can be seen as a good predictor for turnover and intention to remain in the organization) and contributes to the theory of gender
differences.
The aim of current study is to contribute to the CSR literature, stakeholder theory, social identity theory and commitment literature. In particular, the role of perceived employee perceptions of internal and external CSR in the relationship between affective employee commitment is measured. The moderator gender is investigated.
The general research question is:
What is the influence of employees’ perceived internal and external CSR on affective employee commitment? And is this relationship moderated by gender?
III Theoretical framework
There is growing literature that shows that employee commitment is influenced by firm’s internal as wel as external CSR activities. In addition, it has been argued and in a few studies shown that the sexual difference (men versus women) influences people’s behavior.
Therefore, this study deepens theory and build on previous studies.
1. Internal CSR, gender differences and affective employee commitment
In the current study, CSR is defined as corporate behaviors which aim to affect stakeholders positively and go beyond its economic interest (Turker, 2009).
Internal CSR is associated with an organization’s policy and practices related to the
physical and psychological well-being of employees (Brammer et al., 2007; De Roeck et al. 2013). Organizational ethics is the organisation’s adoption of desired ethical
standards and business practices (Valentine and Fleischman, 2008; Chun et al., 2013). Organizational ethics is associated with legal and professional codes used to manage employees and ensures the community’s welfare (Valentine and Fleischman, 2008; Chun et al, 2013). CSR, internal and external, is a natural extension of organizational ethics.
Internal CSR can signal the organisation’s ethical stance or moral values. Perceived internal CSR can foster employees’ organizational identification because it can signal attractive, distinctive, and shared identity attributes that reinforce self-concepts (Ashfort and Mael, 1989; De Roeck et al., 2013; Turker, 2009).
Affective commitment (AC) is defined as the employee’s positive emotional attachment
to, and an emotional sense of identification with the organization. An employee who has affective commitment to his/her workplace desires to remain part of the organization.
Social identity theory assumes that people partly derive their self-concept from social identities associated with various social groups to which they belong (Ashfort and Mael, 1989). People classify themselves into various social groups or reference to reinforce their self-esteem and overall self-concept (Ashfort and Mael, 1989; Hogg and Terry, 2001). To varying degrees people derive part of their identity and sense of self from the organizations or work groups to which they belong (Hogg and Terry, 2001).
Uncertainty reduction and self-enhancement are seen as motivations for social identity processes (Hogg and Terry, 2001).
Internal environment of an organization can be an antecedent of employee behavior. An employee can have less stress and experience less ambiguity in his/her tasks if he/she perceives internal practices and policies to be fair and transparent (Chun et al., 2013). Good working conditions including career opportunities, organizational justice, or family-friendly policies affect the level of organizational commitment among employees (Shen and Zhu, 2011). Perceived membership of an organization that shares common identity attributes can strengthen employees self-concept. Internal CSR can signal attractive identity attributes that reinforce self-concepts.
Therefore, CSR activities which are directly related with the physical and psychological working environment of employees can influence the affective commitment. Based on this discussion, the study examines the following hypothesis:
commitment
Social identity theory proposes that gender associations highly influence an individual’s self-concept and values (Hogg and Terry, 2001). Studies demonstrating differences in personal values between men and women provide support for this assertion (Kennedy and Kray, 2013; Pera, 2013; Greening and Turban, 2000). Studies indicate that women report more ethical intentions (Cohen et al., 2001) judgments (Fleischman and
Valentine, 2003); and behaviors (Ross and Robertson, 2003).
Reasons why women place particular value on ethical treatment and procedural justice could be that women still face gender discrimination in the organizations, which can still be seen because of less presence in senior management and board position (Grosvold, 2011). When gender differences are observed, the evidence indicates women tend to adhere to higher ethical standards (Kennedy and Kray, 2013).
According to Hofstede’s view; men are supposed to be assertive, competitive, and tough. Women are more concerned with taking care at home, of the children, and of people in general - take the tender roles (Hofstede, 1991). Internal CSR is about work-life balance and fair trade of employees. Because women are more concerned with taking care at home and taking care of the children, probably women put more emphasis on work-life balance than men.
Taken together; we might expect that the relationship between internal CSR and affective employee commitment is stronger for women than for men.
2. The relationship between employees’ perceived internal CSR and affective employee commitment is stronger for women than for men.
2. External CSR, gender differences and affective employee commitment
External CSR refers to an organization’s social and environmental practices to reinforce its reputation and legitimacy among external stakeholders (Brammer et al., 2007; De Roeck et al, 2013).
Turker (2009) and De Roeck et el. (2013) both divided external CSR in different groups. CSR to customers is defined as external CSR – 1. Customers are also one of the most crucial stakeholders of an organization. Companies try to build and maintain good relations with them.
External CSR - 1 is seen as a significant tool of influencing the feelings, thoughts, and consequently buying behaviors of their target customers (Bhattacharya and Sen, 2004).
Affective commitment (AC) is defined as the employee’s positive emotional attachment
to, and an emotional sense of identification with the organization. An employee who has affective commitment to his/her workplace desires to remain part of the organization
Social identity theory suggests that employees are proud to identify with organizations that have a positive external reputation (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Dutton et al., 1994; Maignan and Ferrell, 2001).
Employees can have different perceptions of how the organization treats its customers. If customers are misled by the organization (e.g. unsafe products), employees may feel
shamed. On the other hand, if customers are provided with high quality products or accurate information about its activities, employees may be proud of being a member of this organization. Feeling proud to be a member of a social category like the
organization can, according to social identity theory, reinforces self-esteem.
These positive employee perceptions can be incorporated into their behavior toward management. Research reveals that employee perceptions of CSR trigger emotional, attitudinal, and behavioral responses (Brammer et al., 2007; Turker, 2009).
Therefore, the third hypotheses will be:
3. Employees’ perceived external CSR - 1 will positively relate to affective employee commitment
External CSR – 2 is CSR to society, natural environment, next generations, and non-governmental organizations. All of these stakeholders can be clustered together when considering their common point of view (Turker, 2009).
CSR awareness is positively related to the stakeholders’ attitudes to the company (Sen et al., 2006). Employee perceptions of external CSR activities is positively related to their attachment to the organization (Lee et al., 2013).
Social identity theory suggests that if an organization attempts to engage in external CSR - 2, its employees can feel proud by being members of this organization. External CSR – 2 can give the employees the feeling that their organization cares about the present and future world. More and more people give attention to global environmental problems. Employees working for an organization where external CSR – 2 is important can feel an
increasing commitment to it.
Besides this, showing of external CSR -2 can create a distinctive image in comparison with competitors. Having a distinctive organizational identity compared to competitors can affect a workgroups self-categorization and also behavior (Hogg and Terry, 2001). Employees who experience this feeling of belonging will probably be more committed to organizations compared to not having this feeling.
4. Employees’ perceived external CSR – 2 will positively relate to affective employee commitment
As mentioned above; Hofstede (1991): Men are supposed to be assertive, tough, and focused on material success, whereas women are supposed to be more modest, tender, and concerned with the quality of life.
A research which looked at gratitude, which is experienced when people receive something beneficial or is felt when somebody does something kind or helpful, found that women compared with men are more likely to receive additional benefits from the experience and expression of gratitude (Kashdan et al., 2009). Women are generally more emotionally expressive than men, and are expected to derive greater benefits from the experience and expression of gratitude. Men may find gratitude to be less familiar and more discomforting compared to women (Pera, 2013).
External CSR- 1 is about protecting customers, external CSR-2 is about creating a better life for future generations. Because women often take more care about their children, they are probably more concerned about how the world will be in the future, in which
their children will grow up. Further, the caring role of women can be seen in treating customers. Women can put more emphasis on this.
Also, more recent evidence shows us that gender differences can have an influence on attitudes. While men are seen to place greater emphasis on instrumental or economic concerns women are more likely to be concerned with discretionary behavior within the organization (Peterson, 2004; Brammer et al., 2007). With discretionary measure is meant voluntary programmes (external CSR) (Carroll, 1979). Brammer et al. (2007) too, showed that the relationship between external CSR and employee commitment is
stronger for women than for men.
Further, Bear et al. (2010) showed that the number of women board members is positively associated with CSR strength ratings, indicating women will put more emphasis on CSR than men.
Since the benefits of external CSR to employees and society are largely indirect and can only flow from association which with are perceived as beneficial, like gratitude, we expect women to exhibit stronger preferences than men for external CSR.
5. The relationship between employees’ perceived external CSR - 1 and affective employee commitment is stronger for women than for men.
6. The relationship between employees’ perceived external CSR - 2 and affective employee commitment is stronger for women than for men.
In the theoretical framework section six hypotheses are outlined. Based on these hypotheses, the following conceptual model can be drawn:
CSR: - Internal - External - 1 - External - 2 Employee affective commitment Control variables: - age - tenure - education - department - job satisfaction Gender: - men - women
IV Methodology
The following chapter contains the research approach and design of this paper. The section also gives a description of the sample and data collection method. Further, a description and measurement of all the variables is outlined.
1. The research design
This research is composed of a traditional questionnaire survey. This survey
questionnaire is used to measure all the variables. The independent; perceived internal and external CSR, the dependent; affective employee commitment, and the moderator; gender differences. The survey is also used to gather information about the control variables; the individual characteristics of the respondents. The age, gender, tenure, education, job satisfaction.
Questionnaires were collected from respondents working in the FMCG (fast moving consumer goods) sector. In this sector competitors are very important and having another CSR strategy can probably create a competitive advantage.
Several firms were selected on the fact that sustainability was an important component of their strategy. To 12 employees of these firms, questionnaires were sent. They all sent it to around 50 colleagues. Firms included are Unilever, Proctor and Gamble, Heineken, Ahold, Heinz, DE and Philips. Because of privacy reasons, no distinction has been made between these firms.
All of the measures used in this study were drawn from existing literature and adapted to the context of the current study. The measurement scales were 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (Strongly agree) to 5 (Strongly disagree).
2. Sample
The initial target sample of the study was a total of 612 respondents. Respondents were approached by electronic mail and were presented with a digital version of the survey in English language. A total of 237 respondents completed the survey, resulting in a
response rate of 38,73 %.
It must be acknowledged there are some limitations related to the chosen sample. First, no distinction can be made between the organizations. If there is an important influence of other variables, and one organization differs in outcome, this cannot be seen. The reason for this was privacy of the organizations. For this study the trade-off was having not enough respondents or no distinction between organizations. The study would have been a pilot study in the case of having too few respondents, so the choice was made easily. And after all, the purpose of this study is to see if the links between CSR (internal and external) and commitment are general applicable for the whole sector, so
distinction between organizations is not what this study is aiming for.
Furthermore, the electronic version of the questionnaire was composed in English, which is not the mother tongue of the majority of the respondents in the sample. This might have resulted in misunderstanding of some of the questions. But on the other hand, English is the operational language of all employees in the chosen organizations
and therefore this should not be considered as a serious problem to obtain accurate results.
3. Independent variables
In this thesis, three independent variables are used.
At first; CSR is defined as corporate behaviors, which aim to affect stakeholders positively and go beyond its economic interest.
The first variable is internal CSR. Internal CSR is associated with an organization’s policy and practices related to the physical and psychological well-being of employees.
(Brammer et al., 2007; De Roeck et al, 2013).
The second and third variables are external CSR – 1 and external CSR – 2.
External CSR refers to an organization’s social and environmental practices to reinforce its reputation and legitimacy among external stakeholders (Brammer et al., 2007; De Roeck et al, 2013).
External CSR – 1 is CSR to customers. Customers are also one of the most crucial stakeholders of an organization. Companies try to build and maintain good relations with them. External CSR – 2 is CSR to society, natural environment, next generations,
and non-governmental organizations. All of these stakeholders can be clustered
together when considering their common point of view (Turker, 2009).
In this study, the scale of Turker (2009) is used. The scale originally has four factorial subscales comprised of 17 items and measures CSR to employees, CSR to customers, CSR
to social and non-social stakeholders, and CSR to government. Here, Cronbach’s alpha was very high; 0.9013. To fit the scale for this study, the last subscale (CSR to
government) is removed. Further; because of the few original items in Turker’s scale for CSR to customers, De Roeck et al (2013) adapted this scale and developed two
additional items to increase the potential scale reliability (Hellman et al., 2006).
Now, the scale contains 16 items. In the study, the scale is rated on a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree.
Internal CSR is measured with six items: “Our company encourages its employees to participate to the voluntary activities.” “Our company policies encourage the employees to develop their skills and careers.” “The management of our company primarily
concerns with employees’ needs and wants.” “Our company implements flexible policies to provide a good work and life balance for its employees.” “The managerial decisions related with the employees are usually fair.” “Our company supports employees who want to acquire additional education.”
External CSR – 1 (customers) is measured with five items: “Our company protect consumer rights beyond the legal requirements.” “Our company provides full and accurate information about its products to its customers.” “Customer satisfaction is highly important for our company.” “Our company has implemented a procedure to respond to every customer complaint.” “Our company listens to its customers and communicates with clarity and honesty with them.”
External CSR – 2 (social and non-social stakeholders) is measured with six items: “Our company participates in activities which aim to protect and improve the quality of the
natural environment.” “Our company makes investment to create a better life for the future generations.” “Our company implements special programs to minimize its negative impact on the natural environment.” “Our company targets a sustainable growth which considers to the future generations.” “Our company supports the non-governmental organizations working in the problematic areas.” “Our company
contributes to the campaigns and projects that promote the well-being of the society.”
4. Dependent variable
The measurement of organizational commitment (OC) forms the basis of an extensive literature (Brammer et al., 2007; Shen and Zhu, 2011; Turker, 2009; Riketta, 2002). This study focuses on one component of the three-component model of organizational
commitment (OC) of Meyer and Allen (1991) characterizing an employee’s commitment to the organization. The component focused on in this thesis is affective commitment. As already written in the section ‘literature review’, in literature affective commitment holds the most important implications of the three components. For example; intention to remain (Kehoe and Wright, 2013) and decreasing turnover and increasing
performance (Cooper-Hakim and Viswesvaran, 2005; Riketta, 2002).
Affective commitment (AC) is defined as the employee’s positive emotional attachment
to, and an emotional sense of identification with the organization.
In this study organizational commitment is measured using the eight-item scale of AC created by Allen and Meyer (1990). The scale is rated on a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. “I would be very happy to spend the
rest of my career with this organization.” “I enjoy discussing my organization with people outside of it.” “I really feel as if this organization’s problems are my own.” “I think that I could easily become as attached to another organization as I am to this one.” “I do not feel like “part of the family” at my organization.” “I do not feel “emotionally attached” to this organization.” “This organization has a great deal of personal meaning for me.” “I do not feel a strong sense of belonging to my organization.”
5. Moderator
This thesis makes a distinction in gender. Sexual differences can have influence on attitude. Some previous studies show that the relationship between CSR and commitment is stronger for women than for men (Peterson, 2004; Brammer et al., 2007).
Gender is coded as a dummy variable which takes the value 0 for men and 1 for women.
7. Control variables
The study controls for respondents’ personal characteristics and background - age, tenure, level of education, department and job satisfaction. These variables have been identified as significant determinants of affective commitment.
Earlier studies suggest that the age of the respondent and the length of employment in the organization (organizational tenure) will be positively related to commitment (Meyer et al., 2002; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990).
Previous studies suggested that employees with less education may not have adequate skills and knowledge to find other employment, and employees who are highly educated
have greater opportunities for alternative employment. Less education will therefore result in increasing commitment (Shore et al., 1995; Mottaz, 1986).
Department is also taken as a control variable. Chong’s study (2009) highlights the crucial role of internal communication projecting corporate identity to employees and Dawkins (2004) emphasized that companies should not underestimate the power and reach of employees as CSR communicators. The internal communication in departments will be different from each other, and this can have an influence on how well informed employees are about their CSR strategy. Also, contact with customers is not the same in each department. Therefore, probably, differences can be found between employees working in different departments.
Also important is job satisfaction. Previous studies show that higher levels of satisfaction are associated with higher levels of commitment (Aydogdu and Asikgil, 2011; Brammer et al., 2007)
Age is measured in groups: 18-25, 26-34, 35-54, 55-64 and 65 or over. Tenure is measured in different groups, according: less than a year, 1-2 years, 3-5 years, 5-10 years, more than 10 years. Education was measured in highest level of education. The division of groups is: high school, some college, 2-year college degree, 4-year college degree, masters degree, doctoral degree, professional degree (JD/MD). The division of departments is: Finance, Human Resources, Marketing, Sales, Communication, Corporate Relations, Logistics, Others. To assess employees' level of job satisfaction, this is
V Results
The following section reports results of this research. First the reliability of the
measurement scales is tested with Cronbach’s alpha. Then a normality analysis is done. This chapter also contains descriptives of the sample. To test the hypotheses;
hierarchical multiple regression and moderated regression analysis are performed.
1. Reliability analysis
Three independent variables are measured: internal CSR, external CSR-1 and external CSR-2. (Table 1).
If Cronbach’s alpha is above 0.70 it says that the variable had internal consistency and then the reliability is acceptable (Pallant, 2007; Nunnally 1978).
Cronbach’s alpha of internal CSR originally is 0.746 (presented as .75 in the table). Because the first item (InternCSR_1: Our company encourages its employees to
participate to the voluntary activities) has a Cronbach’s alpha if item deteled of 0.749; which is less than 0.10 difference compared to 0.746, you could consider deleting this item. This scale is used before in other research as well, namely in De Roeck et al (2013) it showed a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.86, therefore in this study we decided to keep the item.
External CSR-1 has a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.60. This is not according the rules of thumb (Nunnally, 1978); >0.70. Also deleting one scale, would not give us the accepted 0.70. As for internal CSR, also this scale is not self-developed, it is al used in previous research from De Roeck et al (2013), so we decided to keep the scale the same.
The scale of external CSR-2 has a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.87.
One dependent variable is measured, which is affective commitment. The scale of affective commitment showed a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.87.
2. Normality Analysis
This study conducted a normality test to assess whether the variables internal CSR, external CSR-1, external CSR-2 and affective commitment were normally distributed
(Appendix B).
The independent variable internal CSR had a mean value of 3.71. The 5% trimmed mean value is 3.73. This indicated that the more extreme scores did not have a substantial influence on the mean. Furthermore, the negative skewness (-0.65) and the positive kurtosis value (0,37) suggested that the scores of the dependent variable were always clustered to the right at the high-end side of the graph and that their distribution was rather peaked, clustered in the centre of the graph with long thin tails.
The independent variable external CSR – 1 had a mean value of 4.18. The 5% trimmed mean value is 4.19. This points out that the more extreme scores did not have a
significant impact on the mean. The negative skewness (-.077) and the positive kurtosis (2.49) suggested that the scores of the dependent variable were always clustered to the right at the high-end side of the graph and that their distribution was rather peaked, clustered in the centre of the graph with long thin tails.
mean value is 4,13. This points out that the more extreme scores did not have a significant impact on the mean. External CSR-2 had negative skewness (- 0.48) and kurtosis (-0.39) values. This indicates that the scores of the variable were clustered to the right at the high-end values and their distribution was relatively flat, with too many cases in the extremes.
The dependent variable affective commitment had a mean of 3.51. The 5% trimmed mean value is 3.54. This points out that the more extreme scores did not have a
significant impact on the mean. The skewness is negative (-0.64) and kurtosis is positive (0.48). This suggests that the scores of the dependent variable were always clustered to the right at the high-end side of the graph and that their distribution was rather peaked, clustered in the centre of the graph with long thin tails.
When analyzing the normal probability plots, three out of four variables show a
reasonably straight line, suggesting a relatively normal distribution. Only External CSR-1 has an outlier, number 55. The value is 2.00. Analyses have been done changing this value to 3.00, which is the next following value. This change does not have an influence on the significant relationship between external CSR-1 and affective commitment
(Appendix B).
The 5% trimmed mean value was relatively equal to the mean value for all four variables in the analysis the outliers, and the significance of the relationship is not changing with or without the outlier, therefore this outlier is not excluded from /or has not been changed/ in the data set.
3. Descriptive statistics
The moderator variable – gender – is a categorical variable, which is measured with 2 dummy variables: 0 for men and 1 for women. The control variables age and tenure are continuous variables, measured in groups. The control variable education is a
categorical variable with a constant interval level. As a last, department is a categorical variable, which is also measured with dummy variables.
The variables; independent variables - internal CSR, external CSR-1 and external CSR-2 -, control variable - Satisfaction – are continuous variables. These variables are measured on a 5-point Likert scale, which is originally an ordinal variable, but for the purpose of this study the scale is treated as a continuous variable.
In total 251 employees in the FMCG sector responded to the survey. From these total, 14 were deleted because of not giving response after answering the demographic
questions. Further, some answers were missing. The number of missing values did not exceed 10% for any of the items, the maximum missing from one item was even 1,3%. Therefore, Hotdeck method is used to replace missing values. Myers (2011):
“respondents with complete data who match on all deck variables are eligible to donate their score to a respondent who is missing on the variable in question (the ”donee”). Also; the deck variables are chosen by the researcher and should be related to the variable being imputed”.
Because in this thesis no other variable corresponded well to variables where values were missing; when a value was missing, the items (questions) where no value was missing were used as the deck variables for the items (questions) where values were missing. This decision has been made because the percentages of missing values are so
small (< 1,3 %), that this will not have a substantial influence on the outcome. So, for internal CSR there were missing values for questions (items) 1, 2 and 6. These missing values were taken (borrowed) from answers of different respondents who gave the same answers on the values of questions 3, 4 and 5. So, questions (items) 3, 4 and 5 were chosen as a deck variable.
The same has been done for external CSR-1. Where for missing values in question 1 and 3, the deck variables were 2, 4 and 5. For external CSR-2 for questions 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 the deck variable was question 3. And at last, for affective commitment; for questions 4, 5, 7 and 8 the deck variables were question 1, 2, 3 and 6.
Also, 4 measures of affective commitment are recoded (questions 4, 5, 6 and 8).
Distribution of the sample
See Appendix B – descriptives of respondents
Concerning gender differences; of the total 237 completed respondents 106 (44,7 %) were men, 131 (55,3 %) women.
In terms of age, which was measured in groups, the percentages of age were: 13,9 % (18-25), 69,2 % (26-34), 15,2 % (35– 54), 1,3 % (55– 64), 0,4 % (65 or over).
Education was measured in different levels of formal schooling. The results showed that
the highest level of education were 4,6 % (High school), 0,4 % (some college), 0,8 % (2-year college degree), 8,0 (4-(2-year college degree), 84,4 % (Masters degree), 0,8 % (Doctoral degree), 0,8 % (Professional Degree; JD, MD).
% (Finance), 4,6 % (Human Resources), 0,4 % (Marketing), 36,7 % (Sales), 27,8% (Corporate Relations), 0,8% (Logistics), 11,0 % (Others).
Tenure is measured in groups. The percentages of tenure were: 8,4 % (Less than a year),
38,0 % (1-2 years), 35,4 % (3-5 years), 6,3 % (5-10 years), 11,8 % (More than 10 years).
Since all continuous variables were measured using a 5- point answering scale,
descriptive analysis was used to obtain summary statistics, such as mean, median and standard deviation (SD) (Pallant, 2007).
To assess employees' level of job Satisfaction, this is measured on a 5-point scale from very dissatisfied to very satisfied. The mean is 4.19, SD is 0.72. The percentages per group were: 0,8 % (Very dissatisfied), 2,1 % (Dissatisfied), 6,8 % (Neither dissatisfied or satisfied), 58,2 % (Satisfied), 32,1 % (Very satisfied).
For the independent variables, the mean value of Internal CSR was 3.71, with a standard deviation of 0.61. For external CSR -1 (to customers) the mean value is 4,18, and the SD is 0,42. external CSR – 2 had a mean of 4.10 and a SD of 0.64.
De dependent variable, affective commitment, has a mean of 3,51 and a SD of 0,64.
4. Correlation analysis
Table 1 – Reports of Demographic Variables and Corporate Social Responsibility Variables:
Correlations and Descriptive Statistics, outlines the results from the bivariate correlation
analysis of the variables. Pearson’s correlation coefficient is used. The significant correlations have been marked with an asterisk (*/**).
The most important correlations with significant coefficients at or below the 0.05 level are discussed.
Age and satisfaction – both control variables – correlate with the moderator gender. Age has a negative correlation (-.20), and satisfaction positive (0.17).
The moderator – gender – and also the control variables - education (-.15) and satisfaction ( .51) - all correlate with the dependent variable affective commitment.
Furthermore, the independent variables – internal CSR, external CSR-1 and external CSR-2 – all correlate positively with affective commitment. Internal CSR has a strong correlation (0.62) with affective commitment, external CSR-1 correlates (0.33) and External CSR-2 (0.29).
According to Cohen’s criteria for size of the effect, the effect of internal CSR on affective commitment is a large effect (>0.5), external CSR-1 is a medium effect (>0.3), and at last external CSR-2 is almost a medium effect (Cohen, 1988).
Table 1
Reports of Demographic Variables and Corporate Social Responsibility Variables: Correlations and Descriptive Statistics (N = 237)
Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1. Gendera − 2. Ageb -.20** − 3. Educationc 4. Years of tenured -.02 -.07 -.28** .64** − -.49** − 5. Satisfaction .17** .05 .02 -.07 − 6. Departmente -.07 .12 .05 .03 .01 − 7. Internal CSR .25** -.04 -.11 .06 .43** .11 (.75) 8. External CSR - 1 -.08 .11 .02 .04 .23** .10 .21** (.60) 9. External CSR - 2 -.01 .05 .08 -.02 .20** .06 .35** .28** (.87) 10. Affective Commitment .36** -.03 -.15* .02 .51** .06 .62** .33** .29** (.87) 43
Table 1 Continued Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 M 0.55 3.05 5.73 2.75 4.19 4.37 3.71 4.18 4.1 3.51 SD .5 .62 .93 1.09 0.72 2.17 0.62 .42 .64 .64 Range 0 - 1 1 − 5 1 - 8 1 - 5 1 – 7 α .75 .60 .87 .87
aGender: 0 = male, 1 = female, bAge: 1 = < 18-25, 2 = 26-34, 3 = 35-54, 4 = 55-64, 5 = > 65, cEducation: 1 = less than high school, 2 = high school/GED, 3 = some college, 4 = 2 year college degree, 5 = 4 year college degree, 6 = masters degree, 7 = doctoral degree, 8 = professional degree (JD/MD), Years of tenured 1 = less than a year, 2 = 1-2 years, 3 = 3-5 years, 4 = 6-10 years, 5 = more than 10 years, , eDepartment: 1 = finance, 2 = HR, 3 = Marketing, 4 = Sales, 5 = CR, 6 = logistics, 7 = others, variables 5,
7, 8, 9 and 10 are measured on a five point likert scale. *p < .05. **p < .01.
5. Regression analysis
Hierarchical multiple regression analysis was used to asses the ability of three
independent variables (internal CSR, external CSR-1 and external CSR-2) to predict level of affective commitment, after controlling for the influence of four control variables (age, education, tenure, satisfaction). The four control variables were entered at Step 1
(model 1), explaining 29% of the variance in affective commitment (Table 2). In model 2 also the control variable department is entered. This explained 32% of the variance in affective commitment, so 3% more than the model without department. After entry of the three independent variables at Step 3 the total variance explained by the model as a whole was 52% p<0.01. See table 2; In table 2 The R square of three situations is shown. The R square of model 3 shows us that the R square is 0.52. Which says that the model as a whole, all variables included, explains 52% of the dependent variable.
To see how much of this overall variance is explained by the variables of interest, look at R Square change. The R Square change in model 3 value is 0.20. So, the three
independent variables explain an additional 20 per cent of the variance in affective commitment, even when the effects of the control variables are statistically controlled for. This contribution is statistically significant (0.00). The ANOVA table indicates that the model as a whole is significant.
Further, looking at the control variables in the next table, the standardized Beta coefficients of age (-.06) and tenure (.00) are not significant (p>0.05). This is also the case for all the separate departments. Education and satisfaction are significant. There is a negative relation for education (-.013); so the higher the education, the lower the commitment, and positive for satisfaction (0.28) which means the more satisfied people
In this model, there are three control variables which didn’t display significant
correlations with the dependent variable. To reduce the complexity of this model, these are excluded in further analyses (Becker, 2005).
The βeta coefficient for internal CSR (.44) and external CSR- 1 (.16) are significant, therefore we can conclude that hypothesis 1, Employees’ perceived internal CSR will
positively relate to affective employee commitment, is supported. Also, support is found
for hypothesis 3; Employees’ perceived external CSR - 1 will positively relate to affective
employee commitment. Interesting is the nonsignificant standardized Beta coefficient of
External CSR-2 (β=0.04). So, external CSR-2 does not contribute to significant results in this multi variable model.
Performing lineair regression analysis with the three variables separately other
numbers were found: internal CSR (β=.47), external CSR – 1 (β=.23) and external CSR – 2 (β=.21).
The most reasonable explanation could be that internal and external CSR-1 are more important as predictors of Commitment than external CSR-2, and they both fade the effect of external CSR-2 on the outcome. Another reason could be there is too less data to let the relation be significant. Propably the first explanation is more likely. In a multi variable model more relations are tested and therefore there is less power to really measure effect size.
So therefore, hypothesis 4; Employees’ perceived external CSR – 2 will positively be related
to affective employee commitment, is partly supported. For the multi variate model,
where 3 independent variables are taken into account, no real support can be found. However by taking the variables separately the hypothesis is supported.
Because of the siginifcant relationship in the separate analysis, we will conduct moderated regression analysis on this inpendent variable.
Table 2
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Affective Employee Commitment (N = 237)
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Variable B SE B β B SE B β B SE B β Age -0.06 0.08 -.06 -0.08 0.08 -.08 -0.06 0.07 -.06 Education -0.11 0.04 -.17** -0.12 0.04 -.18** -0.09 0.04 -.13* Tenure 0.01 0.08 -.03 0.02 0.05 .03 0.00 0.04 .00 Satisfaction Department -0.95 0.05 .01** 0.46 0.05 .52** 0.25 0.05 .28**
Finance versus others -.05 0.33 -.03 0.15 0.28 .09
HR versus others .23 0.36 .07 0.49 0.31 .16
Sales versus others CR versus others Others .13 .26 .02 0.32 0.33 0.34 .10 .18 .01 0.22 0.31 0.13 0.28 0.28 0.29 .17 .22 .06 Internal CSR 0.46 0.06 .44** External CSR – 1 0.24 0.08 .16** External CSR – 2 0.04 0.05 .04 R2 ΔR2 .29 .29 23.42** .32 .03 11.75** .52 .20 19.82** F for change in R2
6. Moderated regression analysis
For testing the other three hypotheses, moderated regression analyses were performed. Gender was expected to moderate the relationship between CSR and affective
commitment. Results are presented in Table 3. Hypothesis 2 was tested by examining the incremental contribution of the interaction between gender and internal CSR for affective commitment, and control variables. If the interaction term significantly increases the amount of variance explained in the criterion variable (i.e., ∆R2 is significant), then, as proposed in Hypothesis 2, gender serves as a moderator of the relationship between internal CSR and affective commitment. Model 1 in Table 3 shows that the interaction term accounted for an additional 0.00% of the variance in affective commitment, which was not significant (p < .05). Looking to the effect size, the effect for men is slightly bigger than for women (0.47 compared to 0.42). So, therefore hypothesis 2 is not supported.
Hypotheses 5 and 6 are tested in the same manner. Hypothesis 5 is testing the
moderating effect of gender in the relationship between external CSR-1 and affective commitment. Model 2 in Table 3 shows that the interaction term accounted for an additional 0.00% of the variance in affective commitment, which was not significant
(∆R2 =.00, p = <.05). Looking to the effect size, we see the effect for men is slightly bigger than for women (0.43 compared to 0.38). So, hypothesis 5 can be rejected.
As a last, the effect of gender difference is tested in the relationship between external CSR-2 and affective commitment. Also, in this case we don’t find a R2 increase due to interaction which is significant (∆R2=.00, p<.05). Looking to the conditional effect of the moderators, it can be seen that for men the relationship is not significant. The effect is
0.15 and not significant (p>0.05). For women, the effect of the relationship is 0.27, which is significant (p<.01). So in this case, gender is not a real significant moderator. However for men the relation is not significant, but for women it is. Therefore, we found support for hypothesis 6.
