2004
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Gedrag & Organisatie
  4. Volume 38, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 38, Issue 1
  • ISSN: 0921-5077
  • E-ISSN: 1875-7235

Abstract

Samenvatting

In de literatuur worden verschillende dimensies van maatschappelijk verantwoord ondernemen (MVO) genoemd, die zowel intern als extern gericht kunnen zijn, afhankelijk van de beoogde belanghebbende. Desondanks is er nog beperkt onderzoek gedaan naar de specifieke relaties tussen deze dimensies en de houding en het gedrag van werknemers, en de onderliggende mechanismen die hierbij betrokken zijn. Bestaande empirische studies hebben MVO voornamelijk als een holistisch concept onderzocht. Deze studie sluit aan bij onderzoek dat de relaties tussen diverse dimensies van MVO en de houding en het gedrag van werknemers onderzoekt. Hierbij wordt erkend dat er sprake is van diverse relaties tussen verschillende MVO-dimensies en de houding en het gedrag van werknemers. In het bijzonder werd onderzocht hoe verschillende dimensies van MVO (werknemersgericht MVO, gemeenschapsgericht MVO en milieugericht MVO) gerelateerd zijn aan de verloopintentie van werknemers. Op basis van de zelfdeterminatietheorie werd een negatieve relatie verwacht tussen de verschillende dimensies van MVO en de verloopintentie van werknemers, waarbij eigenwaarde in de job en sociaal-impact-potentieel een mediërende rol zouden spelen. De resultaten van dit onderzoek, op basis van data verzameld bij 483 werknemers van Vlaamse winkelketens, bevestigden ons conceptuele model. Dit onderzoek heeft zowel theoretische als praktische implicaties.

© Marie Servaes, Saskia Crucke & Tom Kluijtmans
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/GO2025.1.004.SERV
2025-03-01
2025-04-02
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aggarwal, P., & Singh, R. K. (2022). Synthesizing the affinity between employees’ internal-external CSR perceptions and work outcomes: A meta-analytic investigation. Business Ethics, the Environment & Responsibility, 31(4), 1053-1101. https://doi.org//10.1111/beer.12451
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Babalola, M. T., Stouten, J., & Euwema, M. (2016). Frequent change and turnover intention: The moderating role of ethical leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 134, 311-322. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2433-z
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Bhattacharya, C. B., Sen, S., & Korschun, D. (2008). Using corporate social responsibility to win the war for talent. MIT Sloan Management Review, 49(2), 37-44.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Bliese, P., & Bliese, M. P. (2016). Package ‘multilevel’. R version, 2.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Brammer, S. J., & Pavelin, S. (2006). Corporate reputation and social performance: The importance of fit. Journal of Management Studies, 43(3), 435-455. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00597.x
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Chang, W. J. A., Wang, Y. S., & Huang, T. C. (2013). Work design-related antecedents of turnover intention: A multilevel approach. Human Resource Management, 52(1), 1-26. https://doi.org//10.1002/hrm.21515
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Chaudhary, R. (2017). CSR and turnover intentions: Examining the underlying psychological mechanisms. Social Responsibility Journal, 13(3), 643-660. https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-10-2016-0184
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Dang, V. T., Nguyen, N., & Wang, J. (2020). Consumers’ perceptions and responses towards online retailers’ CSR. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 48(12), 1277-1299. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJRDM-10-2019-0339
     [Google Scholar]
  9. De Roeck, K., El Akremi, A., & Swaen, V. (2016). Consistency matters! How and when does corporate social responsibility affect employees’ organizational identification?Journal of Management Studies, 53(7), 1141-1168. https://doi.org//10.1111/joms.12216
     [Google Scholar]
  10. De Roeck, K., & Farooq, O. (2018). Corporate social responsibility and ethical leadership: Investigating their interactive effect on employees’ socially responsible behaviors. Journal of Business Ethics, 151(4), 923-939. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3656-6
     [Google Scholar]
  11. De Roeck, K., & Maon, F. (2018). Building the theoretical puzzle of employees’ reactions to corporate social responsibility: An integrative conceptual framework and research agenda. Journal of Business Ethics, 149(3), 609-625. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3081-2
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). The general causality orientations scale: Self-determination in personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 19(2), 109-134.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. El Akremi, A., Gond, J. P., Swaen, V., De Roeck, K., & Igalens, J. (2018). How do employees perceive corporate responsibility? Development and validation of a multidimensional corporate stakeholder responsibility scale. Journal of Management, 44(2), 619-657. https://doi.org//10.1177/0149206315569311
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Elg, U., & Hultman, J. (2016). CSR: retailer activities vs consumer buying decisions. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 44(6), 640-657. https://doi.org//10.1108/IJRDM-10-2015-0155
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Farooq, O., Rupp, D. E., & 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. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2014.0849
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Fatima, T., & Elbanna, S. (2023). Corporate social responsibility (CSR) implementation: A review and a research agenda towards an integrative framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 183(1), 105-121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05047-8
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Favero, N., & Bullock, J. B. (2015). How (not) to solve the problem: An evaluation of scholarly responses to common source bias. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(1), 285-308. https://doi.org//10.1093/jopart/muu020
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (and sex and drugs and rock’n’roll) (3rded.). Sage Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Sage Publications. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151335
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Golob, U., & Podnar, K. (2021). Corporate marketing and the role of internal CSR in employees’ life satisfaction: Exploring the relationship between work and non-work domains. Journal of Business Research, 131, 664-672. https://doi.org//10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.01.048
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Gond, J. P., El Akremi, A., Swaen, V., & Babu, N. (2017). The psychological microfoundations of corporate social responsibility: A person-centric systematic review. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(2), 225-246. https://doi.org//10.1002/job.2170
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Hair, J., Black, W., & Babin, B. (2010). Multivariate Data Analysis (7th Ed). Prentice Hall.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Hair, J. F., Black, W., Babin, B., & Anderson, R. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Prentice Hall.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Hameed, I., Riaz, Z., Arain, G. A., & Farooq, O. (2016). How do internal and external CSR affect employees’ organizational identification? A perspective from the group engagement model. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 788. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00788
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Haski-Leventhal, D., Roza, L., & Brammer, S. (2020). Employee engagement in corporate social responsibility. Sage Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Khatri, N., Fern, C. T., & Budhwar, P. (2001). Explaining employee turnover in an Asian context. Human Resource Management Journal, 11(1), 54-74. https://doi.org//10.1111/j.1748-8583.2001.tb00032.x
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Kim, J. S., Song, H. J., & Lee, C.-K. (2016). Effects of corporate social responsibility and internal marketing on organizational commitment and turnover intentions. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 55, 25-32. https://doi.org//10.1016/j.ijhm.2016.02.007
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Kuvaas, B. (2006). Performance appraisal satisfaction and employee outcomes: Mediating and moderating roles of work motivation. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17(3), 504-522. https://doi.org//10.1080/09585190500521581
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Lee, S. H., & Ha-Brookshire, J. (2018). The effect of ethical climate and employees’ organizational citizenship behavior on US fashion retail organizations’ sustainability performance. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 25(5), 939-947. https://doi.org//10.1002/csr.1510
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Martela, F., & Ryan, R. M. (2016). The benefits of benevolence: Basic psychological needs, beneficence, and the enhancement of well-being. Journal of Personality, 84(6), 750-764. https://doi.org//10.1111/jopy.12215
     [Google Scholar]
  31. McCann, J., & Holt, R. (2009). Ethical leadership and organizations: An analysis of leadership in the manufacturing industry based on the perceived leadership integrity scale. Journalof Business Ethics, 87, 211-220. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9880-3
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Morgeson, F. P., Aguinis, H., Waldman, D. A., & Siegel, D. S. (2013). Extending corporate social responsibility research to the human resource management and organizational behavior domains: A look to the future. Personnel Psychology, 66(4), 805-824. https://doi.org//10.1111/peps.12055
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Muthen, B. O., & Satorra, A. (1995). Complex sample data in structural equation modeling. Sociological Methodology, 267-316.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Nazir, O., Islam, J. U., & Rahman, Z. (2021). Effect of CSR participation on employee sense of purpose and experienced meaningfulness: A self-determination theory perspective. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 46, 123-133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2020.12.002
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Oberski, D. (2014). lavaan. survey: An R package for complex survey analysis of structural equation models. Journal of Statistical Software, 57, 1-27. https://doi.org//10.18637/jss.v057.i01
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Oldham, G. R., Hackman, J. R., & Pearce, J. L. (1976). Conditions under which employees respond positively to enriched work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61(4), 395-403.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Perez-Batres, L. A., Doh, J. P., Miller, V. V., & Pisani, M. J. (2012). Stakeholder pressures as determinants of CSR strategic choice: Why do firms choose symbolic versus substantive self-regulatory codes of conduct?Journal of Business Ethics, 110, 157-172. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1419-y
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Pierce, J. L., & Gardner, D. G. (2004). Self-esteem within the work and organizational context: A review of the organization-based self-esteem literature. Journal of Management, 30(5), 591-622. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jm.2003.10.001
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Pierce, J. L., Gardner, D. G., Cummings, L. L., & Dunham, R. B. (1989). Organizationbased self-esteem: Construct definition, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 32(3), 622-648.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Podsakoff, N. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 885(5), 879-903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63(1), 539-569. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Rosseel, Y. (2012). Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48, 1-36.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Rupp, D. E., & Mallory, D. B. (2015). Corporate social responsibility: Psychological, personcentric, and progressing. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2(1), 211-236. https://doi.org//10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032414-111505
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Rupp, D. E., Shao, R., Skarlicki, D. P., Paddock, E. L., Kim, T. Y., & Nadisic, T. (2018). Corporate social responsibility and employee engagement: The moderating role of CSR-specific relative autonomy and individualism. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(5), 559-579. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2282
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Rupp, D. E., Shao, R., Thornton, M. A., & Skarlicki, D. P. (2013). Applicants’ and employees’ reactions to corporate social responsibility: The moderating effects of first-party justice perceptions and moral identity. Personnel Psychology, 66(4), 895-933. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032414-111505
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. The Guilford Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Serrano Archimi, C., Reynaud, E., Yasin, H. M., & Bhatti, Z. A. (2018). How perceived corporate social responsibility affects employee cynicism: The mediating role of organizational trust. Journal of Business Ethics, 151, 907-921. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3882-6
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Shen, J., & Benson, J. (2016). When CSR is a social norm: How socially responsible human resource management affects employee work behavior. Journal of Management, 42(6), 1723-1746. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314522300
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Skinner, C. J., Holt, D., & Smith, T. F. (1989). Analysis of complex surveys. John Wiley & Sons.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Stapleton, L. M., McNeish, D. M., & Yang, J. S. (2016). Multilevel and single-level models for measured and latent variables when data are clustered. Educational Psychologist, 51(3-4), 317-330. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.1207178
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Van den Broeck, A., Vansteenkiste, M., De Witte, H., Lens, W., & Andriessen, M. (2009). De Zelf-Determinatie Theorie: Kwalitatief goed motiveren op de werkvloer. Gedrag & Organisatie, 22(4), 316-335. https://doi.org//10.5117/2009.022.004.002
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Van Loon, N., Kjeldsen, A. M., Andersen, L. B., Vandenabeele, W., & Leisink, P. (2018). Only when the societal impact potential is high? A panel study of the relationship between public service motivation and perceived performance. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 38(2), 139-166. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X16639111
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Van Loon, N., Vandenabeele, W., & Leisink, P. (2015). On the bright and dark side of public service motivation: The relationship between PSM and employee wellbeing. Public Money and Management, 35(5), 349-356. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2015.1061171
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Verissimo, J. M. C., & Lacerda, T. M. C. (2015). Does integrity matter for CSR practice in organizations? The mediating role of transformational leadership. Business Ethics: A European Review, 24(1), 34-51. https://doi.org/10.1111/beer.12065
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Virador, L. B., & Chen, L. F. (2023). Does an (in) congruent corporate social responsibility strategy affect employees’ turnover intention? A configurational analysis in an emerging country. Business Ethics, the Environment & Responsibility, 32(1), 57-73. https://doi.org/10.1111/beer.12475
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Xie, J., & Jain, T. (2024). Unpacking micro-CSR through a computational literature review: An identity heterogeneity view of internal stakeholders. Journal of Business Research, 172, 114451. https://doi.org//10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.114451
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Zhao, X., Wu, C., Chen, C. C., & Zhou, Z. (2022). The influence of corporate social responsibility on incumbent employees: A meta-analytic investigation of the mediating and moderating mechanisms. Journal of Management, 48(1), 114-146. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206320946108
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.5117/GO2025.1.004.SERV
Loading
Het belang van maatschappelijk verantwoord ondernemen voor de verloopintentie van werknemers
G&O 38, 74 (2025); https://doi.org/10.5117/GO2025.1.004.SERV
/content/journals/10.5117/GO2025.1.004.SERV
/content/journals/10.5117/GO2025.1.004.SERV
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Keyword(s): corporate social responsibility; self-determination theory; self-esteem in the job; social impact potential; turnover intention

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error