CSR among employees: the effects of intrinsic motives and
perceived CSR importance on the organizational image
Estelle Cool 11411627 Master’s thesis
Graduate School of Communication Master’s programme Communication Science
Supervisor: Iina Hellsten 29-6-2018
Abstract
This study looks at the extent to which awareness of CSR activities among employees, their perceived importance of CSR and the motives of an organization to practice CSR affect the organizational image of employees. A survey study among employees of a profit organization and a nonprofit organization was conducted, and in total 109 employees participated. This study contributes to the literature by focusing on internal stakeholders and it studies CSR both in a for-profit and nonfor-profit context. The findings suggest that both intrinsic motives and perceiving CSR as important positively affect the relationship between awareness and the organizational image of employees. These findings implicate for organizations that they should send out cues to their employees that the organization practices CSR because of intrinsic values and organizations should stimulate the perceived CSR importance of their employees. Extrinsic motives do not affect the relationship between the awareness of employees and their organizational image according this study, which does not match results of other research. Therefore, future research to extrinsic motives regarding internal stakeholders is needed. In addition, future studies should distinguish between management and non-management positions when studying internal stakeholders and CSR, since managers have the possibility to influence CSR activities.
Keywords: Corporate Social Responsibility, internal stakeholders, employees, extrinsic motives, intrinsic motives, perceived CSR importance, organizational image
Introduction
Organizations all over the world are adopting Corporate Social Responsibility (from here on: CSR) practices and communicate these practices towards their stakeholders (Matten and Moon, 2008). Practicing CSR activities has been seen as a must for an organization's strategy
(Falkenberg and Brunsæl, 2011) and brings several benefits for the organization, such as building the corporate image and strengthening external relations with stakeholders (Du, Bhattacharya and Sen, 2010) but also possibly benefits stakeholders, such as employees (Kim, Lee, Lee and Kim, 2010).
The main idea of practicing CSR is that organizations show that they take responsibility for societal good (Matten and Moon, 2008), however, CSR activities could also refer to
‘avoiding bad’ activities (Lin-Hu and Müller, 2013). CSR is generally understood as organizational policies and practices to consider stakeholders in organizational operating (Carroll, 2016). Stakeholders are groups or individuals who have a direct or indirect interest in the organization and are those who can be affected by or can affect the goals of the organization (Verdeyen, Put and Van Buggenhout, 2004).
The importance of CSR activities employed by organizations has been rising since the 1950s (Carroll, 2016) and in today’s society, stakeholders like customers and the media, increasingly expect organizations to practice CSR activities (Carroll, 2015). By doing so,
organizations aim to gain or maintain pragmatic legitimacy (Seele and Gatti, 2017; Wood, 1991), or to stimulate the corporate reputation (Schultz, Castelló and Morsing, 2013).
Besides external stakeholder groups, internal stakeholder groups such as the employees of an organization are also important (Lee, Park and Lee, 2013; Valentine and Fleischman, 2008;
organizational activities, such as CSR activities (Im, Chung and Yang, 2016). This study contributes to the academic literature, because it focuses on employees, which is an less studied internal stakeholder group (Shin, Hur and Kang, 2016; Choi, Myung and Kim, 2018). Besides, this study focuses on the motives that employees perceive of their organization to practice CSR, which is up to now mainly studied among customers (Du, Bhattacharya and Sen, 2010; Story and Neves, 2015). Thirdly, this study also concerns CSR in a nonprofit context, which has received little attention in academic research so far (Andreini, Pedeliento and Signori, 2014; Lin-Hi, Hörisch and Blumberg, 2015). Therefore, the research question is as follows:
“To what extent do the awareness of the CSR activities among employees, their perceived importance of CSR and the motives of the organization to practice CSR affect the organizational
image of employees?”
The societal relevance of this research lies in the practical value for organizations. Since
implementing CSR policies is not only done by management but also by employees (Collier and Esteban, 2007), employees are considered key actors in implementing organizational CSR
(McShane and Cunningham, 2012; Vlachos, Panagopoulus and Rapp, 2013). Besides, employees are seen as key stakeholders of an organization (Collier and Esteban, 2007), so organizations should know which factors might have an influence on the organizational image of employees.
Below, an overview of relevant literature can be found. After this theoretical framework follows the method section, which describes the participants and the design of this study. Thereupon the results section can be found, which are interpreted in the discussion and
Theoretical background
The concept of CSR refers to organizations showing their responsibility regarding societal good (Matten and Moon, 2008). CSR is about organizations adopting policies and activities that consider stakeholders in the operations of the organization (Carroll, 2016). Organizational responsibility includes for instance dealing with environmental issues, but also taking responsibility regarding the working conditions of employees (Matten and Moon, 2008).
The pyramid of CSR
To formulate a definition, Carroll (2016) set up a framework for CSR. This framework consists of four parts, which refer to the following responsibilities that organizations have towards their stakeholders: economic responsibilities, legal responsibilities, ethical responsibilities and philanthropic responsibilities (Carroll, 2016).
The economic responsibilities of an organization are necessary for the functioning of the organization and are therefore seen as fundamental for the existence of the organization (Carroll, 2016). Organizations are required to make profits, because organizations are expected to function independently (Carroll, 2016). Reinvesting revenues back into the organization is an example of meeting economic responsibilities (Carroll, 2016).
Secondly, organizations have legal responsibilities. Organizations have to operate under certain rules, which include laws and regulations (Carroll, 2016). Complying with the law is seen as a condition for organizations to operate (Carroll, 2016). Examples of meeting legal
responsibilities are for instance complying with local regulations and delivering goods or services of which legal requirements are met (Carroll, 2016). Because organizations must meet
their legal responsibilities in order to operate, these responsibilities are not considered in this study.
Besides economic and legal responsibilities, organizations have ethical responsibilities (Carroll, 2016). Besides laws and regulations, organizations are expected by stakeholders to comply to normative rules that go beyond the codified laws (Carroll, 2016).
In other words, even though normative rules are not officially documented, organizations are expected to conform themselves with these normative rules (Carroll, 2016). In practice, this means that organizations are expected to meet ethical norms and to recognize that integrity goes beyond complying with the law (Carroll, 2016). The ethical responsibilities are being studied in this research, as these are expected by stakeholders, but are not codified in law.
Lastly, there are philanthropic responsibilities of organizations. This corporate
philanthropy refers to organizations giving back to stakeholders in all forms, such as donating money and managers who volunteer for good causes (Carroll, 2016). Since these philanthropic activities are voluntarily (Carroll, 2016), it is interesting to include these responsibilities in this study.
A substantial part of research regarding CSR measures the concept of CSR by using items that focus on the ethical and philanthropic responsibilities of an organization (Pérez and Del Bosque, 2013). This is because organizations have to comply to economic and legal
responsibilities anyway; otherwise there is no way that these organizations could exist (Pérez and Del Bosque, 2013). This is why in this study CSR is measured by employing items that measured ethical and philanthropic responsibilities of organizations.
Sustainability
The concept of sustainability has been more common since the emerging discussions about the natural environment (Carroll, 2015) and brings together economic, environmental and social criteria together in one concept (Carroll, 2015). Sustainability places emphasis on the
simultaneous development of economic success, environmental quality and social righteousness (Carroll, 2015), also referred to as respectively ‘profits, planet and people’ (Carroll, 2015). The economic criteria refers for instance to the value that is created through the production of goods and services, and to creation of employment (Graafland and Van de Ven, 2006). It may seem that this criteria has overlap with the economic responsibilities of the CSR pyramid, however, sustainable economic success focuses on the long-term perspectives (Graafland and Van de Ven, 2006). The environmental criteria refers to the ecological system and to the effects of the organization's operations on its environment (Graafland and Van de Ven, 2006), whereas in CSR there is no specific responsibility that refers to environmental issues. Thirdly, social righteousness includes for example the actions of organizations regarding their labour rights and safety for their employees (Graafland and Van de Ven, 2006). This social criteria has overlap with the legal and ethical responsibilities of an organization. For instance, organizations have to comply to national law regarding working conditions and labor rights, but organizations may voluntarily provide more to their employees, which then turns into ethical responsibilities.
While the concept of CSR points to certain responsibilities for organizations regarding their stakeholders (Carroll, 2015), sustainability stresses long-term perspectives and explicitly includes concerns and consequences of organization's actions for future generations (Carroll, 2015).
Business Ethics
A third concept that is related to CSR is business ethics (Carroll, 2015). Business ethics revolves around morals, principles and values (Carroll, 2015) and this concept looks at the fairness of business, or individual actions of managers and employees (Carroll, 2015). This is contrast to CSR, which looks at responsibilities of a whole organization (Carroll, 2015).
Compared to the responsibilities of the CSR pyramid, business ethics places greatest focus on the ethical and philanthropic responsibilities of an organization (Carroll, 2015). However, business ethics is typically seen as being normative, so it mainly prescribes what organizations and managers should be doing (Carroll, 2015). This normative character of business ethics as a concept makes that the CSR concept is more useful for this study.
Profit organizations versus non-profit organizations
Research to CSR focuses mainly on profit organizations and little is known about CSR in a nonprofit context (Andreini, Pedeliento and Signori, 2014; Lin-Hi, Hörisch and Blumberg, 2015). Suggestions for this lack of attention have been provided and include arguments that CSR activities in first instance do not seem to be relevant for nonprofit organizations (Andreini et al., 2014). This is because nonprofit organizations do not pay out profits to shareholders, so it would seem that there are no economic conflicts between the organization and stakeholders (Bouckaert and Vandenhove, 1998). Secondly, socially responsible behavior of nonprofit organizations may be expected by stakeholders, since this is inherent to their existence (Andreini et al., 2014). However, scholars acknowledge that since socially responsible behavior of nonprofit
aspects of CSR often match the goals of nonprofit organizations, because these organizations serve public interest (Ferris, 1998).
Potential benefits that come with practicing CSR do not only account for profit
organizations; possible benefits of CSR activities for nonprofit organizations are reduced costs, increased media attention and a more positive public image (Gazzola, Ratti and Amelio, 2017). These benefits ultimately possibly lead to bettering the reputation (Jo, 2011; Kim and Lee, 2011) but also loyalty among stakeholders (Gomez and Chalmeta, 2011). Because of these findings, it is expected in this study that both profit and nonprofit organizations benefit of CSR activities.
Awareness of CSR activities and organizational image
Organizations extensively communicate their CSR activities because this is positively associated with maintaining or gaining external relations with stakeholders (Korschun, Bhattacharya and Sen, 2009) and because communicating CSR activities is associated with reinforcing positive perceptions of stakeholders (Bhattacharya, Korschun and Sen, 2009).
Employees create an image of their organization’s CSR activities, which are responses to their perceptions of their organization's CSR activities (Lai, Chiù, Yang and Pai, 2010). Since employees are sometimes seen as ‘ambassadors’ of their organization's CSR activities (Collier and Esteban, 2007), it is important that employees have a positive image of their organization (Collier and Esteban, 2007).
Choi, Myung and Kim (2018) suggest that organizational CSR activities positively impact the perceptions that employees of the organization have. When actively engaging in CSR activities, organizations contribute to their environment, whether it is on an economically,
that employees have of their organization and also creates the opportunity for employees to construct a positive identity of their organization, as for instance being an organization which genuinely cares for its environment (Raub and Blunschi, 2014). This leads to the following hypothesis:
H1: The higher the level of awareness of CSR activities among employees in both profit and nonprofit organizations, the more positive their organizational image.
Organizational image
The organizational image consists of the ‘mental representations’ that stakeholders have of the organization (Michaelidou, Micevski and Cadogan, 2015; Bennett and Gabriel, 2003; Keller, 1993). In their research to branding of nonprofit organizations, Michaelidou et al. (2015) conceptualize the image of nonprofit organizations on the basis of six dimensions: usefulness, efficiency, affect, dynamism, reliability and ethicality. The items in the categories affect, reliability and ethicality were useful for this study. Firstly, the items in the affect category measure the evaluation of the organization, which is useful for measuring the organizational image. The items in the ethicality category measure to what extent one evaluates that the
organization does good, which is the central idea of CSR (Matten and Moon, 2008). Thirdly, the items in the reliability category measure the extent to which one evaluates that the organization takes responsibility, which is also an essential part of CSR (Carroll, 2015; Factor, Oliver and Montgomery, 2013).
CSR motives
Compared to external stakeholders, employees are more exposed to the values, practices and culture of their organization (Story and Neves, 2015). This makes it interesting to study how employees perceive the organizational CSR motives (Story and Neves, 2015).
The motives for organizations to practice CSR can be classified into two categories, namely intrinsic motives and extrinsic motives (Story and Neves, 2015).
Intrinsic motives. Intrinsic motives of organizations refer to wanting to do good for its stakeholders and for example the environment, because of an intrinsic drive (Du, Bhattacharya and Sen, 2007; Graafland and Van de Ven, 2006; Story and Neves, 2015). Research about assigning CSR motives by stakeholders suggest that stakeholders evaluate the motives of an organization to practice CSR activities in terms of how genuine the organization comes across (Fein, 1996). Perceiving genuine concern by stakeholders, thus perceiving intrinsic motives, are naturally positively associated with more positive evaluations of the organization (Sen,
Bhattacharya and Korschun, 2006). This leads to the following hypothesis:
H2: The relationship between the level of awareness of CSR activities and the organizational image is stronger for employees in both profit and nonprofit organizations, who are more aware
of intrinsic motives of their organization.
Extrinsic motives. On the other hand, extrinsic motives of organizations refer to
practicing CSR for the organizations’ own interest (Graafland and Van de Ven, 2006). Examples of extrinsic motives are for instance practicing CSR because it is positively associated with financial rewards and an increased positive corporate image (Du et al., 2007). Practicing CSR
mainly because of the associated positive benefits is also referred to as the ‘business case of CSR’ (Story and Neves, 2015).
Stakeholders may become skeptic towards an organization's CSR communication when they perceive predominantly extrinsic motives (Du, Bhattacharya and Sen, 2010). Since extrinsic motives are associated with stakeholder skepticism, the following is hypothesized:
H3: The relationship between the level of awareness of CSR activities and the organizational image is weaker for employees in both profit and nonprofit organizations, who are more aware
of extrinsic motives of their organization.
Perceived importance of CSR by employees
Organizational values are the beliefs that employees either individually or as a group have regarding what they think an organization should do, or which actions employees prefer above other actions (Khandelwal and Mohendra, 2010). Values represent opinions about what
individuals’ evaluations of what is fair or right (Khandelwal and Mohendra, 2010), which are essential for evaluating organizational CSR activities. Little attention has been paid to studying differences among employees regarding their expectations and views in relation to CSR (Rodrigo and Arenas, 2008). When employees are aware of their organization’s CSR activities, they are likely to positively evaluate these and generally feel that the organization’s actions are fair (Khandelwal and Mohendra, 2010), which enhances the organizational image (Khandelwal and Mohendra, 2010). Therefore, the hypothesis regarding the perceived importance of CSR by employees is as follows:
H4: The relationship between the level of awareness of CSR activities and the organizational image is stronger for employees in both profit and nonprofit organizations, who perceive CSR
activities as important.
Figure 1 below shows all the hypotheses linked, brought together in a conceptual model.
Figure 1. Conceptual model of the hypotheses.
Method
This study looked at the level of awareness of employees of their organization's CSR activities, as well as which motives employees perceive of their organization to practice CSR and how important employees consider CSR to be. Since these questions refer to perceptions, a survey study was considered as the most appropriate method for this research (Story and Neves, 2015). An online questionnaire has been send out to employees of two different organizations. One organization is operational in the heating system sector, so this organization is specialized in mechanical and industrial matters and besides is a for-profit organization. The second
organization is part of the national government, operates in the legal sector and is a nonprofit organization. In total 109 employees participated in this study, out of an overall potential population of about 250 employees and after removal of seven incomplete responses.
Survey items
The items in the questionnaire measured the awareness of CSR activities of employees, to what extent the employees attributed extrinsic or intrinsic motives to their organization, the perceived importance of CSR by employees and the organizational image of employees. All variables were measured on a 5-point Likert-scale, on a continuum of “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”. The complete survey that was sent out can be found in Appendix I.
Participants
In total 109 employees participated in this survey study, of which 43 identified with the male gender and 66 participants identified with the female gender. 26 participants filled in that they were between 18 and 30 years old, 30 participants between 31 and 43 years old and 35
employees between 44 and 55 years old. 18 participants were 56 or over this age. Of the total of 109 participants, 34 employees had an education on mbo-level, 37 on hbo-level and 38 have an university degree. Lastly, the survey included a question about the current occupation of the participant. 34 participants had an occupation in the legal sector, 38 in the mechanical industry and 37 had an occupation in the category ‘other’.
Measures
Variable level of awareness of CSR activities. The independent variable level of awareness of CSR activities measured the awareness of employees of their organization's CSR activities. The two items “my organization gives time, money, and other resources to socially responsible causes” and “I work for a socially responsible organization that services the greater community” were taken from Valentine and Fleischman (2008). The items were directly copied, however, Valentine and Fleischman (2008) used a seven-point scale instead of a five-point scale that was used in this study. The other two items “this organization is concerned with improving the well-being of society” and “this organization behaves responsibly regarding the environment” were directly taken from Shin, Hur and Kang (2016). They reported a Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.83. In the current study, initially a Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.658 was found, however, leaving out the item “my organization behaves responsibly regarding the environment” resulted in a Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.664. Although a Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.664 still lies below the limit of 0.7 of reliability, the difference between the Cronbach’s Alpha and the limit is small. Therefore, the scale is formed with three items.
Variable CSR motives. The independent variable CSR motives measured to what extent employees were aware of extrinsic and intrinsic motives of their organization.
Intrinsic motives. For measurement of intrinsic motives, an item of Du, Bhattacharya and Sen (2007) was adapted. The item “This brand works for XX (the brand’s CSR initiative)
because it is genuinely concerned about being socially responsible” was adjusted to “the organization that I work for is genuinely concerned about being socially responsible”.
a long-term interest in society” and “the organization that I work for tries to give something back to the community” were adapted from Groza, Pronschinscke and Walker (2011). The original scale by Groza et al. (2011) consisted of three items and reported a Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.86. The item “their owners and employees believe in this cause” was left out, because this item specifically referred to a cause in the original research, which caused it to not fit this study. Regarding the other two items, the terms “they (are)” in the original items were replaced by “the organization that I work for”, in order to make it clear to the participants to what was being referred to. Initially, merging the items for the intrinsic motives resulted in a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.734. However, after removing the item “The organization that I work for has a long-term interest in society” a Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.804 has been found. Thus, the scale to measure intrinsic motives is reliable.
Extrinsic motives. The item for measuring extrinsic motives “my organization feels competitive pressure to engage in socially responsible activities” was adapted from Du, Bhattacharya and Sen (2007) and originally stated “This brand works for xx (the brand’s CSR initiative) because it feels competitive pressures to engage in such activities”. “The organization that I work for hopes to increase its profits by supporting socially responsible initiatives” was adapted from Groza, Pronschinscke and Walker (2011). The term “they” in the original item was replaced by “the organization that I work for” and “this initiative” was replaced by “socially responsible initiatives”. The two items for the extrinsic motives resulted after merging into one scale in a Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.897. Thus, the scale to measure perceived extrinsic motives is reliable.
Variable perceived importance of CSR. The perceived importance of CSR by employees is an independent variable and is measured by four items. All these items were adapted from
Singhapakdi, Vitell, Rallapalli and Kraft (1996). They reported a Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.74 for the item “Being ethical and socially responsible is the most important thing a firm can do.”. This item was slightly modified to “Being ethical and socially responsible is the most important thing an organization can do”. For the second item, only the terms “corporate planning and goal setting” were replaced by the term “organizational”, because this term is more in line with the two organizations that are studied in this research. The third item of Singhapakdi et al. (1996) “The ethics and social responsibility of a firm is essential to its long term profitability”, with a reported Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.57, was adjusted to “The social responsibility of an organization is essential for its long-term survival.”. In the last item, only the term “business” has been
replaced by “organizations”, because this term is more in line with the two organizations that are studied in this research. Singhapakdi et al. (1996) reported a Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.48 for this item. Although some items had a low reported Cronbach’s Alpha, which indicates a low reliability score, the merging of the four items to one scale that measured the perceived importance of CSR of employees resulted in a Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.796. Thus, this scale is reliable to measure the concept of perceived importance of CSR.
Variable organizational image. The dependent variable organizational image is measured with the use of eight items, which were adapted from Michaelidou et al. (2015). Their items were about assigning specific characteristics to the image of organizations, which were formulated as statements in this study. Items in the categories of ‘affect’, ‘reliability’ and ‘ethicality’ of Michaelidou et al. (2015) were used for this questionnaire and these categories consisted of
several items. Michaelidou et al. (2015) reported Cronbach’s Alphas of 0.93 and 0.8 for
respectively the items ‘compassionate’ and ‘friendly’; for ‘reputable’ and ‘sincere’ respectively 0.92 and 0.83, for the items ‘moral’ and ‘righteous’ respectively 0.92 and 0.76 and for the items ‘responsible’ and ‘ethical’ respectively 0.89 and 0.87. All these eight items were taken together to measure the organizational image of employees and resulted in a Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.811. Thus, the scale for the variable organizational image is reliable.
Analyses
The answer categories of the survey are ordered, because they for example range from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”, which actually means that these data are of an ordinal
measurement level (Field, 2013). Although these variables are ordinal, one is allowed to treat these variables as interval variables (Field, 2013) and consequently conduct statistical analyses that are fit for variables of this measurement level (Field, 2013). For example, multiple
regression analyses, including moderating variables, could be conducted with interval variables (Field, 2013).
Results
Awareness of CSR activities and organizational image
A simple linear regression analysis has been performed to analyze the direct relationship
is explained by the independent variable level of awareness. It turns out that there is a significant relationship between the level of awareness of CSR activities and the organizational image, b = 0.324, t = 7.047, p < 0.01, 95% CI [0.233, 0.415] and that this relationship is positively moderate (r = 0.563). This means that support has been found for the hypothesis that the more employees are aware of their organization’s CSR activities, the more positive their organizational image is. Besides, independent t-tests have been performed to analyze the differences between participants working for a nonprofit organization and a profit organization on the variables of level of awareness of CSR activities and organizational image (see Appendix III, tables 5 and 6 for the descriptive statistics).
First of all, on average participants working for a nonprofit organization (N = 34) were more aware of their organization’s CSR activities (M = 3.5392, SD = 0.33849) than those working for the profit organization (N = 38, M = 2.4474, SD = 0.65428) and this difference, 1.09185, 95% CI [0.84957, 1.33412] was significant t(56.753) = 9.025, p < 0.01. Secondly, participants working for the nonprofit organization (N = 34) had a more positive organizational image (M = 3.9301, SD = 0.33313) than participants working for the profit organization (M = 3.3125, SD = 0.28289). Besides, this difference, 0.61765, 95% CI [0.47282, 0.76247] was significant t(70) = 8.506, p < 0.01.
Intrinsic motives, awareness of CSR activities and organizational image
A multiple regression analysis is performed to test the moderating effect of intrinsic motives on the direct relationship between the level of awareness of CSR activities and the organizational image (see Appendix II, table 2). The following variables were included in the analysis: the independent variables were level of awareness of CSR activities, the moderator intrinsic motives,
the interaction term of level of awareness and intrinsic motives and the dependent variable organizational image. A fairly large amount of the variance in organizational image is explained by the independent variables: 43.8% of the variance is explained (R² = 0.438). Although the total model turns out to be significant (F(3, 105) = 29.013, p < 0.01), not all independent variables have a significant contribution to this model. Even though the main effect of intrinsic motives is significant: b = 0.198, t = 4.024, p < 0.01, 95% CI [0.1, 0.295], the main effect of the level of awareness of CSR activities is not significant: b = 0.135, t = 2.561, p = 0.012, 95% CI [0.3, 0.239]. However, the interaction term of the level of awareness and intrinsic motives is significant: b = 0.086, t = 2.643, p < 0.01, 95% CI [0.022, 0.151].
Since the interaction term does have a significant contribution to the model, there is evidence of a moderation effect of intrinsic motives on the direct relationship between the level of awareness of CSR activities and the organizational image of employees. Figure 2 (see next page) shows that there is an interaction between the moderator intrinsic motives and the independent variable level of awareness of CSR activities and the dependent variable
organizational image, because the lines are not parallel. In other words, the variable intrinsic motives is a variable that affects the relationship between the independent variable level of awareness of CSR activities and the dependent variable organizational image (Field, 2013). When participants perceive a low amount of intrinsic motives, there is a small positive relationship between the level of awareness of CSR activities and the organizational image. However, when the scores on intrinsic motives are higher, there is a stronger positive relationship between the level of awareness of CSR activities and the organizational image.
on the variable of intrinsic motives. On average, participants working for the nonprofit
organization perceived more intrinsic motives of their organization (M = 3.8529, SD = 0.46919) than participants working for the profit organization (M = 2.3553, SE = 0.478). This difference was significant t(70) = 13.388, p < 0.01.
Thus, the hypothesis that the positive relationship between the level of awareness of CSR activities and the organizational image is stronger for employees who are more aware of intrinsic CSR motives of their organization has been supported.
Figure 2. Interaction graphic of the variables level of awareness of CSR activities, intrinsic motives and level of awareness of CSR activities and organizational image.
Extrinsic motives, awareness of CSR activities and organizational image
An independent t-test has been performed to analyze differences between participants working for the nonprofit organization and participants working for the profit organization on the variable extrinsic motives. On average, participants of the nonprofit organization perceived more
1.7763, S0D = 0.46057). This difference was significant t(70) = 18.186, p < 0.01.
The third hypothesis, about the moderating effect of extrinsic motives on the direct relationship between the level of awareness of CSR activities and the organizational image, was tested by means of a multiple regression analysis. In this analysis, the independent variables included the level of awareness of CSR activities, the moderator extrinsic motives, the
interaction term of level of awareness of CSR activities and extrinsic motives and the dependent variable was the organizational image (see Appendix II, table 3). 42% of the variance in the organizational image is explained by the independent variables, so a substantial proportion of the variance is explained (R² = 0.42). The total model is significant (F(3, 105) = 27.051, p < 0.01), however, not all independent variables have a significant contribution to this model. The main effect of perceived CSR activities is significant: b = 0.2, t = 4.66, p < 0.01, 95% CI [0.115, 0.285] and the main effect of extrinsic motives is also significant: b = 0.156, t = 4.364, p < 0.01, 95% CI [0.085, 0.227]. However, the interaction term of level of awareness and extrinsic
motives is not significant: b = 0.022, t = 0.042, p > 0.01, 95% CI [-0.072, 0.115]. Because the interaction term does not have a significant contribution to the model, there is no evidence for a moderating effect of extrinsic motives on the direct relationship between the level of awareness of CSR activities and the organizational image. Therefore, no support is found for the hypothesis that the positive relationship between the level of awareness of CSR activities and the
organizational image is weaker for employees who are more aware of extrinsic CSR motives of their organization.
Besides, this difference was significant t(70) = 18.186, p < 0.01.
Perceived CSR importance, awareness of CSR activities and organizational image
Firstly, an independent t-test has been performed to analyze the differences between participants working in the legal sector compared to participants in the mechanical industry on the variable perceived importance of CSR. On average, participants working in the legal sector perceive CSR as to be more important (M = 3.6838, SD = 0.34983) than participants working in the mechanical sector (M = 3.0461, SD = 63633). Also, this difference was significant t(58.708) = 5.342, p < 0.01.
Secondly, a multiple regression analysis was performed to test the moderation effect of the perceived CSR importance on the direct relationship between the level of awareness of CSR activities of employees and their organizational image (see Appendix II, table 4). In other words, the influence of the independent variables level of awareness of CSR activities, the moderator perceived CSR importance and the interaction term of level of awareness and perceived CSR importance on the dependent variable organizational image was measured. The independent variables have a substantial proportion explained variance on the dependent variable
organizational image: 39.6% of the variance in organizational image is explained by these
variables (R² = 0.396). The total model turned out to be significant (F(3, 105) = 24.63, p < 0.01), but not all independent variables have a significant contribution to the model.
The main effect of the level of awareness of CSR activities has a significant contribution to the model: b = 0.217, t = 5.896, p < 0.01, 95% CI [0.144, 0.291], however, the main effect of perceived CSR importance is not significant: b = 0.104, t = 2.793, p = 0.006, 95% CI [0.03, 0.178]. Though, the interaction term turns out to be significant: b = 0.101, t = 3.5, p < 0.01, 95%
CI [0.044, 0.159]. Because the interaction term is significant, further analysis is required to determine in which direction the moderator variable works.
Figure 3 (see next page) shows first of all that there is interaction, because the lines are not parallel. When the perceived CSR importance is low, there is a small positive relationship between the level of awareness of CSR activities and organizational image. However, when there is a high perceived CSR importance, there is a stronger positive relationship between the level of awareness of CSR activities and the organizational image.
Figure 3. Interaction graphic of the variables level of awareness of CSR activities, perceived CSR importance and organizational image.
The following model shows the relationships between the variables, the corresponding regression coefficients (for the moderators the regression coefficients of the interaction terms were used) and an indication whether the relationship was significant or not.
Figure 4. Conceptual model of the hypotheses and corresponding regression coefficients. * significant effect, ** significant moderation effect
Discussion and conclusion The role of extrinsic motives
The main effects of the level of awareness of CSR activities and extrinsic motives were both significant, however, the interaction term of level of awareness and extrinsic motives was not significant. This finding indicates that employees did not perceive predominantly extrinsic motives (Du, Bhattacharya and Sen, 2010), which did not lead to a less positive image of their organization.
extrinsic motives for employees of the nonprofit organization, which would suggest that employees perceive the CSR activities of their organization as a ‘business case of CSR’ (Story and Neves, 2015), this did not have a negative effect on their organizational image.
The role of intrinsic motives
Regarding intrinsic motives, this study found that intrinsic motives positively reinforce the relationship between the level of awareness of CSR activities and the organizational image of employees. Since employees are likely to positively react to actions that they consider to be fair (Rupp, Ganapathi, Aguilera and Williams, 2006), it is likely that intrinsic motives stimulates the organizational image. Employees of the nonprofit organization perceived higher levels of
intrinsic motives than employees of the profit organization, which may be explained because of being socially responsible is inherent to the existence of nonprofit organizations (Andreini et al., 2014).
The role of perceived importance of CSR
Overall, employees working for the nonprofit organization attached more value to practicing CSR than employees in the profit organization. Specifically, this study found that when
employees attach value to CSR, the relationship between the level of awareness of CSR activities and the organizational image of employees is strongly reinforced. This finding is supported by the research of Khandelwal and Mohendra (2010), who suggest that when employees evaluate their organization’s CSR activities as fair, the organizational image is enhanced.
Organizational image
Testing of the first hypothesis shows that there is support for the direct relationship between the level of awareness and employees’ organizational image. This finding could be explained as follows: practicing CSR and communicating CSR is positively associated with reinforcing
positive perceptions of stakeholders (Bhattacharya, Korschun and Sen, 2009) and by contributing to the organization's direct environment, employees create a positive organizational image (Lai et al., 2010; Raub and Blunschi, 2014).
Conclusion
The central question in this study was to what extent the awareness of CSR activities among employees, their perceived importance of CSR and the motives of their organization to practice CSR affected the organizational image of employees. Summarizing, the awareness of CSR activities has a direct influence on the organizational image, both intrinsic motives and perceiving CSR as important have a positive influence on the relationship between awareness and the organizational image whereas extrinsic motives do not have an influence on this relationship. In addition, employees in the nonprofit organization perceived significantly more intrinsic motives and significantly perceived CSR as more important compared to employees in the profit organization. In conclusion, whereas extrinsic motives do not affect the organizational image, both intrinsic motives and perceiving CSR as being important have a positive
contribution to the organizational image of employees.
This study contributes to the literature in several ways. Firstly, the findings of this study regarding extrinsic motives do not match most of the findings in the literature, which raises the question whether the associated negative effects of extrinsic motives among stakeholders should
be placed in perspective. Secondly, research about CSR mainly focused on external stakeholders and internal stakeholders such as employees were less studied (Shin, Hur and Kang, 2016; Choi, Myung and Kim, 2018). In addition, research regarding CSR motives is mainly focused on external stakeholder, such as customers (Du, Bhattacharya and Sen, 2010; Story and Neves, 2015). This study suggests that extrinsic motives work differently for internal stakeholders, such as employees.
Besides contributing to the literature, this study is also relevant for organizations. Since the findings of this study suggest that intrinsic motives have a positive influence on the
organizational image of employees, organizations may want to send out cues of intrinsic motives to stimulate the organizational image of their employees.
Fourthly, employers that value CSR and are looking for possible benefits of practicing CSR, could recruit future employees on the basis of how important they perceive CSR to be. Besides, organizations could train or educate their current employees to stimulate their perceived importance of CSR by providing courses about CSR.
Limitations and future research
A couple of limitations of this research could be of influence on the results of this study. Firstly, the survey was send out to employees of two organizations, but resulted in a relatively large proportion of ‘other’ responses regarding their current occupation: 33.9% of the
participants used this option. Possible explanations could be that participants forwarded the survey to others outside their organization, or that the answer categories regarding the current
Because of this relatively large proportion of ‘other’ responses, the responses in the two main categories were relatively small: 34 participants working for a nonprofit organization and 38 participants working for a profit organization. Although these groups were relatively small, both groups consisted of more than 30 participants, which is a sufficient amount for performing statistical analyses (Field, 2013). Because employees of only two different organizations
participated in this study, generalizing the findings of this study to for example other nonprofit organizations and profit organizations needs to be approached cautiously.
It is not surprising that the level of awareness of CSR activities is positively associated with organizational image. It seems evident that when for instance employees are not aware of the CSR activities of their organization, they are not able to evaluate these activities in the first place. For future research, it would be interesting to study CSR among employees in relation to the extent to which they support their organization, but also trust their organization. Both support and trust are important subjects for organizations, since employees could be of importance for implementing CSR activities (Collier and Esteban, 2007).
Secondly, more research to employees and extrinsic motives is needed, since the findings of this study regarding extrinsic motives do not match with a substantial part of the literature. It would be interesting to study for example different sector in depth, to study if and maybe why employees in various sectors perceive motives by their organization differently.
Thirdly, future research should take into account the position that employees have within their organization and evaluate their personal values in depth. For instance, CEO’s have a prominent role regarding CSR decisions (Fabrizi, Mallin and Michelon, 2014), but also managers can influence CSR activities of their organization, which may be driven by personal values (Hemingway and Maclagan, 2004). It is therefore interesting to study potential differences
in for instance the organizational image, differing for management and non-management positions.
Although this study had its limitations, this study contributed to academic literature about CSR in three ways. Firstly, it studied the internal stakeholder group of employees, which has been a less studied stakeholder group regarding CSR (Shin, Hur and Kang, 2016; Choi, Myung and Kim, 2018) and secondly, CSR motives were mainly studied among customers so far (Du, Bhattacharya and Sen, 2010; Story and Neves, 2015). Lastly, it studied CSR in a nonprofit context, which has been paid little attention to (Andreini, Pedeliento and Signori, 2014; Lin-Hi, Hörisch and Blumberg, 2015).
References
Andreini, D., Pedeliento, G., & Signori, S. (2014). CSR and service quality in nonprofit organizations: the case of a performing arts association. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 19(2), 127-142. DOI: 10.1002/nvsm.1488 Bennett, R., & Gabriel, H. (2003). Image and reputational characteristics of UK charitable
organizations: An empirical study. Corporate Reputation Review, 6(3), 276–289. DOI: 10.1057/palgrave.crr.1540206
Bhattacharya, C. B., Korschun, D., & Sen, S. (2009). Strengthening stakeholder–company relationships through mutually beneficial corporate social responsibility initiatives. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(2), 257-272. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-008-9730-3 Bouckaert, L., & Vandenhove, J. (1998). Business ethics and the management of non-profit
institutions. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(9-10), 1073-1081.
Carroll, A. B. (2015). Corporate social responsibility: The centerpiece of competing and complementary frameworks. Organizational Dynamics, 44(2), 87-96. DOI: 10.1016/j.orgdyn.2015.02.002
Carroll, A.B. (2016). Carroll’s pyramid of CSR: taking another look. International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility, 1(1), 3. DOI: 10.1186/s40991-016-0004-6
Choi, Y. H., Myung, J. K., & Kim, J. D. (2018). The effect of employees’ perceptions of CSR activities on employee deviance: The mediating role of anomie. Sustainability, 10(3), 601. DOI: 10.3390/su10030601
Collier, J., & Esteban, R. (2007). Corporate social responsibility and employee commitment. Business Ethics: A European Review, 16, 19–33. DOI:
Du, S., Bhattacharya, C.B., & Sen, S. (2007). Reaping relational rewards from corporate social responsibility: The role of competitive positioning. International Journal of Research in Marketing 24, 224-241. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijresmar.2007.01.001
Du, S., Bhattacharya, C.B., & Sen, S. (2010). Maximizing business returns to corporate social responsibility (CSR): The role of CSR communication. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), 8-19.DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00276.x
Factor, R., Oliver, A.L., & Montgomery, K. (2013). Beliefs about social responsibility at work: comparison between managers and non‐managers over time and cross‐nationally. Business Ethics: A European Review, 22(2), 143–158. DOI: 10.1111/beer.12015
Fabrizi, M., Mallin, C., & Michelon, G. (2014). The role of CEO’s personal incentives in driving corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 124(2), 311-326. DOI:
10.1007/s10551-013-1864-2
Falkenberg, J., & Brunsæl, P. (2011). Corporate social responsibility: a strategic advantage or a strategic necessity? Journal of Business Ethics, 99(1), 9-16. DOI:
10.1007/s10551-011-1161-x
Farooq, O., Rupp, D., & Farooq, M. (2017). The multiple pathways through which internal and external corporate social responsibility influence organizational identification and multifoci outcomes: The moderating role of cultural and social orientations. Academy of Management Journal, 60(3), 954-985. DOI: 10.5465/amj.2014.0849.
Fein, S. (1996). Effects of suspicion on attributional thinking and the correspondence bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(6), 1164.
Organizations, 9(2), 137-151.
Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (4th edition). London, United Kingdom: Sage Publications Ltd.
Gazzola, P., Ratti, M., & Amelio, S. (2017). CSR and sustainability report for nonprofit organizations. An Italian best practice. Management Dynamics in the Knowledge Economy, 5(3), 355-376. DOI: 10.25019/MDKE/5.3.03
Graafland, J., & Van de Ven, B. (2006). Strategic and moral motivation for corporate social responsibility. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 22, 111-123. DOI:
10.9774/GLEAF.4700.2006.su.00012
Gomez, L.M., and Chalmeta, R. (2011). Corporate responsibility in US corporate websites: A pilot study. Public Relations Review, 37(1), 93-95. DOI: 10.1016/j.pubrev.2010.12.005 Groza, M. D., Pronschinske, M. R., & Walker, M. (2011). Perceived organizational motives and
consumer responses to proactive and reactive CSR. Journal of Business Ethics, 102, 639-652. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-011-0834-9
Hemingway, C. A., & Maclagan, P. W. (2004). Managers' personal values as drivers of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 50(1), 33-44. DOI:
10.1023/B:BUSI.0000020964.80208.c9
Im, S., Chung, Y. W., & Yang, J. Y. (2016). Employees’ participation in corporate social responsibility and organizational outcomes: The moderating role of person–CSR fit. Sustainability, 9(1), 28. DOI: 10.3390/su9010028
Jo, S. (2011). Factors shaping activists’ perceptions of corporate organizations: An empirical case from South Korea. Public Relations Review, 37(2), 178-180. DOI:
Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. The Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 1–22.
Khandelwal, K. A., & Mohendra, N. (2010). Espoused organizational values, vision, and
corporate social responsibility: does it matter to organizational members? Vikalpa, 35(3), 19-36. DOI: 10.1177/0256090920100302
Kim, H. R., Lee, M., Lee, H. T., & Kim, N. M. (2010). Corporate social responsibility and employee–company identification. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(4), 557-569. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-010-0440-2
Korschun, D., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2009). Using corporate social responsibility to strengthen employee and customer relationships. Asia-Pacific Advances in Customer Research, 8, 64-66.
Lai, C. S., Chiù, C. J., Yang. C. F.. & Pai. D. C. (2010). The effects of corporate social
responsibility on brand performance: The mediating effect of industrial brand equity and corporate reputation. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(3), 457-469.
DOI:10.1007/s10551-010-0433-1
Lee, E. M., Park, S. Y., & Lee, H. J. (2013). Employee perception of CSR activities: Its
antecedents and consequences. Journal of Business Research, 66(10), 1716-1724. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.11.008
Lin-Hi, N., Hörisch, J., & Blumberg, I. (2015). Does CSR matter for nonprofit organizations? Testing the link between CSR performance and trustworthiness in the nonprofit versus for-profit domain. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit
comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 404-424. DOI: 10.2307/20159405
McShane, L., & Cunningham, P. (2012). To thine own self be true? Employees’
judgments of the authenticity of their organization’s corporate social responsibility program. Journal of Business Ethics, 108(1), 81-100. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-011-1064-x Michaelidou, N., Micevski, M., & Cadogan, J. W. (2015). An evaluation of nonprofit brand
image: Towards a better conceptualization and measurement. Journal of Business Research, 68(8), 1657-1666. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.03.024
Peterson, D. K. (2004). The relationship between perceptions of corporate citizenship and organizational commitment. Business & Society, 43(3), 296-319. DOI:
10.1177/0007650304268065
Raub, S., & Blunschi, S. (2014). The power of meaningful work: How awareness of CSR initiatives fosters task significance and positive work outcomes in service employees. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 55(1), 10-18. DOI: 10.1177/1938965513498300 Rodrigo, P., & 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. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-007-9618-7
Rupp, D. E., Ganapathi, J., Aguilera, R. V., & Williams, C. A. (2006). Employee reactions to corporate social responsibility: An organizational justice framework. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(4), 537-543. DOI: 10.1002/job.380
Schultz, F., Castelló, I., & Morsing, M. (2013). The construction of corporate social
responsibility in network societies: a communication view. Journal of Business Ethics, 115, 681-692. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-013-1826-8
Seele, P., & Gatti, L. (2017). Greenwashing revisited: In search of a typology and
accusation‐based definition incorporating legitimacy strategies. Business Strategy and the Environment, 26(2), 239-252. DOI: 10.1002/bse.1912
Sen, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Korschun, D. (2006). The role of corporate social responsibility in strengthening multiple stakeholder relationships: A field experiment. Journal of the Academy of Marketing science, 34(2), 158-166. DOI: 10.1177/0092070305284978 Shin, I., Hur, W. M., & Kang, S. (2016). Employees’ perceptions of corporate social
responsibility and job performance: A sequential mediation model. Sustainability, 8(5), 493. DOI: 10.3390/su8050493
Singhapakdi, A., Vitell, S. J., Rallapalli, K. C., & Kraft, K. L. (1996). The perceived role of ethics and social responsibility: A scale development. Journal of Business Ethics, 15(11), 1131-1140. DOI: 10.1007/BF00412812
Story, J., & 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. DOI: 10.1111/beer.12084
Turker, D. (2009). How corporate social responsibility influences organizational commitment. Journal of Business Ethics, 89(2), 189. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-008-9993-8
Valentine, S., & Fleischman, G. (2008). Ethics programs, perceived corporate social responsibility and job satisfaction. Journal of Business Ethics, 77, 159-172. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-006-9306-z
Employee CSR-induced attributions, job satisfaction, and the role of charismatic leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 118(3), 577-588. DOI:
10.1007/s10551-012-1590-1
Wood, D. J. (1991). Corporate Social Performance revisited. Academy of Management Review 16(4), 691–718.
Appendix I: scales and survey items Amount of items Variable References 4 Perceived importance of CSR
Singhapakdi, Vitell, Rallapalli and Kraft (1996)
4 Level of awareness of CSR activities
Valentine and Fleischman (2008); Shin, Hur and Kang (2016)
5 CSR motives Du, Bhattacharya and Sen (2007); Groza, Pronschinscke and Walker (2011)
8 Organizational image Michaelidou, Micevski and Cadogan (2015)
Survey
1. Demographic details 1. What is your gender?
2. Which age group corresponds to your age? 3. What is your highest level of education?
2. Variable ‘perceived importance of CSR’
“The following statements are about how you feel about corporate social responsibility. To what extent do you agree with the following statements?”
(1) strongly disagree - (5) strongly agree
1. Being ethical and socially responsible is the most important thing an organization can do. 2. Organizational planning and goal setting sessions should include discussions of social responsibility.
3. The social responsibility of an organization is essential for its long-term survival. 4. Organizations have a social responsibility beyond making a profit.
3. Variable ‘level of awareness of CSR activities’
“The following statements are about Corporate Social Responsibility activities from the organization that you work for. To what extent do you agree with the following statements?”
(1) strongly disagree - (5) strongly agree
1. I work for a socially responsible organization that services the greater community. 2. My organization gives time, money, and other resources to socially responsible causes. 3. My organization is concerned with improving the well-being of society.
4. Variable ‘CSR motives’
“The following statements are about the motivations for the organization that you work for to engage in Corporate Social Responsibility activities. To what extent do you agree with the following statements?”
(1) strongly disagree - (5) strongly agree
1. The organization that I work for is genuinely concerned about being socially responsible. 2. The organization that I work for has a long-term interest in society.
3. The organization that I work for tries to give something back to the community. 4. My organization feels competitive pressure to engage in socially responsible activities.
5. The organization that I work for hopes to increase its profits by supporting socially responsible initiatives.
5. Variable ‘organizational image’
Lastly, the following statements are about your image of the organization that you work for. To what extent do you agree with the following statements?
(1) strongly disagree - (5) strongly agree
4. I work for an organization that is reputable. 5. I work for an organization that is sincere. 6. I work for an organization that is ethical. 7. I work for an organization that is moral. 8. I work for an organization that is righteous.
Appendix II: results regression analyses
Table 1. Results of a simple linear regression analysis with level of awareness of CSR activities as independent variable and organizational image as dependent variable.
Simple linear regression analysis with level of awareness as independent variable and organizational image as
dependent variable Constant Level of awareness b SE B t p 2.575 0.324 0.152 16.983 p = 0.000 0.046 7.047 p = 0.000
Table 2. Results of a multiple linear regression analysis with level of awareness and intrinsic motives as independent variables and organizational image as dependent variable.
Multiple linear regression analysis with level of awareness and intrinsic motives as independent variables
and organizational image as dependent variable
Constant
Level of awareness Intrinsic motives
Interaction term level of
awareness and intrinsic motives
b SE B t p 3.55 0.135 0.198 0.086 0.04 88.921 p = 0.000 0.053 2.561 p = 0.012 0.049 4.024 p = 0.000 0.033 2.643 p = 0.009
Table 3. Results of a multiple linear regression analysis with level of awareness and extrinsic motives as independent variables and organizational image as dependent variable.
Multiple linear regression analysis with level of awareness and extrinsic motives as independent variables and organizational image as dependent variable
Constant
Level of awareness Extrinsic motives Interaction term level of awareness and extrinsic motives b SE B t p 3.607 0.2 0.156 0.022 0.036 99.908 p = 0.000 0.043 4.66 p = 0.000 0.036 4.364 p = 0.000 0.047 0.457 p = 0.649
Table 4. Results of a multiple linear regression analysis with level of awareness and perceived CSR importance as independent variables and organizational image as dependent variable.
Multiple linear regression analysis with level of awareness and perceived CSR importance as independent variables and organizational image as
dependent variable
Constant
Level of awareness
Perceived CSR importance Interaction term level of awareness and perceived CSR importance b SE B t p 3.569 0.217 0.104 0.101 0.035 101.646 p = 0.000 0.037 5.896 p = 0.000 0.037 2.793 p = 0.006 0.029 3.5 p = 0.001
Appendix III: group statistics
Table 5. Distributions on the variables level of awareness, perceived CSR importance, intrinsic motives, extrinsic motives and organizational image by the nonprofit organization.
Distributions on the variables level of awareness, perceived CSR importance, intrinsic motives, extrinsic
motives and organizational image by the nonprofit organization (N = 34) Level of awareness Intrinsic motives Extrinsic motives Perceived CSR importance Organizational image M SD SE 3.5392 3.8529 4.0441 3.6838 3.9301 0.33849 0.05805 0.46919 0.08047 0.59503 0.10205 0.34983 0.06 0.33313 0.05713
Table 6. Distributions on the variables level of awareness, perceived CSR importance, intrinsic motives, extrinsic motives and organizational image by the profit organization.
Distributions on the variables level of awareness, perceived CSR importance, intrinsic motives, extrinsic
motives and organizational image by the profit organization (N = 38) Level of awareness Intrinsic motives Extrinsic motives Perceived CSR importance Organizational image M SD SE 2.4474 2.3553 1.7763 3.0461 3.3125 0.65428 0.05805 0.478 0.07754 0.46057 0.07471 0.63633 0.10323 0.33313 0.04589
