Management Review Quarterly

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-023-00389-7

CSR and employee outcomes: a systematic literature review

Yasser Yassin1 · Markus Beckmann1

Received: 26 January 2023 / Accepted: 28 November 2023

© The Author(s) 2024

Abstract
The purpose of this research is to consolidate and extend the current literature on
employee outcomes of CSR (referred to as micro-level outcomes). The authors use a
systematic review of the literature as a method to summarize and synthesise the dif-
ferent effects of CSR activities on employees based on 270 journal articles. The con-
tribution of this paper is that it provides a comprehensive list of employee outcomes
classified into different categories and a conceptual framework that maps desirable
and undesirable outcomes of CSR activities on employees. The results show that
various dimensions of CSR have different effects on employee outcomes. In addi-
tion, we explain mediators of CSR-employee outcomes relationships and moderators
that could strengthen or weaken this relationship. The review reveals important gaps
and offers a research agenda for the future. We have found only a few studies dealing
with the negative impacts of CSR on employees as well as only a few studies that
explain how different dimensions of CSR affect employees differently. The study
has also practical implications for companies, as understanding different effects of
CSR on employees helps organizations to design and implement CSR strategies and
policies that foster employees’ positive attitudes and behaviours as well as prevent
or reduce the negative effects, and hence create a business value and sustainable
growth for the company.

Keywords Corporate social responsibility · Micro-level · Employee outcomes ·

Employee attitudes · Employee behaviours · Employee well-being · Systematic
review

‫لملخص‬:
.‫يهدف هذا البحث إلى تجميع وتوسيع االدبيات الحالية حول أثر المسؤولية االجتماعية للشركات على الموظفين‬
‫وقد استخدم الباحثون أسلوب المراجعة المنهجية للدراسات السابقة كوسيلة لتلخيص و تجميع التأثيرات المختلفة‬
‫ وتتمثل مساهمة هذا البحث‬.ً ‫ مقاالً علميا‬270 ‫ألنشطة المسؤولية االجتماعية للشركات على الموظفين بناء على‬
‫في توفير قائمة شاملة للتأثيرات على مستوى الموظفين المصنفة في فئات (أقسام) مختلفة وإطار مفاهيمي يرسم‬

* Yasser Yassin
[email protected]
1
Friedrich‑Alexander‑Universität Erlangen‑Nürnberg, Chair of Corporate Sustainability
Management, Nuremberg, Germany

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 Y. Yassin, M. Beckmann

‫ وقد أظهرت النتائج‬.‫النتائج المرغوبة وغير المرغوبة ألنشطة المسؤولية االجتماعية للشركات على الموظفين‬
‫ كما تناولت الدراسة‬.‫أن االبعاد المختلفة للمسؤولية االجتماعية للشركات لها تأثيرات مختلفة على الموظفين‬
‫المتغيرات الوسيطة والمعدلة التي تؤثر على العالقة بين المسؤولية االجتماعية للشركات من جهة و مواقف و‬
‫ وقد أسفرت الدراسة عن وجود فجوات مهمة وقدمت أجندة بحثية للدراسات‬.‫سلوكيات الموظفين من جهة أخرى‬
‫ فلقد وجدنا عدد قليل من الدراسات التي تتناول االثار السلبية للمسؤولية االجتماعية للشركات على‬، ‫المستقبلية‬
‫ وكذلك عدد قليل من الدراسات التي توضح كيف تؤثر االبعاد المختلفة للمسؤولية االجتماعية‬، ‫الموظفين‬
‫ حيث أن فهم‬،‫ وتتضمن الدراسة أيضا التطبيقات العملية للشركات‬.‫للشركات على الموظفين بشكل مختلف‬
‫التأثيرات المختلفة للمسؤولية االجتماعية للشركات على الموظفين يساعد المنظمات على تصميم وتنفيذ‬
‫إستراتيجيات و سياسات المسؤولية االجتماعية التي تعزز المواقف والسلوكيات االيجابية للموظفين وكذلك منع‬
‫ وبالتالي خلق قيمة مضافة وتحقيق نمو مستدام للشركة‬،‫أو تقليل المواقف والسلوكيات السلبية‬.

1 Introduction

Although there is an extensive discussion in the literature about the impact of

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), most of these studies are interested in
its impact at the organizational level. Few studies analyse its effect on individu-
als and, in particular, on employees. Only in the last decade, since 2010, some
researchers began to focus on studying the relationship between CSR and employ-
ees of a company (e.g., Glavas 2016; Lee and Chen 2018; John et al. 2017; Du
et al. 2015). A strong link was found between CSR and employees for two rea-
sons: On the one hand, employees are one of the most important stakeholders
that the organization should be responsible for (Farooq et al. 2014a, b; Siltaoja
et al. 2015). They are affected by a company’s policies and activities including
CSR, whether internal or external CSR, and form different perceptions about
these activities. On the other hand, employees are seen as a driver that is rel-
evant for the business benefit of CSR (Gao and He 2017; De Roeck and Farooq
2018). Employees react, according to their perceptions about CSR, through dif-
ferent attitudes and behaviours such as participating in, and even leading CSR
programs, work satisfaction, organizational commitment, and in-role and extra-
role performance which, in turn, affect the economic performance of the company
(Gao et al. 2018). So, companies should consider that employees have different
views, needs, expectations, and motivations when designing and implementing
CSR programs to improve the well-being of employees and achieve a competitive
advantage (De Roeck and Maon 2018; Evans and Davis 2014; Park et al. 2018).
Most of the studies linking CSR to employee outcomes, which include
employee attitudes and behaviours that could result from CSR actions and poli-
cies, investigate isolated outcomes such as employee satisfaction, organizational
citizenship behaviour, or organizational commitment. In addition, they focus
mainly on the desirable outcomes of CSR on employees and not potentially the
undesirable ones. What is missing is a comprehensive picture that maps the full
spectrum of employee outcomes, whether desirable (i.e., being good for employ-
ees and/or the organization/society) or undesirable (i.e., being detrimental for
employees and/or the organization/society). Moreover, simply asking if CSR
creates certain employee outcomes underestimated the role of contextual factors
such as individual differences (e.g., collectivism, empathy, demographic factors)

13
CSR and employee outcomes: a systematic literature review

and organizational factors (e.g., organizational support, overall justice, ethical

leadership, etc.). In fact, whether CSR has desirable or undesirable outcomes crit-
ically depends on the conditions under which it unfolds.
While scholars have investigated many of these influencing factors, there is,
so far, no comprehensive overview of mediators and moderators that explain and
could affect positively or negatively the relationship CSR can have on employ-
ees. Thus, advancing our understanding of employee outcomes of CSR can help
companies to design and implement CSR strategies and programs that consider
employee needs and expectations, which, in turn, foster supportive employee atti-
tudes and behaviours that increase business returns.
To address this research gap, we conduct a systematic literature review (SLR)
of 270 papers to give a full overview and to develop a conceptual framework of the
relationship between CSR and employees, including current employees, job seekers
and prospective employees. We systematically review articles that include not only
the positive impacts of CSR on employees, but also the negative ones or the so-
called “dark side of CSR” by Maon et al. (2019). In addition, some researchers dif-
ferentiate between different dimensions of CSR, such as internal and external CSR,
or Carroll’s four dimensions of economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary CSR.
Hence, we specifically clarify the different effects of various dimensions of CSR
on employees. Furthermore, we incorporate the mechanisms (i.e., mediators) that
mediate these relationships and boundary conditions (i.e., moderators) that could
strengthen or weaken these relationships.
As the field of CSR and employee outcomes is widely dispersed and spans dif-
ferent types of outcomes, the purpose of this study is to summarize and structure
extant employee outcome research, including contextual, hindering, and catalysing
factors and to outline a research agenda for CSR-employee outcome research as a
multi-effect, multi-dimension phenomenon. To achieve this purpose, the following
questions will be answered in the subsequent sections:

• What kind of employee outcomes can CSR generate?

• How can these outcomes be categorized?
• What are the mechanisms (mediators) that explain the relationship between CSR
and employee outcomes?
• What are the boundary conditions (moderators) that could affect the relation-
ship?
• What are the effects of different kinds of CSR on employee outcomes?

The organization of our paper proceeds in five steps: First, we provide a brief
overview of the CSR concept and explain its different dimensions. Second, we intro-
duce the research methodology of the SLR and provide a descriptive and thematic
content analysis of the selected literature to give a general overview of the data.
Third, based on the findings, we explain the different employee outcomes that could
be generated by different kinds of CSR and clarify the mediators and moderators
that could affect the relationship. Fourth, we classify employee outcomes into dif-
ferent categories/groups and develop a framework that links all employee outcomes

13
 Y. Yassin, M. Beckmann

to CSR. Finally, we summarize our theoretical contribution and discuss practical

implications, gaps, and a research agenda for the future.

2 Brief overview of CSR and employee outcomes

In this section, we define CSR, clarify its different dimensions, and explain what
we mean by employee outcomes of CSR. Then, we will give a brief overview of the
previous systematic literature reviews on the topic.
There is no consensus or widely accepted definition of CSR. The arguably
most popular definition in the literature is that of Carroll (1991). He stated that
“social responsibility of business encompasses the economic, legal, ethical, and
discretionary (philanthropic) expectations that society has of organizations at a
given point in time” (Carroll and Buchholtz 2009, p. 40). Another popular defi-
nition of CSR is the one articulated by The Commission of the European Com-
munities (CEC), which defines CSR as “a concept whereby companies integrate
social and environmental concerns in their business operations and in their inter-
actions with their stakeholders on a voluntary basis” (CEC 2001, p. 4). On the
other hand, many of the researchers in micro-CSR research, which is concerned
with the study of the effects of CSR on individuals, adopt the definition of CSR as
“context-specific organizational actions and policies that take into account stake-
holders’ expectations and the triple bottom line of economic, social, and environ-
mental performance” (Aguinis 2011, p. 858). Our focus in this paper is reviewing
the literature on one part of the micro-CSR, namely with a focus on employees,
and we, therefore, exclude other individuals such as investors, consumers, execu-
tives, and managers.
Researchers have classified CSR into multiple dimensions due to their different
perspectives of what defines CSR. The most frequent classification of CSR used in
the literature distinguishes between internal and external CSR (e.g., Hur et al. 2019;
Edwards and Kudret 2017; Aggarwal and Singh 2022). Internal CSR (ICSR) refers
to the activities, actions, and policies of the organization that are directed to the
internal stakeholders of the organization, such as employees, while external CSR
(ECSR) refers to activities, actions, and policies directed toward other stakehold-
ers such as customers, governments, communities, and the environment (Zhao et al.
2020; Story and Castanheira 2019; Ouakouak et al. 2019). Some researchers differ-
entiate between the four dimensions of CSR of Carroll, which are economic, legal,
ethical, and discretionary (e.g., Maignan and Ferrell 2001; Lin et al. 2012; Kim et al.
2018; Mohammed et al. 2022). Other researchers group CSR dimensions according
to stakeholder groups such as community, employees, consumers, and environment
CSR (e.g., Farooq et al. 2014a, b; Park et al. 2018), whereas few researchers such
as Bohlmann et al. (2018) distinguish between social, economic, and environmental
CSR.
Although there is no consensus about CSR definition in the literature, Dahlsrud
(2008) reviewed and analysed 37 different definitions and developed the following
five CSR dimensions:

13
CSR and employee outcomes: a systematic literature review

• The stakeholder dimension, which refers to the organization’s responsibility to

all stakeholders such as customers, employees, shareholders, investors, govern-
ment, community, and the environment.
• The economic dimension, which refers to the organization’s obligation to gener-
ate profits to the shareholders and investors.
• The discretionary dimension or the voluntary activities of the organization that
extends beyond the law.
• The social dimension, which includes the responsibility of the organization to
have a positive impact on society.
• The environment dimension, which includes the organization’s responsibility to
protect and preserve the natural environment and promote green behaviours.

Most studies that investigate the CSR-employee-outcomes relationship have

focused either on CSR’s overall effects on employee outcomes, or on the effect of
only one dimension of CSR on employees. There are few studies that differentiate
between the effects of different dimensions of CSR on employee outcomes. There-
fore, in our analysis, we follow the Dahlsrud’s (2008) five CSR dimensions, as they
cover almost all aspects of CSR mentioned in the definitions of CSR in previous
studies and investigate whether each CSR dimension affects employee outcomes dif-
ferently or not.
Regarding employee outcomes’ definition, we go beyond the traditional focus on
financial compensation to include all the employees’ attitudes and behaviours that
could result from the organization’s actions and policies. These outcomes could be
desirable or undesirable. Desirable employee outcomes include two subcategories,
namely the desirable employee outcomes that have a positive relationship with CSR
as well as the undesirable employee effects that have a negative relationship with
CSR and are thus reduced. Similarly, undesirable outcomes or the so called “dark
side of CSR” include two subcategories of detrimental employee outcomes of CSR,
namely undesirable employee outcomes that have a positive relationship with CSR
and desirable employee outcomes that decrease with CSR due to a negative relation-
ship with it.
Concerning prior reviews that investigate the relationship between CSR and
employee outcomes, Gond et al. (2017), in their systematic review of CSR at the
individual level, consolidate and extend prior reviews of Aguinis and Glavas (2012),
Rupp and Mallory (2015), Glavas (2016). They also clarify drivers, processes, and
reactions of individuals to CSR and explain the mechanisms and boundary condi-
tions that affect the relationship. Although this review is valuable and insightful
in summarizing and analysing the effects of CSR at the individual level, we found
various reasons for an up-to-date systematic review: First, they examined the CSR’s
overall effects on employees without differentiating between the different effects of
different dimensions of CSR; second, they did not include undesirable employee
outcomes of CSR; and third, they reviewed articles published until 2016, and we
found a massive increase in the micro-CSR literature in the past six years, as 187
articles out of 270 (69%) examined in our review were published in the six years
since their review.

13
 Y. Yassin, M. Beckmann

We also found three additional reviews that are published recently which are
Wang et al. (2020), Zhao et al. (2020), and Macassa et al. (2021). All of them were
not inclusive because they, first, include only empirical studies; second, they did not
include undesirable employee outcomes nor the complete list of positive outcomes,
mediators, and moderators.
Onkila and Sarna (2022), in their recent systematic review of employee rela-
tions with CSR, have contributed important insights to our understanding, as the
authors classified the literature into three categories (organizational implementa-
tion of CSR, benefits to organizations, and differences in employees’ perceptions
of CSR). In addition, they identified mediating categories between the main
categories. However, this review is not up to date, as it includes articles pub-
lished only until 2018, and more than half of the articles reviewed in our litera-
ture were published in the four years since their publication (142 out of 270). In
addition, this review is more concerned with the importance of organizational-
level policies, practices, and leader behaviour, as well as the benefits of CSR
to employees from the organization perspective than the employee one, such as
organizational reputation, external image, and strong relationships with employ-
ees. To summarize: we have identified several gaps and limitations that warrant
an up-to-date systematic review. The points we have highlighted include:

– Differentiation of CSR dimensions: The previous reviews we mentioned did

not differentiate between the various dimensions of CSR and their distinct
effects on employees. We were looking for a review that delves into how dif-
ferent aspects of CSR might impact employees differently.
– Undesirable employee outcomes: The reviews we discussed have primar-
ily focused on desirable employee outcomes resulting from CSR initiatives.
Maon et al. (2019), for example, in their systematic review stated that future
research should investigate undesirable employee outcomes of CSR and
explain mediators and moderators that could have effect on the relationship.
Therefore, we were interested in a review that includes both the desirable and
undesirable outcomes of CSR on employees.
– Recent literature: The existing reviews have a time gap in terms of the arti-
cles they include, with many of the recent articles not being considered. Our
interest lies in an up-to-date review that takes into account the significant
increase in literature over the past few years.
– Inclusiveness of studies: Some of the reviews, e.g., Zhao et al. (2020), only
included empirical studies, potentially excluding valuable insights from other
types of research.
– Mediators and moderators: Zhao et al. (2020), in their systematic review
called for more research on new employee outcomes, mediators and mod-
erators. Likewise, Gond et al. (2017) suggested that future research should
investigate how mediators interact and consider new individual differences.
Our review comprehensively identified and presented employee outcomes of
CSR as well as the mediators and moderators of the relationship.
– Employee perspective: While some reviews focused on the organizational
perspective and benefits of CSR, we were interested in a review that empha-

13
CSR and employee outcomes: a systematic literature review

sizes the impact of CSR on employees themselves. Previous systematic

reviews, such as Wang et al. (2020), and Onkila and Sarna (2022), suggested
that future research should approach employee-CSR research more as indi-
vidual-level phenomenon.

Given these considerations, conducting an up-to-date systematic review that

addresses these gaps and limitations in the existing literature could indeed con-
tribute significantly to the understanding of the relationship between CSR and
employee outcomes. Such a review could help researchers, practitioners, and
organizations gain a more nuanced and comprehensive understanding of the
topic.

3 Methodology

We conducted a systematic literature review (SLR) to identify, analyze, and syn-

thesize the knowledge on employee outcomes of CSR. We followed the structured
multistage process of Denyer and Tranfield (2009) and Shabir and Rosmini (2016),
which consists of a planning phase, a scoping study, the selection of search parame-
ters, the selection of publications as well as the data analysis and the synthesis of the
publications (Denyer and Tranfield 2009; Garkisch et al. 2017; Pilbeam et al. 2012,
p. 360; Shabir and Rosmini 2016).
Regarding the choice of database, we decided to limit our search to a database
with a precise fit with our topic. We thus departed from previous systematic reviews
that used Scopus or Web of Science. Given their multidisciplinary nature, these
databases are advantageous for SLRs that combine research insights from highly
disparate research disciplines. Given our specific research interest in CSR and
employee outcomes, however, we deliberately decided to use the Business Source
Complete (EBSCOhost) database. As the leading database in the field of business,
this database not only covers the journals relevant to CSR research but also includes

Table 1  Topic-related and Sector-related search terms

Topic- related search terms Sector-related search terms

TI (Corporate Social Responsibility OR CSR AB (staff response* OR staff attitude* OR

OR Corporate Social Initiative* OR Corporate staff effect* OR individual performance OR
Responsib* OR Social Responsib* OR Corporate individual reaction OR individual effect OR
Citizenship OR Triple Bottom Line) individual well-being OR individual wel#being
OR employ* consequence* OR personnel devel-
opment OR employ* outcome* OR employ*
performance OR employ* attitude* OR
employ* behavio#r* OR employ* well-being
OR employ* wel#being OR internal stake-
holder* OR employ* response* OR individual
outcome* OR employ* reaction* OR employ*
effect* OR Human Resource* OR Human Capi-
tal OR labo#r market*)

13
 Y. Yassin, M. Beckmann

psychology and human resource research relevant to our interest in employee out-
comes. While excluding other databases is a certain limitation of our research, we
opted for EBSCOhost as a database with an appropriate balance between multidisci-
plinary scope and thematic focus. Nevertheless, we compared the EBSCOhost find-
ings with other databases and found that the search results in different databases
produced fairly similar results. Therefore, we decided to focus on the EBSCOhost
database to identify the relevant articles over a long-time span (22 years) and use
many keywords related to CSR and employees (see Table 1) to obtain and cover
the relevant conceptual and empirical articles. However, in cases where it was not
possible to access the full text, we used other databases, including ABI (ProQuest),
Google Scholar, Science Direct, and Emerald, to retrieve the full text of the previ-
ously identified articles. The search covered studies published from 2001 to 2022 in
English language and yielded 798 peer-reviewed journal publications in academic
journals. We conducted a quantitative and qualitative analysis of the identified
publications.

3.1 Keywords and search strings

We organized our search terms into Topic-related terms (CSR) and Sector-related
terms (covering the employee outcome part), as shown in Table 1. For both a list
was discussed with other researchers, and feedback was incorporated. The search
in Topic-related terms was limited to “title only” because we found thousands
of articles before this limitation. In contrast, the search in Sector-related terms
was extended to include abstracts and more search terms in order to cover all the
employee outcomes related to CSR.

3.2 Inclusion and exclusion criteria

We applied inclusion and exclusion criteria for the systematic selection of publica-
tions (Denyer and Tranfield 2009; Shabir and Rosmini 2016). As the focus of our
study lies on the available scientific knowledge, we decided to narrow down our
search using the following criteria (Maier et al. 2016; Seuring and Müller 2008):

• Focus on CSR and Employee Outcomes: We were interested specifically in

studies that explored the relationship between Corporate Social Responsibility
(CSR) and its impact on employee outcomes. We included studies that directly
addressed this relationship. However, we excluded studies that examined the
factors that lead to CSR initiatives (antecedents of CSR) as well as studies that
looked at the broader organizational outcomes of CSR.
• Impact on Current and Prospective Employees: Our intention was to gather
research that pertains to the influence of CSR on both current and potential
employees. Studies that explored the impact of CSR on middle or top managers
were excluded.

13
CSR and employee outcomes: a systematic literature review

• Time Period and Type of Studies: By including studies conducted between

2001 and 2022, We captured a comprehensive overview of how the relationship
between CSR and employee outcomes has evolved over time. Additionally, we
decided to include both conceptual and empirical studies to make a balanced
approach that considers both theoretical frameworks and empirical evidence.
• Publication Type and Language: We chose to exclusively include peer-reviewed
scientific publications in academic journals published in English in order to add
a level of quality assurance to our study. Peer-reviewed articles are subject to rig-
orous evaluation by experts in the field, ensuring a certain standard of research
quality. Thus, we excluded unpublished or grey literature, which may not have
undergone the same level of scrutiny as peer-reviewed articles. By limiting the
search to academic journals and English language publications, we further ensure
that the sources are reputable and accessible to a wide audience.

After going through the titles, abstracts, and conclusions of the retrieved arti-
cles and applied our predefined criteria to determine whether the articles meet our
research focus, we reduced our sample to 336 publications.
The preliminary screening was followed by a more comprehensive evaluation of
the full texts to ensure they truly aligned with our inclusion/exclusion criteria. This
thoroughness enhances the credibility of our systematic review by minimizing the
risk of including irrelevant or inappropriate studies. We excluded 66 additional stud-
ies that were upon closer inspection not in line with our inclusion/exclusion criteria.
Our final sample thus consists of 270 peer-reviewed journal studies (Table 2).

3.3 Qualitative data analysis

Our approach to qualitative data analysis is detailed and systematic. Here’s a break-
down of the steps we have taken and the tools we have used for analyzing the 270
identified publications:

– Data Set and Software Usage: We utilized the 270 publications that we had pre-
viously selected as our data set for qualitative content analysis. To facilitate this
analysis, we employed MAXQDA, a qualitative data analysis software known for
its capabilities in structuring, coding, and analyzing qualitative data. This soft-

Table 2  Numbers of publications per search step

Description Number of
publica-
tions

Relevant peer-reviewed publications in the specified period 798

Publications after reading of Abstracts and Conclusions 336
Final publications after reading of content 270

13
 Y. Yassin, M. Beckmann

ware helps in managing the complexity of handling a large number of publica-

tions and their content.
– Deductive and Inductive Coding: We applied a combined approach of deductive
and inductive coding. We had deductive overarching categories (e.g., CSR out-
comes, mediators, moderators, and CSR dimensions), while when it comes to
filling these categories with content such as types of outcomes, that was induc-
tive coding. This dual approach allowed us to both explore emergent themes and
validate concepts that were predefined based on existing knowledge (deductive).
– Code Reorganization and Merging: After the initial coding, we moved on to reor-
ganizing, merging, and structuring the codes. This step likely involved identify-
ing relationships between codes, grouping similar ones together, and creating a
more organized framework of thematic elements.
– Code Consolidation: As a result of organizing and structuring the codes,
we arrived at a total of 18 different codes that encapsulated the key concepts,
themes, or patterns present across all 270 publications.
– Conceptual Framework Development: The qualitative data analysis yielded
valuable insights that guided the development of a conceptual framework. This
framework outlines the various employee outcomes that can result from embrac-
ing different dimensions of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). By synthe-
sizing the themes identified through coding, we have created a structured repre-
sentation of the complex relationship between CSR and employee outcomes.

4 Descriptive results

Prior to our thematic analysis, a quantitative evaluation of the data set was con-
ducted to condense the selected publications and to provide a holistic overview
(Seuring and Muller, 2008; Tranfield et al. 2003). This includes the distribution of
papers over time (1), the occurring journals (2), the applied research methodologies
(3), and the mechanisms (theories) that explain the relationship (4).

50 46
45
38
Number of papers (N=270)

40
34
35
30 26
24
25 20 19
20 16
14
15
10 6 7 6
3 3 4
5 1 1 2

0
2001 2004 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Year

Fig. 1  Distribution of papers per year across time period studied

13
CSR and employee outcomes: a systematic literature review

By putting the results into context, we derive conclusions and propositions

regarding the future development of the research field.

4.1 Distribution of publications over time

The 270 publications are distributed along the selected time period of 22 years
(2001–2022) as shown in Fig. 1.
The trend pattern shown in Fig. 1 suggests a clear evolution in the research land-
scape related to employee outcomes of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) over
the 22-year period from 2001 to 2022. Let’s break down the pattern step by step:

– 2001–2013: Few publications. During this initial phase, spanning from 2001 to
2013, there were only a limited number of publications focused on employee out-
comes of CSR. This could be due to several reasons, such as the relatively early
stages of research interest in this specific aspect of CSR or a lack of awareness
about the potential impact of CSR on employee-related issues.
– 2014–2022: Rapid increase. Starting from 2014 and continuing until 2022,
there was a notable increase in the number of publications on this topic. This
increase could be attributed to a growing recognition among researchers, busi-
nesses, and academia about the importance of understanding how CSR initiatives
influence employee outcomes. As organizations began to prioritize CSR and its
impact on various stakeholders, including employees, researchers responded by
investigating these connections and generating more publications.
– 2020–2022 vs. 2001–2019: Rapid catch-up. One of the most striking obser-
vations is that the combined number of publications during the last three years
(2020–2022) nearly matches the total number of publications in the preceding
19 years (2001–2019). This rapid catch-up signifies a substantial shift in research
attention and resources toward understanding the relationship between CSR and
employee outcomes. It also highlights a growing urgency among researchers to
explore and analyze this topic comprehensively.
– Recent trends: A notable surge and stabilization at a high plateau (2014–
2022). Within the 2014–2022 period, there was a particularly remarkable spike in
publications in 2020, followed by a slight decrease in 2021 and 2022. However,
the annual publication numbers for 2021 and 2022 remained higher than those
of any year preceding 2020. This sustained high level of annual publications can
be interpreted as reflecting two key aspects. On the one hand, the overall high
publication number reflects the growing significance of employee-related CSR in
business practices, a heightened awareness of the importance of employee well-
being, and the prominence of micro-level views in CSR. On the other hand, the
first two-year decrease in publication numbers in our sample suggests a consoli-
dation of the research fields that mirrors a certain research maturity, thus present-
ing a strong case for synthesizing the body of scholarly knowledge.
– The opportunity for a timely review. Given the surge in publications, the pro-
nounced interest in the topic in recent years, and indicators for growing maturity
of the research field, conducting a review of the literature at this point appears to

13
 Y. Yassin, M. Beckmann

be timely and relevant. The increased activity and engagement from researchers
and academics during 2018–2022 present an opportune moment to synthesize
the existing knowledge, take stock, identify remaining gaps, and offer insights
that could guide future research and business practices in the realm of CSR and
its effects on employee outcomes.

In summary, the trend pattern showcases a trajectory of growing interest and

research output in the area of employee outcomes of CSR, with a significant accel-
eration in the past few years. This evolving landscape offers an exciting opportunity
to better understand how CSR initiatives impact employees and to contribute valu-
able insights to both academia and industry.

4.2 Distribution in main journals

The total of 270 identified publications are derived from 92 different journals which
cover a wide variety of different scientific fields, including fields such as CSR,
Organizational Behaviour, Human Resource Management, psychology, manage-
ment, and ethics.
The broad spectrum of academic journals makes sense because the topic of CSR
and employee outcomes covers a great variety of disciplines and scientific studies
which often results in interdisciplinary studies. Despite the great variety of scientific
disciplines and academic journals, some journals deliver a stronger contribution to
the existing body of literature, as shown in Fig. 2. Corporate Social Responsibility
& Environmental Management clearly plays a leading role in the existing body of
literature with a total of 42 publications, followed by the Journal of Business Ethics
with 24 publications. Journals relevant to employees such as Human Resource, Psy-
chology, and OB journals include a total of 40 publications.

Corporate Social Responsibility & Environmental

42
Management

Journal of Business Ethics 24

Business Ethics, the Environment & Responsibility 12

Internaonal Journal of Contemporary Hospitality

11
Management

The Internaonal Journal of Human Resource Management 8

Journal of Business Research 6

Management Decision 5

Fig. 2  Overview of leading journals. Note that prior to 2021, the journal now known as ’Business Ethics,
the Environment & Responsibility’ was titled ’Business Ethics: A European Review’

13
CSR and employee outcomes: a systematic literature review

4.3 Applied research methodologies

Research methodologies in the selected publications were grouped into three cat-
egories: qualitative methods; quantitative and mixed methods; and conceptual and
literature review.
Most publications are quantitative and mixed methods (223 out of 270). Concep-
tual and literature review publications follow with 28 studies. As the least frequent
method, 19 studies used a qualitative approach.

4.4 Underlying mechanisms (theories) of employee outcomes to CSR

After reviewing the literature, we found that researchers used different mechanisms
to explain why CSR activities have an impact on employees. Most of the articles
were linked to three theories, which are: Social identity and organizational identi-
fication theories, social exchange theory, and signalling theory. Other theories used
include theories of justice, self-determination theory, cue consistency theory, social
learning theory, attribution theory, expectancy theory, and stakeholder theory.
We give a brief overview of the most frequent theories that are used by
researchers.

4.4.1 Social identity and organizational identification theories

Social identity and organizational identification theories are the most frequent theo-
ries that explain employee outcomes of CSR (108 out of 270 studies). According to
these theories, employees are more likely to identify with organizations that have
a good image, like those communicated by CSR. Being part of such organizations
make employees feel pride and, hence, achieve their self-esteem need, which results
in positive employee outcomes such as in-role and extra-role performance (e.g.,
Deng et al. 2020; Ali et al. 2020; Chaudhary 2020).

4.4.2 Social exchange theory

Social exchange theory is the second most frequent theory in our literature sample
(63 out of 270 studies). According to this theory, employees react to the policies
and actions of the organization according to their assessments of costs and benefits
(Sanusi and Johl 2020). When they perceive mutual benefits from the interaction
with the organization, they feel trust in the organization (Memon et al. 2020). CSR
enhances the benefits for employees through enhancing overall justice, organiza-
tional support, trust, and the subsequent attitudes and behaviours such as job sat-
isfaction, turnover intention, and organizational commitment (e.g., De Roeck and
Maon 2018; Ahmad et al. 2020; Kim et al. 2020).

13
 Y. Yassin, M. Beckmann

4.4.3 Signalling theory

Signalling theory, which is used 14 times in the studies reviewed, is related more
to external CSR rather than internal CSR (Gond et al. 2017). Its use is linked to
the attraction of job seekers and prospective employees through giving them sig-
nals or indications of the kind of treatment they will face once they are hired (Pfis-
ter 2020; Jamali et al. 2019). Companies embracing CSR activities give prospective
employees an indication that these organizations are fair, trusted, and caring for their
employees and society, and hence, they will expect a good treatment once they are
hired to such organization (Rupp and Mallory 2015; Klimkiewicz and Oltra 2017;
Tkalac Verčič and Sinčić Ćorić 2018).
To our knowledge, researchers have focused mainly on studying the effects of
CSR on isolated positive employee outcomes. Few of them investigate potentially
negative ones. In addition, these outcomes were fragmented and not categorized in
groups. So, the next chapter will look at the methodology that enables us to synthe-
size the literature on CSR’s effects on employees, put them in categories, explain
how the literature is developed over time, and clarify the mechanisms and conditions
behind this relationship.

5 Thematic findings

In this section, we review and structure the full range of effects that the litera-
ture discusses as effects of CSR on employees. In our analysis, we distinguish
between the normative assessment of an effect (desirability) and the descriptive
assessment of how CSR is related to it (correlation). Here, the normative assess-
ment reflects whether a certain effect is seen as desirable (i.e., being good for
employees and/or the organization/society) or undesirable (i.e., being detrimen-
tal for employees and/or the organization/society). In turn, the descriptive assess-
ment reflects whether CSR is positively related to this effect (thus increasing
it) or negatively related (thus decreasing the effect). In the combined analysis,
desirable employee outcomes thus include two subcategories, namely the desir-
able employee outcomes that have a positive relationship with CSR as well as
the undesirable employee effects that have a negative relationship with CSR and
are thus reduced. Similarly, undesirable outcomes or the s- called “dark side of
CSR” include two subcategories of detrimental employee outcomes of CSR: first,
undesirable employee outcomes that increase due to a positive relationship with
CSR; second, desirable employee outcomes that decrease with CSR due to a neg-
ative relationship with it. In addition, we clarify the mechanisms (mediators) that
explain the relationship between CSR and each employee outcome as well as the
boundary conditions (moderators) that could have an impact on the relationship.

13
 Table 3  Descriptive summary of thematic findings
Outcome Num- Key theories Mediators Moderators
ber of
articles

Organizational pride 4 Implicit theory, appraisal theory, perceived work motivation Patterns
affect social exchange theory
Organizational identification (OI) 40 Social identity & social exchange Perceived external prestige, organi- Collectivism, other-regarding value ori-
theories zational pride, organizational trust, entation, empathy, CSR importance,
overall justice organizational support, first-party
justice, overall justice, ethical leader-
ship, high-commitment working
systems, & corporate ability
Organizational commitment (OC) 63 Social identity theory Employee engagement, O justice, Gender, education, tenure, age dif-
work meaningfulness, organiza- ferences, cultural differences, CSR
tional support, OI, external prestige, typologies
CSR involvement, organizational
pride and trust
CSR and employee outcomes: a systematic literature review

Organizational attractiveness & job 17 Signalling theory, social identity Corporate image, reputation, organi- Person-organization fit, CSR education,
pursuit intentions theory zational pride & OI other-regarding value orientation,
age, area of knowledge
Employee engagement 26 Social identity & social exchange External image, OI, organizational Top management support, gender,
theories trust, job satisfaction, procedural collectivism, CSR importance,
and distributive justice, work mean- employees’ moral identity beliefs,
ingfulness, Employer brand employee age
Job satisfaction (JS) 38 Stakeholder, social identity & social Corporate image, OI, organizational CSR proximity, internal CSR percep-
exchange theories pride, organizational embedded- tion, employee age, CSR typologies
ness, fulfilment of job needs, work
meaningfulness
Employee well-being 13 Social identity & social exchange Organizational trust, work meaning- CSR importance, CEO’s humble
theories fulness, gratitude, compassion at leadership
work, OI, OC, JS

13
 Table 3  (continued)
Outcome Num- Key theories Mediators Moderators
ber of

13
articles

In-role performance 29 Social identity & social exchange OI, OC, JS, quality of working life, Leadership styles, employees’ work
theories employee engagement, OCB, motivation patterns, managers’
prosocial motivation involvement in CSR activities,
organizational reputation, employ-
ment type
Organizational citizenship behaviours 51 Social identity, social learning, social OI, OC, JS, organizational trust, task First-party justice, moral identity,
(OCB) exchange theories significance, gratitude, compassion task significance, CSR importance,
at work, prosocial motivation, ethi- cultural differences, other-regarding
cal leadership, CSR reputation value orientation, CSR typologies,
contextual factors
Pro-environmental behaviours 20 Social identity theory OI, OC, employee well-being, Corporate entrepreneurship, ethical
environmental orientation fit, moral leadership, green HRM, attachment
reflectiveness, co-worker pro-envi- styles of employees, employees’ CSR
ronmental advocacy, environmental motive attributions, empathy, envi-
commitment ronmental consciousness, environ-
mentally specific servant leadership,
tenure
Pro-social behaviours 8 Social identity, social learning, & OI, organizational pride & trust, Ethical leadership perception, organiza-
self-determination theories satisfaction of employees’ psycho- tional tenure
logical needs for competence and
relatedness, employees’ attitudes
toward donations
Other positive employee outcomes 19 Social identity theory Organizational identification, Human capital, relational capital
employee intrapreneurial behaviour,
work engagement and psychologi-
cal safety
Y. Yassin, M. Beckmann
 Table 3  (continued)
Outcome Num- Key theories Mediators Moderators
ber of
articles

Reduction of undesirable effects 45 Stakeholder, social identity & social JS, OC, OI, organizational trust, com- Corporate ethical values, Satisfaction
exchange theories pany’s reputation, work meaning- with pay, satisfaction with the job,
fulness & engagement, higher-order age, contextual factors and employ-
quality of work life, perceived ethi- ees’ demographic features, CSR
cal leadership, work engagement typologies
Undesirable effects 11 Social identity theory OI, person-organization fit, work Task significance, employees’ public
meaningfulness value awareness, moral identity,
satisfaction with pay and the job
CSR and employee outcomes: a systematic literature review

13
 Y. Yassin, M. Beckmann

5.1 Descriptive summary of thematic analysis

Before explaining the desirable and undesirable employee outcomes of CSR in

more details, the following Table (Table 3) serves to descriptively summarize
our thematic results. It shows how many times each outcome is mentioned in our
sample and links each outcome with the key theories, mediators, and moderators
that explain the relationship between CSR and each employee outcome.

5.2 Desirable employee outcomes of CSR

CSR outcomes that ultimately result in desirable effects for employees encompass
not only the desirable employee outcomes that are positively related with CSR
but also the undesirable employee outcomes that have a negative relationship
with CSR, as engaging in CSR activities help companies to reduce such undesir-
able impacts on employees. Most of the literature about employee outcomes of
CSR was related to desirable outcomes (259 articles out of 270 studies). These
employee outcomes could be directed at the individual, organization, and/or the
society and environment.

5.2.1 Organizational pride

Organizational pride refers to “the extent to which individuals experience a sense

of pleasure and self-respect arising from their organizational membership” (Jones
2010, p. 859). It is a positive feelings and emotions related to belonging to an
organization.
Most of the studies reviewed investigate only the mediating effect of organi-
zational pride on the relationship between CSR and employee outcomes such as
employee performance (Donia et al. 2019; Edwards and Kudret 2017), job satisfac-
tion (Dumitrescu and Simionescu 2015), organizational commitment (Zhou et al.
2018), employee voluntary pro-environmental behaviour (Raza et al. 2021), and
employees’ desire to have a significant impact through work (John et al. 2017). On
the other hand, we found only four studies from our sample dealing with organiza-
tional pride as a positive employee outcome, and not only a mediator, which leads to
other positive outcomes in a causal relationship (Cheruiyot and Maru 2014); Zhou
et al. 2018; Ng et al. 2019; Asante Boadi et al. 2019).

5.2.2 Organizational identification (OI)

Organizational identification (OI) is the most frequently mentioned attitude in our

sample, as a mediator and outcome. Since in addition to being mentioned frequently
as a mediator in many articles, it is mentioned 40 times as a positive outcome. OI
is defined as the “perception of oneness with or belongingness to an organization,
where the individual defines him or herself in term of the organization(s) of which
he or she is a member” (Mael and Ashforth 1992). Ahmed and Khan (2019), in their

13
CSR and employee outcomes: a systematic literature review

survey of 277 employees in companies in Pakistan, state that OI has two dimen-
sions: affective and evaluative OI. Affective OI is linked to employee’s emotional
attachment to the organization, while evaluative OI is related to the employee’s
positive assessment of the organization’s CSR (Ahmed and Khan 2019). Based on
social identity and social exchange theories, CSR enhances the relationship between
the organization and the employee through enhancing OI and organizational trust
(De Roeck and Maon 2018). Cheema et al. (2020a, b), through their survey of 374
employees assert that employees identify with a socially responsible organization
when they perceive that it has a positive image among stakeholders. They feel pride
of being part of it, which in turn, increases their self-esteem and self-worth (Wang
et al. 2020; Mascarenhas et al. 2020; Rodrigo et al. 2019). Some researchers state
that there is a positive direct relationship between CSR and OI (e.g. Evans and Davis
2014; He et al. 2019; Shen and Benson 2016), while others argue that this relation-
ship is not direct and is mediated by other factors such as perceived external pres-
tige and organizational pride (e.g. De Roeck et al. 2016), organizational trust (e.g.
de Roeck and Delobbe 2012; Ghosh 2018), or overall justice (e.g. de Roeck et al.
2014).
Few researchers distinguish between the different effects of different dimen-
sions of CSR on OI. For example, Ahmed and Khan (2019) state that ICSR has
a stronger link with affective OI, while ECSR is related more with evaluative OI.
Also, Kim et al. (2020), based on a survey from employees of a hotel company in
the USA, state that only ethical and philanthropic CSR had significant direct effects
on employee OI, while Zhao et al. (2019) argue that economic and philanthropic
CSR increase pride and external image of the organization, which leads to higher
OI. Based on data collected from 378 employees working in South Asian local and
multinational companies, Farooq et al. (2014a, b) conclude that employee CSR has
the strongest effect on OI, followed by community CSR, and then consumer CSR.
On the other hand, environmental CSR has no significant effect on OI according to
Farooq et al. (2014a, b).
In addition, our review revealed that individual differences and organizational fac-
tors could strengthen or weaken this relationship. Individual differences that proved
to affect this relationship include collectivism (Farooq et al. 2014a, b), other-regard-
ing value orientation (Evans et al. 2011a, b), empathy (Tian and Robertson 2019),
CSR importance (Korschun et al. 2014). Organizational factors include organiza-
tional support (Shen and Benson 2016), first-party justice (Ghosh 2018), overall jus-
tice (De Roeck et al. 2016), ethical leadership (De Roeck and Farooq 2018), high-
commitment working systems (Lin and Liu 2019), corporate ability (Brammer et al.
2015), and CSR communication (Wang and Pala 2020).

5.2.3 Organizational commitment (OC)

Organizational commitment (OC) is the most frequently mentioned outcome of CSR

in the literature (63 out of 270 studies reviewed). Meyer and Herscovitch (2001, p.
301) define OC as “a force that binds an individual to a course of action that is rele-
vant to a particular target” (Lu et al. 2020). It has three dimensions: affective organi-
zational commitment (AOC), normative commitment, and continuance commitment

13
 Y. Yassin, M. Beckmann

(Rodrigo et al. 2019). AOC refers to “an emotional attachment to, identification
with, and involvement in the organization” (Allen and Meyer 1990, p. 1), while nor-
mative commitment is related to the ethical and moral obligation of employees to
remain in the organization (Rodrigo et al. 2019). Finally, continuance commitment
is related to the employees’ perceived benefits and costs that result from remain-
ing in the company (Ahmad et al. 2020). Most of the studies investigating the CSR
effects on commitment have focused mainly on AOC (e.g., Mory et al. 2016; Muel-
ler et al. 2012; Zhu et al. 2014).
Although organizational commitment, especially AOC, seems similar to OI, they
are different constructs. OI, which implies the feeling of oneness with the organiza-
tion, is not necessarily followed by other actions or behaviors. On the other hand,
AOC involves intention to act as well as potential reactions to the organization’s
CSR (Rodrigo et al. 2019). According to social identity theory, OI is an antecedent
to AOC. When employees feel pride of being part of a socially responsible organiza-
tion, they identify with it and achieve self-concept and self-esteem, which in turn,
increase their affective organizational commitment. Few studies investigate the
effect of CSR on normative commitment. For example, Mory et al. (2016), in their
study of the effect of ICSR on organizational commitment, found that AOC plays a
mediating role in the relationship between CSR and normative commitment.
Farooq et al. (2014a, b) state that only the discretionary dimension of CSR is
related to OC, while Farooq et al. (2014a, b) argue that employee CSR has the
strongest effect on OI, trust, and affective OC, followed by community CSR.
Our review also revealed that only one study clarifies the additional variance on
employee commitment that is explained by CSR (54.1% of the total variation is
explained by CSR) (Mensah et al. 2017).
Overall, researchers examined the indirect relationship between CSR and OC
through some mediators such as CSR involvement (Carlini and Grace 2021), job
satisfaction (Chatzopoulou et al. 2021; Loor-Zambrano et al. 2020), employees’ psy-
chological capital (Papacharalampous and Papadimitriou 2021), employee engage-
ment (Gupta 2017; Gupta and Sayeed 2016), work meaningfulness and perceived
organizational support (Glavas and Kelley 2014), organizational identification and
organizational trust (De Roeck and Maon 2018; Farooq et al. 2014a, b; Malik 2015;
Suh 2016), perceived external prestige (Bravo et al. 2017), organizational CSR cli-
mate and employees’ CSR-induced attributions (Lin et al. 2022), and organizational
pride (Supanti et al. 2015; Tahlil Azim 2016; Zhou et al. 2018). Regarding mod-
erators, individual differences (e.g., gender, education, tenure, age differences, and
cultural differences) found to have a moderating effect on the relationship between
CSR and OC (Brammer et al. 2007; Bravo et al. 2017; Hofman and Newman 2014;
Mensah et al. 2017; Mueller et al. 2012). In addition, George et al. (2020), in their
attempts to identify the relationship between perceived CSR and employees’ affec-
tive commitment, state that CSR importance moderates the relationship between
CSR and affective commitment through organizational trust.

13
CSR and employee outcomes: a systematic literature review

5.2.4 Organizational attractiveness and job pursuit intentions

Organizational attractiveness (OA) refers to the benefits that potential applicants or

current employees perceive in working for a specific company (Jiang and Iles 2011).
Signalling theory and social identity theory are the most frequent mechanisms that
explain the relationship between CSR and organizational attractiveness (12 out of 17
studies). According to signalling theory, CSR has a positive effect on attracting job
applicants and talented people to apply for organizations (Pfister 2020). Organiza-
tions reduce the information asymmetry in the market through sending signals to
prospective employees about their positive working conditions and other respon-
sibilities related to society and environment and hence, attract them to apply for
such organizations (Farooq et al. 2014a, b; Lin et al. 2012). Similarly, social iden-
tity theory suggests that CSR enhances corporate image and reputation, which in
turn increases the expected pride, identification, and consequently organizational
attractiveness of potential employees (Bohlmann et al. 2018; Klimkiewicz and Oltra
2017).
Some studies examined whether different aspects/ dimensions of CSR have inde-
pendent association with job applicants’ attraction to organizations e.g. (Pfister
2020; Bohlmann et al. 2018; Lin et al. 2012). According to signaling theory and
expectancy theory, Lin et al., (2012) assert that there is a positive effect of the eco-
nomic and legal dimension of CSR on organizational attractiveness and career suc-
cess expectations, while the ethical and philanthropic dimension of CSR do not have
an effect on career success expectations. Also, Lis (2012), who used a policy-cap-
turing design to explore how job applicants’ attraction to organizations is affected
by different CSR dimensions. He examined different aspects of CSR (i.e., product,
diversity, environment, employee relations) and found that the strongest effect on
organizational attractiveness was related to diversity and employee relations aspects
of CSR as compared to the other two dimensions. Moreover, based on the categori-
zation of CSR dimensions as social, economic, and environmental, Bohlmann et al.
(2018), based on an experimental vignette methodology, revealed that the positive
effect of the social dimension of CSR was the strongest on organizational attractive-
ness as compared to other dimensions. Likewise, Pfister (2020) confirms that the
social dimension of CSR has the strongest effect on organizational attractiveness,
followed by the ethical dimension, and then the environmental dimension.
In addition, according to the person-organization fit perspective, applicants prefer
to apply for organizations that reflect their values and preferences (Kim and Park
2011; Zhang and Gowan 2012). For example, strong formalists are affected more
with ethical and legal aspects of CSR, whereas high Machiavellians are less attracted
to organizations with high ethical and legal performance (Zhang and Gowan 2012).
Other individual factors that were found to moderate this relationship include: CSR
education and other-regarding value orientation (Evans and Davis 2011; Evans et al.
2011a, b), age, and area of knowledge (Barrena-Martínez et al. 2015).

13
 Y. Yassin, M. Beckmann

5.2.5 Employee engagement

Employee engagement refers to “a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind

that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption” (Schaufeli et al. 2002,
p. 74). It is also defined as “the harnessing of organization members’ selves to their
work roles; in engagement, people employ and express themselves physically, cog-
nitively, and emotionally during role performances” (Kahn 1990, p. 694). Simpson
et al. (2020) differentiate between CSR engagement and organizational engagement.
CSR engagement is the employee willingness to know about and participate in CSR
activities, while organizational engagement refers to the complete involvement of
employees to the organization and dedication to achieve its goals, values, and beliefs
(Simpson et al. 2020).
Based on social identity and social exchange theories, there is a positive relation-
ship between CSR and employee engagement (Glavas and Piderit 2014; Tahlil Azim
2016; Afsar et al. 2020a, b). According to social identity theory, CSR enhances
the external image of the organization and OI, which in turn increases employee
engagement (Ali et al. 2020; van Dick et al. 2019). Furthermore, according to social
exchange theory, organizational trust mediates the CSR-employee engagement
relationship (Memon et al. 2020). Other mediators include job satisfaction, proce-
dural justice, and distributive justice (Lu et al. 2020), work meaningfulness (Afsar
et al. 2020a, b), and employer brand (Hosseini et al. 2022). Moreover, Smith and
Langford (2011) show empirically that CSR has an additional impact on employee
engagement beyond the impact of traditional HR practices.
Regarding moderators, top management support is proved to strengthen this rela-
tionship (Opoku-Dakwa et al. 2018; Santhosh and Baral 2015). In addition, Farrukh
et al. (2020), in their investigation of the effect of gender on the CSR-engagement
relationship, have argued that women are affected more by CSR than men. Other
moderators include collectivism (Lu et al. 2020), CSR importance (van Dick et al.
2019), and employees’ moral identity beliefs (Afsar et al. 2020a, b).
Regarding the impact of different kinds of CSR, Gupta and Sharma (2016),
who conducted a comprehensive literature review to examine the impact of CSR
on engagement and performance, state that internal CSR has stronger effects on
employee engagement than external CSR. Also, according to Smith and Langford
(2011), ethical CSR had a stronger relationship with employee engagement than
did legal CSR. Saad et al. (2021) argue that CSR toward society and CSR toward
employees have a strong effect on employee engagement, While CSR toward cus-
tomers have no effect on employee engagement.

5.3 Job satisfaction

Job satisfaction is the “pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the
appraisal of one’s job or job experiences” (Locke 1976, p. 1304). Vlachos et al.
2014; Khaskheli et al. (2020) distinguish between intrinsic job satisfaction (i.e., sat-
isfaction with the job itself) and extrinsic job satisfaction (i.e., satisfaction with the
job’s external factors such as pay, working environment, and co-workers).

13
CSR and employee outcomes: a systematic literature review

Most of the studies used social identity, stakeholder, and social exchange theories
to explain the effect of CSR on job satisfaction (e.g., De Roeck and Maon 2018;
Low et al. 2017). As Story and Castanheira (2019); Mascarenhas et al. (2020) state,
CSR, internal or external, enhances corporate image and OI, which leads to job sat-
isfaction. In addition, Khaskheli et al. (2020), based on a survey conducted from
employees of Pakistan organizations, reveal that employees’ CSR perception has a
positive and significant effect on intrinsic job satisfaction but a negative effect on
extrinsic job satisfaction. Also, Sanusi and Johl (2020), who proposed a framework
to evaluate the influence of ICSR perception on employee intention to job continu-
ity, state that the positive internal CSR perception of employees increases their job
satisfaction, which in turn, increase employees’ intention to job continuity.
Overall, researchers investigating the relationship between CSR and job satisfac-
tion include some mediators such as organizational pride & organizational embed-
dedness (Ghosh and Gurunathan 2014; Ng et al. 2019), fulfilment of job needs (Du
et al. 2015; Lee and Chen 2018), organizational identification & organizational
trust (De Roeck and Maon 2018; Ko et al. 2019; Lin and Liu 2019), company’s
reputation (Baric 2017; Dögl and Holtbrügge 2014; Voegtlin and Greenwood 2016),
organizational justice (Chen and Khuangga 2021), and work meaningfulness (Gla-
vas and Kelley 2014; Raub and Blunschi 2014). Furthermore, CSR proximity, which
refers to “the extent to which employees know about and/or are actively involved in
their organizations’ CSR”, moderates the effect of CSR on job satisfaction (Du et al.
2015). Employee age has a moderating effect in this relationship (Nyuur et al. 2022).

5.3.1 Employee well‑being

Employee well-being includes physical, emotional, psychological, and social aspects

(Krainz 2015; Promislo et al. 2012). The relationship between CSR and employee
well-being could be direct or indirect through mediators such as organizational trust
(Yu and Choi 2014) or work meaningfulness (Gazzola 2014). Guzzo et al. (2020),
who aimed to understand how CSR leads to improving employees’ well-being and
OCB, distinguish between hedonic well-being, which is related to life satisfac-
tion, and eudaimonic well-being, which is related to personal growth. They found
a positive direct relationship between employees’ CSR perception and eudaimonic
well-being, while the effect on hedonic well-being was indirect and fully medi-
ated by gratitude and compassion at work (Guzzo et al. 2020). In addition, Sver-
gun and Fairlie (2020), based on a survey of 703 employees, argue that employees’
CSR perception have a negative relationship with stress symptoms, and buffer the
positive relationship between stress symptoms, on one hand, and negative employee
outcomes of depression symptoms and turnover intention, on the other hand. They
also found that job satisfaction and organizational commitment partially mediate the
relationship (Svergun and Fairlie 2020).
Promislo et al. (2012) examined the effect of ethics and social responsibility on
personal well-being, which includes: life satisfaction, vitality, job stress, and sleep
problems. They found that a company’s perceived role of ethics and social respon-
sibility had a strong positive impact on life satisfaction and vitality but had no effect

13
 Y. Yassin, M. Beckmann

on job stress and sleep problems. Zaighum et al. (2021) and Espasandín-Bustelo
et al. (2021) state that internal CSR has a positive effect on employee’s satisfaction
and happiness. In addition, Kim et al. (2018) concluded that the economic and phil-
anthropic dimensions of CSR enhance the employees’ quality of working life, job
satisfaction, and overall quality of life, while ethical and legal dimensions of CSR do
not have a relationship with quality of working life (Kim et al. 2018). On the other
hand, Kim et al. (2020) argue that economic CSR has a direct positive relationship
with quality of working life, while ethical and philanthropic CSR has indirect posi-
tive relationship with quality of working life, through OI.

5.3.2 In‑role performance

In-role performance (also named employee job/task performance or employee pro-

ductivity) refers to “the behaviour directed towards formal tasks, duties, and respon-
sibilities that are written in their job description” (Story and Neves 2015). Chaud-
hary (2020), who aimed to study the impact of employees’ perception of CSR on
their in-role and extra-role behaviours, state that all dimensions of CSR have a strong
and positive effect on in-role performance. In contrast, Edwards and Kudret (2017),
based on a case study in a multinational company, found that all CSR dimensions
have an impact on in-role performance except CSR to shareholders. According to
social identity theory, employees perceived external CSR is positively related to job
performance through the mediation of OI (He et al. 2019; Shen and Benson 2016;
Story and Castanheira 2019). On the other hand, social exchange theory explains the
relationship between internal CSR and employee performance (Story and Castan-
heira 2019). In addition, although Almeida and Coelho (2019) as well as Edwards
and Kudret (2017) found that organizational commitment mediates the relationship
between CSR perception and in-role performance, Story and Castanheira (2019),
based on a sample of 190 supervisor-subordinate dyads, did not support this argu-
ment and state that affective commitment did not mediate this relationship. They
argue that job satisfaction partially mediates the ECSR-employee performance rela-
tionship, and fully mediate the ICSR-employee performance relationship (Story and
Castanheira 2019). Other mediators include employee engagement and well-being
(Ali et al. 2020; Kim and Kim 2020), quality of working life (Asante Boadi et al.
2020), job crafting (Hur et al. 2021), OCB (He et al. 2019), and prosocial motivation
(Shin and Hur 2020).
Regarding moderators, perceived organizational support strengthen the relation-
ship between CSR and job performance (Hur et al. 2021). Asante Boadi et al. (2019)
investigate the moderating effect of employees’ work motivation patterns (i.e.,
autonomous motivation and controlled motivation) and found that autonomously
motivated employees have a stronger positive moderated impact on the relationship
between employees CSR perception and their performance. In addition, Vlachos,
Panagopoulos, and Rapp (2014) state that leadership styles and managers’ involve-
ment in CSR activities moderate the impact of CSR on employee performance.
Employment type also has a moderating effect of CSR on job performance (Yu et al.
2022).

13
CSR and employee outcomes: a systematic literature review

5.4 Organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB)

Organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB) is the second most frequent employee

outcome of CSR in our literature sample, after organizational commitment (51 out
of 270 studies). It is defined as “an individual behaviour that is discretionary, not
directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that in the aggre-
gate promotes the effective functioning of the organization” (Organ 1988, p.4). This
behaviour could be directed at other individuals inside the organization (OCB-I)
(Aguinis and Glavas 2019), or the organization as a whole (OCB-O) (Rupp et al.
2013).
Most of the researchers used social identity and social exchange theories to
explain the positive relationship between CSR and OCB. For example, (De Roeck
and Maon 2018; Evans and Davis 2014; Hansen et al. 2011; He et al. 2019; Park
et al. 2018; Tourigny et al. 2019) found that organizational identification and organi-
zational trust mediate the positive relationship between CSR and OCB. Likewise,
Yates (2020) has confirmed the claim that organizational trust mediates the rela-
tionship between CSR perceptions and OCB. In contrast to these previous stud-
ies, Ahmad et al. (2020), in their investigation of the impact of perceived CSR on
OCB in Pakistani universities, found that organizational trust does not mediate the
relationship. Other mediators include: CSR reputation (Chomvilailuk and Butcher
2022) task significance (Raub and Blunschi 2014), organizational commitment
(Tahlil Azim 2016), job satisfaction (Álvarez-Pérez et al. 2020), gratitude and com-
passion at work (Guzzo et al. 2020), prosocial motivation (Ong et al. 2018), CSR
involvement (Carlini and Grace 2021), and supervisors’ ethical leadership (Gao and
He 2017).
Regarding moderators, Rupp et al., (2013), based on a scenario-based experiment
and a survey, found that while employees’ first-party justice perceptions weaken the
positive relationship between CSR and OCB-O, their moral identity strengthened
this relationship. Other moderators include task significance (Ong et al. 2018), CSR
importance (van Dick et al. 2019), cultural differences, i.e., collectivist and feminine
personal traits (Jamali et al. 2019), organizational tenure (Wong et al. 2021), and
other-regarding value orientation (Evans et al. 2011a, b).
Few researchers distinguish between the different effects of different types of
CSR on OCB. Evans et al. (2011a, b), based on social learning theory, revealed that
only the economic dimension of CSR was significantly related to OCB, while other
dimensions not. On the other hand, Wong et al. (2021) state that ethical and philan-
thropic CSR enhance employee’s attitude toward CSR, job satisfaction and OCB,
whereas economic and legal CSR do not have a significant impact on attitude toward
CSR. In addition, Hur et al. (2019) found that internal CSR perceptions are more
strongly related to OCB than external CSR perceptions are. Furthermore, Ahmed
and Khan (2019) state that employee and community dimensions of CSR have a
direct and indirect (through OI) relationship with OCB. Contrary to the findings of
Evans et al. (2011a, b), Chaudhary (2020) found that all CSR dimensions (i.e., CSR
toward employee, customer, government, society, and environmental) have a signifi-
cant and positive impact on in-role performance and OCB.

13
 Y. Yassin, M. Beckmann

5.4.1 Pro‑environmental behaviours

Although few studies were found in the literature that examine the relationship
between CSR and employees’ pro-environmental behaviours (20 out of 270 studies),
there is an increasing interest in recent years about the topic. In fact, more than two
thirds of the studies examining the relationship were published from 2020 to 2022
(14 out of 20 studies), and the rest of them were published since 2017. So, this topic
is considered new in the literature, which can explain why prior reviews examining
employee outcomes of CSR did not address this relationship.
Pro-environmental behaviour or organizational citizenship behaviour for the envi-
ronment (OCB-E) or green behaviours refer to the “discretionary acts by employ-
ees within the organization not rewarded or required that are directed toward envi-
ronmental improvement” (Daily et al. 2009, p. 246). Although OCB-E is derived
from OCB, the two constructs are not similar. As OCB include the set of voluntary
behaviours that mainly benefit the organization, OCB-E encompasses the voluntary
behaviours that are directed to the benefit of the environment (Cheema et al. 2020a,
b). Ones and Dilchert (2012) group pro-environmental behaviours into five main
categories: working sustainably, avoiding harm, conserving, influencing others, and
taking initiative (Kongrerk 2017). In contrast, Cheema et al., (2020a, b) differenti-
ate between three dimensions of OCB-E among employees: the first dimension is
related to the participation of employees in organizational environmental programs
(i.e. eco‐civic engagement), while the second dimension is related to inspiring and
helping co-workers to engage in pro‐environmental behaviours (i.e. eco‐helping),
whereas the third dimension is related to taking initiative, suggesting and imple-
menting new ideas that benefit the environment (i.e. eco‐initiatives) (Cheema et al.
2020a, b).
The relationship between CSR and pro-environmental behaviours could
be direct (e.g. Afsar et al. 2018) or indirect through organizational identifica-
tion (e.g. De Roeck & Farooq 2018; Islam et al. 2019; Tian & Robertson 2019;
Cheema et al. 2020a, b), organizational trust May et al., (2021) OI and co-
worker pro-environmental advocacy (Shah et al. 2021), organizational pride and
employee engagement (Raza et al. 2021), environmental orientation fit (Cheema
et al. 2020a, b), organizational commitment (Kongrerk 2017), employee well-
being (Raza et al. 2020), and employees’ attitude toward CSR and job satisfac-
tion (Wong et al. 2021). In addition, Afsar and Umrani (2020), through a survey
to 560 employees, reveal that moral reflectiveness, co-worker pro environmen-
tal advocacy, and environmental commitment partially mediate the relationship
between CSR and OCB-Es.
Different CSR dimensions have different effects on green behaviours, as based
on a survey of 35 different companies in South Asia in the manufacturing indus-
try, De Roeck and Farooq (2018) state that environmental CSR has a direct and
indirect effect on green behaviours, while community CSR has no direct effect
on green behaviours. Likewise, Islam et al. (2019) proved that environmental
CSR positively affect pro environmental behaviours through OI. Moreover, Yang
and Gao (2021), in their study of the effect of different dimensions of corporate
environmental responsibility (CER) on employees, demonstrate that substantive

13
CSR and employee outcomes: a systematic literature review

CER has a positive direct and indirect (through OI) effect on pro-environmental
behaviours of employees. While symbolic CER has a negative direct effect on
pro-environmental behaviours (Yang and Gao 2021). Likewise, Yin et al. (2021)
found that employees’ environmental passion and empathy mediate the relation-
ship between environmental CSR and environmental citizenship behaviour.
Regarding moderators, Luu (2017), who collected data from 637 employees
and 214 department managers in the hotel industry in Vietnam business con-
text, revealed that corporate entrepreneurship acts as a change force for employ-
ees’ behaviours and interact with CSR in predicting OCB-E. He also found that
the attachment styles of employees moderate the relationship between CSR and
OCB-E, as attachment anxiety strengthened, and attachment avoidance weak-
ened the positive relationship between CSR and OCB-E. Likewise, Cheema et al.
(2020a, b) state that corporate entrepreneurship and environmental conscious-
ness moderate the positive effect of CSR on OCB-Es. Furthermore, perceived
ethical leadership and environmentally specific servant leadership strengthen the
effect of CSR on green and societal behaviours (Afsar et al. 2018; De Roeck and
Farooq 2018). In addition, Afsar et al. (2020a, b) have examined the moderat-
ing effect of employees’ CSR motive attribution and found that substantive CSR
motive attribution strengthened the positive relationship between CSR percep-
tion and OCBEs, while symbolic CSR attribution weakened this relationship.
Other moderators include green HRM and responsible leadership (He, Morri-
son, & Zhang, 2020), empathy (Islam et al. 2019; Tian and Robertson 2019),
employees’ workplace spirituality (Yang & Gao 2021), and organizational ten-
ure (Wong, Kim & Hwang, 2021).

5.4.2 Pro‑social behaviours

Prosocial behaviours or societal citizenship behaviours refer to the voluntary acts by

employees that are directed to the well-being of the whole community (De Roeck
and Farooq 2018). We found very few studies that investigate the employees’ CSR
outcomes that are directed to the society (8 out of 270 studies). John et al. (2017),
based on a case study of a firm in Pakistan, reveal that organizational identifica-
tion and organizational pride fully mediate the positive effect of CSR on employ-
ees’ desire to have a significant impact through work, which refers to the employees’
preference to do a job that has a major impact on the society and the lives of others.
Moreover, according to self-determination theory, involving employees in the CSR
decision making increases their intention to persistently engage in prosocial behav-
iours through the satisfaction of employees’ psychological needs for competence
and relatedness (Tao et al. 2018). In addition, according to social identity and social
learning theories, employees’ identification with socially responsible organiza-
tions increases their engagement in CSR donation programs at work, which in turn,
increases their societal citizenship behaviours, such as donations and volunteering,
outside of work (Lewin et al. 2020).
Regarding the different effects of different CSR dimensions on prosocial behav-
iour, De Roeck and Maon (2018) reveal that internal and external CSR have a posi-
tive effect on society-oriented employee outcomes through the mediation of OI

13
 Y. Yassin, M. Beckmann

and organizational trust. Moreover, De Roeck and Farooq (2018) found that com-
munity CSR has a direct and indirect impact (through OI) on employees’ societal
behaviours, while environmental CSR has only an indirect effect on societal behav-
iours. They also found that ethical leadership perception moderates the relationship
between perceived environmental and community CSR and employees’ societal
behaviours (De Roeck and Farooq 2018). In addition, Sultan (2014) reveals that
employees’ perceptions of discretionary CSR have a positive indirect effect on their
donation intentions outside the work through the mediation of OI and employees’
attitudes toward donations, respectively. Moreover, Wong, Kim & Hwang, (2021)
state that ethical and philanthropic CSR enhance employee’s attitude toward CSR,
job satisfaction and pro-social behaviour, whereas economic and legal CSR do not
have a significant impact on attitude toward CSR.

5.4.3 Other positive employee outcomes

CSR has a positive direct and indirect relationship (through OI) with employee crea-
tivity and innovative behaviour (Brammer et al. 2015; Glavas and Piderit 2014; Luu
2020; Afridi et al. 2020; Dung 2021), and organizational innovation (Wang 2014;
Ubius and Alas 2012; Li et al. 2019). In addition, organizations can use CSR pro-
grams to improve the knowledge, skills, and competencies of employees (through,
for example, educational programs and professional training), which in turn, reduce
the skill gaps in the labour market (Camilleri 2016). Also, CSR can enhance knowl-
edge sharing behaviours of employees (Farooq et al. 2014a, b), sustainable safety
behaviours (Hur et al. 2022), intrinsic and extrinsic motivation (e.g., Getele et al.
2020; Kunz 2020), as well as employee advocacy intention in social media (Lee
2021).

5.4.4 Reduction of undesirable employee outcomes

We found that 45 studies of our sample lie in this category. Most of them (35 stud-
ies) are related to the role of CSR in reducing turnover intentions of employees (e.g.,
Ouakouak et al. 2019). Turnover intention refers to the employees’ desire to leave
the company due to dissatisfaction with their company and/or potential better oppor-
tunities with other companies (Hansen et al. 2011). Vitaliano (2010) proved empiri-
cally that engaging in CSR activities can have an additional impact on turnover
intentions of companies. Other researchers found that job satisfaction and organi-
zational commitment leads to lower turnover intentions (e.g., Camilleri 2016; Hol-
lingworth and Valentine 2014; Low et al. 2017; Tao et al. 2018). Furthermore, dif-
ferent dimensions of CSR have a different effect on turnover intention. For example,
Park et al. (2018), based on an online survey to 455 employees at the largest travel
company in South Korea, found that employee and customer dimensions of CSR
have a positive effect on employee intention to stay in the organization through the
mediation of work engagement, while environmental and community dimensions of
CSR do not have a significant impact on work engagement. Moreover, J. (Sunny)
Kim et al. (2020), based on survey from employees of a casino hotel company in

13
CSR and employee outcomes: a systematic literature review

the USA, state that ethical and philanthropic dimensions of CSR have a positive
and indirect effect on intension to stay through OI and higher-order quality-of-work-
life (HQWL), while economic CSR has a significant indirect effect on intention to
stay through HQWL only. Regarding moderators, Vlachos et al. (2014) found that
employee satisfaction with pay strengthens the positive effect of CSR on intention to
stay, while satisfaction with the job itself tempers such effect. Moreover, contextual
factors and employees’ demographic features have a moderating effect on the rela-
tionship between CSR and turnover intentions (Wisse et al. 2018; Garrido‐Ruso and
Aibar‐Guzmán, 2022).
In addition, we found a negative relationship between CSR and undesirable
employee outcomes such as employee cynicism, deviance, and alienation from
work. Cynical employees believe that their organization lacks fairness, integrity, and
honesty and work for its self-interest over the interest of other stakeholders, which
in turn produces negative feelings toward it (e.g., distress, pessimism, and hopeless-
ness). As a result, they behave negatively at work through, for example, criticizing
the organization to outsiders and reduce discretionary behaviours such as OCB (Ser-
rano Archimi et al. 2018; Sheel and Vohra 2016). In a similar vein, employee devi-
ance is a negative behaviour of employee that violates organization’s norms such as
stealing, acting rudely to others, working less, and covering up mistakes (Evans and
Davis 2014). Finally, allienation from work arises when employees feel that work
does not satisfy their needs and expectations, which result in a state of psycological
separation from work, low enthusiasm, and concern for work (Sharma 2018).
Some researchers such as (Sheel and Vohra 2016) show empirically that there is
a negative direct relationship between perceived CSR and organizational cynicism.
Others argue that organizational identification and trust mediate the negative rela-
tionship between perceived CSR and employee cynicism and deviance (e.g., Evans
and Davis 2014; Serrano Archimi et al. 2018). Moreover, Sharma (2018) demon-
strate that corporate ethical values increase OCB and reduce allienation from work.
In addition, Fairlie and Svergun, (2015) reveal that employees’ positive perceptions
of organizational CSR have a negative effect on stress symptoms, depression symp-
toms, and turnover intentions. Finally, Tafolli and Grabner-Kräuter (2020), reveal
that there is a negative indirect effect between employees’ perceived CSR and per-
ceived organizational corruption, through the mediation of perceived ethical leader-
ship and job satisfaction.

5.5 Undesirable employee outcomes of CSR

After reviewing all studies related to the employee outcomes of CSR, we found very
few studies that discuss the undesirable employee outcomes of CSR (only 11 out of
270 articles). Note that undesirable employee outcomes of CSR include not only the
undesirable employee outcomes that increase with CSR due to a positive relation-
ship with it but also desirable employee outcomes that decrease because of a nega-
tive relationship with CSR.
Maon et al. (2019), in their review of undesirable outcomes of CSR, con-
clude that undesirable employee outcomes are driven by either exchange-related

13
 Y. Yassin, M. Beckmann

(performing) and/ or identity-related (belonging) tensions. They argue that perform-

ing tensions could be linked to the attributions of corporate motivations for engag-
ing in CSR or the perceived content and outcomes of such CSR engagement. On the
other hand, belonging tensions arise when employees encounter opposing or incon-
sistent demands on their identity, which foster contradiction and strains in terms of
their values, beliefs, or priorities (Maon et al. 2019). When employees face differ-
ences between their beliefs about the importance of CSR (i.e., the role of business
in society) and their perceptions about their organizations’ CSR engagement, they
sense “CSR incongruence”, which result in negative effects on their performance
and quality of their work life (Maon et al. 2019).
When employees perceive that their organizations practice CSR activities for self-
serving purposes (i.e., symbolic CSR), their relationships with the organization as
well as the consequent work-related attitudes and behaviours are negatively affected
(Donia et al. 2019; Donia and Tetrault Sirsly 2016). Also, when employees perceive
too much altruistic motives for CSR, they believe that their organizations are not
competent enough to take care of its business and, consequently, of its employees
(Vlachos et al. 2014). Likewise, Story and Neves (2015) state that symbolic CSR
attributions of employees leads to employee cynicism and negatively affects in-role
and extra-role performance. At the same time, substantive CSR attributions alone is
not enough and may also result in negative effects on employee outcomes. It is only
the combination of both, substantive and symbolic CSR, that has positive effects on
employee outcomes according to (Story and& Neves 2015). In addition, Babu et al.
(2020), in their investigation of the relationship between corporate hypocrisy and
employee’s engagement in CSR, found that corporate hypocrisy increases CSR sym-
bolic attributions of employees, which in turn decreases employees’ engagement in
voluntary CSR activities, directed at the organization or society. They also state that
this relationship is stronger for employees higher in task significance (Babu et al.
2020).
Moreover, Scheidler et al. (2019) investigate the impact of external–internal CSR
jointly on employee attitudes, intentions, and behaviours. They state that employ-
ees’ perception that the company invests more in external than internal CSR leads
to increased perceptions of corporate hypocrisy, emotional exhaustion and, con-
sequently, turnover intentions. In addition, it negatively affects the relationship
between the organization and employees and increases deviant behaviours among
employees (Maon et al. 2019). Jung and Kim (2016) argue that companies are more
likely to focus more on external than internal CSR because of limited resources
and competing demands. They state that companies’ involvement in external
CSR (i.e., community, consumer, and environmental CSR) is more likely to have
a negative consequence on different employment relations outcomes. Considering
limited resources, companies tend to implement HR policies (such as controlling
employment growth, implementing restructuring policies, and increasing contingent
employment) that increase organizational efficiency and reduce costs in order to off-
set the costs related to CSR activities, which, in turn, increases employees’ insecu-
rity and affects employee outcomes negatively (Jung and Kim 2016).
Deng et al. (2020) in their investigation of the relationship between different lev-
els of external CSR and employee productivity, conclude that CSR could have a

13
CSR and employee outcomes: a systematic literature review

negative impact on employee productivity. At low levels of external CSR, the impact
on employee productivity is negative. At the same time, the same negative relation-
ship between external CSR and employee productivity occurs because of the addi-
tional costs and burdens that the company incurs as a result of the high levels of
CSR activities, which affects their financial performance, and hence, their employee
productivity negatively. Only at a moderate level of external CSR, Deng et al. (2020)
found a positive impact on employee productivity. Moreover, they tested the moder-
ating effect of internal CSR on the relationship and found that high levels of ICSR
increase employee productivity (Deng et al. 2020).
Brieger et al. (2020) investigate the relationship between CSR and employee work
addiction, which refers to the employees’ tendency to work excessively hard, which
result in negative consequences in their personal lives, well-being, and families.
They found that although organizational CSR has a negative direct relationship with
employee work addiction, it has also a positive indirect effect on employees’ work
addiction through the mediation of OI and work meaningfulness. CSR increases
employees’ identification with the organization and their perception of work mean-
ingfulness, which in turn increases their tendency to work hard at the expense of
their well-being and personal lives. In addition, employees’ public value awareness
was investigated as a moderator in the relationship, and the results proved that the
indirect effect of CSR on employee work addiction is stronger when employees’
public value awareness is high (Brieger et al. 2020).
List and Momeni (2021) conduct a natural field experiment with over 1500
employees on the relationship between CSR and employee misbehaviour. They
found that CSR can increases the tendency and intensity of employee’s misbehav-
iour due to the effect of moral licensing. CSR enhances employees’ self-image
because of the ethical and pro-social acts of employees it brings. Consequently, CSR
can increase employees’ shirking on their primary job duties because of the moral
licensing effect of CSR (List and Momeni 2021).
Regarding moderators, Donia and Tetrault Sirsly (2016) investigate the moder-
ating effects of employees’ moral identity and self-orientation on the relationship
between perceived symbolic CSR attributions and employee attitudes and behav-
iors. They found that symbolic CSR attributions positively affects employees’ coun-
ter productive work behaviors such as employee deviance and negatively affects
employees’ positive attitudes and behaviors such as OI, organizational commitment,
and OCBs. Moreover, the relationships are stronger when employee moral identity is
high and when self-orientation is low (Donia and Tetrault Sirsly 2016). Donia et al.
(2019) reveal that CSR importance has a moderating effect on the negative rela-
tionship between symbolic CSR attributions and individual performance (through
the mediation of person-organization fit), such that the relationship will be stronger
when CSR importance is high. In addition, Vlachos et al. (2014) have examined the
moderating effects of two types of employees’ satisfaction (i.e., satisfaction with pay
and satisfaction with the job itself) on the relationship between CSR and employees’
intentions to stay and positive recommendations. They found that these two types
of job satisfaction interact with CSR differently and could weaken (attenuate) the
positive effect of CSR on employee intention to stay and positive recommendations

13
 Y. Yassin, M. Beckmann

Individual differences
Organizational factors
collectivism, other-regarding value
Organizational support, justice, ethical
orientation, empathy, CSR importance,
leadership, corporate ability, corporate
national culture, moral identity, task
significance entrepreneurship

Demographic factors Environmental factors

age, gender, education, tenure environmental consciousness, green
HRM, environmentally specific servant
leadership

Moderators

Employee outcomes
CSR dimensions
Organization-oriented
Positive: Attractiveness, commitment, OCB-O, identification,
productivity, trust, motivation, engagement, innovation
Internal CSR (related to
employees) Negative: deviance-O, turnover intentions, organizational
cynicism
External CSR (related to other
stakeholders: community,
consumers, shareholders,
government, & environment) Individual-oriented
Positive: Job satisfaction, well-being, OCB-I,
meaningfulness, skills improvement, knowledge sharing
behaviours, innovative behaviour
Carroll’s dimensions of Negative: Deviance-I, depression, stress emotional
Economic, legal, ethical,
discretionary CSR Mediators exhaustion, alienation from work

External prestige Environment-oriented

Organizational pride Person-organization fit working sustainably, avoiding harm, conserving, influencing
Compassion at work others, and taking initiative (Ones & Dilchert, 2012)
Organizational trust
Ethical leadership
Overall justice
Organizational identification Organizational embeddedness
Fulfilment of job needs society-oriented
Work meaningfulness prosocial behaviours (e.g., donation intentions, desire to
Organizational support Prosocial motivation
Task significance have a significant impact through work, volunteering,
Corporate image& reputation donations

Fig. 3  Conceptual framework of employee outcomes of CSR

when satisfaction with pay is low and also when satisfaction with the job itself is
high (Vlachos et al. 2014).

6 Discussion and conceptual framework

6.1 Theoretical contribution

Our systematic review contributes to the literature in different ways. It gives a com-
prehensive overview of desirable and undesirable employee outcomes of CSR clas-
sified into four groups: organization, individual, society, and environment-oriented
outcomes. In addition, it clarifies the relationship between employee outcomes as
well as the mechanisms and boundary conditions that influence the relationship
between CSR and employee outcomes. Moreover, we explain the different effects
of different CSR dimensions on employee outcomes, as we found that the differ-
ent dimensions of CSR do not have the same effect on employee attitudes and
behaviours.
We build a conceptual model (see Fig. 3) that summarizes and reflects the litera-
ture. First, CSR has different meanings, definitions, and dimensions. We clarify the
most popular definitions in CSR and micro-CSR literature. In addition, we found
that 60% of the studies reviewed in our sample examine the overall effect of CSR
on employees without differentiating between the effects of different dimensions
of CSR on employee outcomes. The rest of the studies in our sample (109 studies)
investigate the effect of one or more dimensions of CSR on employees. In our frame-
work, we include the two most mentioned categorizations in our literature sample.
The classification of internal versus external CSR is the most frequent classification
of CSR mentioned in our sample with 26 studies examining the effect of internal
CSR, 5 studies investigating the effect of external CSR, and 24 studies investigating
the effects of both kinds of CSR. The second most frequent classification of CSR

13
CSR and employee outcomes: a systematic literature review

is Carroll’s (1991) dimensions of economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary CSR,

as we found 26 studies that distinguish between the different effects of these four
dimensions of CSR on employees.
Second, regarding employee outcomes, we use the distinction by De Roeck and
Maon (2018) who classify employee outcomes of CSR into three groups: organi-
zation, individual, and society-oriented employee outcomes. In addition, we add a
fourth group which is directed to the natural environment. Organization-oriented
outcomes refer to the employees’ attitudes and behaviours that have a direct impact
on organizational performance, such as organizational commitment, OI, turnover
intentions, and OCB directed at the organization. In contrast, individual-oriented
outcomes are related to employees’ attitudes and behaviours that affect their personal
well-being, such as job satisfaction. We found that most of the studies reviewed were
related to these two groups (242 out of 270 studies). On the other hand, society-
oriented outcomes include the employee attitudes and behaviours that are related to
the well-being of the whole community and the lives of others, such as donations to
charities and volunteering in social programs. We found only 8 studies that inves-
tigate employee outcomes of CSR that are directed at society. Finally, the fourth
group, environment-oriented employee outcomes, encompasses the employee atti-
tudes and behaviours directed at the natural environment. Ones and Dilchert (2012)
classify them into 5 main groups: working sustainably, avoiding harm, conserving,
influencing others, and taking initiative. We found only 20 in this group, almost all
of them published in the past few years. In addition, we identify the desirable and
undesirable outcomes in each group and found very few studies that examine unde-
sirable impacts of CSR on employees (11 out of 270) and all of them are directed
to the individual and the organization. There is no study that addresses undesirable
employee outcomes that are related to society and the environment.
Interestingly, the distinction between mediators, moderators, and outcomes
is not clear. In fact, many outcomes are mediators for other outcomes, which can
be explained by the fact that we have a multi-step process or causal relationships
between outcomes with some theories explaining part of the process and other theo-
ries explaining the other part(s) of the process. For example, some researchers use
social identity theory to explain the effect of CSR on employee behaviours through
a multi-step process, as CSR enhances employee emotions such as organizational
pride, which, in turn, increases the positive attitudes of employees such as organiza-
tional identification and organizational commitment in a sequential manner. These
positive attitudes are translated into positive employee behaviours such as in-role
and extra-role performance and pro-environmental behaviours. Other researchers
use the social exchange path to clarify the relationship between CSR and employee
attitudes and behaviours through the mediation of organizational justice and organi-
zational trust, respectively. Hence, we conclude that most of the literature reviewed
in our sample reveals that the relationship between CSR and employee outcomes is
complex and follows a sequential model of mediations rather than a parallel media-
tion model.
Third, regarding mediators, many authors use social identity and social exchange
theory to explain the mediating roles of organizational pride and organizational trust
as a mechanism that explain the effect of CSR on employee outcomes (159 times).

13
 Y. Yassin, M. Beckmann

Interestingly, almost all studies treat organizational pride and trust as mediators that
explain the relationship and not as positive outcomes themselves. We found only 4
studies that consider organizational pride as a positive outcome and no study that
examines organizational trust as a positive outcome. This is considered a gap in
the literature and hence, we call for explicit research that treats these two factors as
outcomes of their own, and not only as mediators. In addition, we found that some
mediators are used as moderators by others such as person-organization fit, organi-
zational support, overall justice, and ethical leadership. Therefore, more research is
needed that distinguishes between their roles in the relationship between CSR and
employee outcomes.
The last column in our conceptual model (Fig. 3) is related to the moderators
that could strengthen or weaken the relationship. We classify moderators into four
groups. The first group includes individual differences such as person-organiza-
tion fit, collectivism, other-regarding value orientation, empathy, CSR importance,
national culture, moral identity, and task significance, while the second group
includes demographic factors such as age, gender, education, and tenure. In con-
trast, organizational factors include organizational support, first-party justice, over-
all justice, high-commitment working systems, ethical leadership, corporate ability,
and corporate entrepreneurship. The last group is the environmental factors, which
include factors such as environmental consciousness, green HRM, environmentally
specific servant leadership. Figure 3 shows the conceptual framework of our review
and summarizes CSR dimensions, mediators, moderators, and employee outcomes.
This review seems timely, as the last comprehensive review of Gond et al. (2017)
reviewed the literature on micro foundation of CSR until 2016. We found a massive
increase in the micro-CSR literature in the past six years, as 187 articles out of 270
(70%) examined in our review were published in the last six years. In addition, to
our knowledge, this is the first review that explains and synthesizes the society-ori-
ented and environment-oriented employee outcomes of CSR. Moreover, unlike pre-
vious reviews, we synthesized the literature about undesirable employee outcomes
of CSR and classified them to individual or organization-oriented outcomes.

6.2 Practical implications

This systematic literature review delves into the relationship between Corporate
Social Responsibility (CSR) and employee outcomes, offering practical insights for
companies seeking to understand and leverage these dynamics.
Firstly, there is a need for continuous monitoring and measurement of employ-
ees’ perceptions of CSR. Managers should actively engage with these perceptions to
respond promptly and cultivate a positive image of the company’s CSR initiatives.
This proactive approach contributes to strengthening relationships with employ-
ees, attracting and retaining high-quality staff, and fostering positive attitudes and
behaviours. Additionally, addressing negative perceptions is crucial. Companies
should be careful about potential negative attitudes and behaviours resulting from a
poor perception of CSR, such as cynicism and counterproductive work behaviours.

13
CSR and employee outcomes: a systematic literature review

Moreover, cultivating favourable CSR perceptions involves also embedding CSR

into core business operations, ensuring congruence between actions and stakeholder
expectations. Actively involving employees in CSR activities, from planning to
implementation, contributes to building a positive employer-employee relationship.
Detecting and rectifying these issues can lead to a competitive advantage and sus-
tainable organizational growth.
The review highlights also the importance of understanding the differential
effects of various CSR dimensions on employee outcomes. This knowledge empow-
ers managers to design and implement specific types of CSR initiatives that mean-
ingfully enhance positive employee outcomes. A proper balance between CSR for
internal and external stakeholders is deemed crucial to avoid feelings of unfairness,
breach of trust, and cynicism among employees. Managers should prioritize employ-
ees’ well-being alongside external CSR efforts to maintain internal harmony.
The implications extend to human resources management, challenging the notion
that economic rewards are the sole motivators for employees. Investing in CSR ini-
tiatives is portrayed as a tool in human resources management, serving to motivate
employees and attract and retain talented individuals. Moreover, recognizing the
conditions under which CSR positively influences employees allows companies to
tailor relevant human resource management policies. For instance, CSR can be stra-
tegically used to retain talented managers and appeal to younger employees.
Finally, transparent CSR communication is essential. Organizations should artic-
ulate their CSR communications clearly, providing information about CSR objec-
tives, relevance, and overall impact on the company, society, and employees. Trans-
parent communication helps diminish employee skepticism, fostering a positive
perception of CSR authenticity and cultivating a healthy and productive employer-
employee relationship.

6.3 Limitations and future research directions

The review has limitations. The search was limited to specific databases, and different
databases could have generated different results. In addition, we restricted our search
to only titles that included CSR-related terms. In future studies, a more expansive
approach could be adopted, considering the keywords as well. Moreover, we decided to
limit the search to peer-reviewed journal articles, while there could be interesting book
chapters and working papers on the topic.
Additionally, the focus of our literature was on the employee outcomes of CSR and
mechanisms that explain these outcomes. Future research could include the drivers
(antecedents) of CSR at the individual level in order to clarify the forces that trigger
CSR engagement.
Most of the existing research primarily focuses on employee outcomes related to
individual and organizational aspects. Only 28 out of 270 studies explore the impact of
corporate social responsibility (CSR) on outcomes directed towards society or the envi-
ronment, such as pro-environmental behaviour. Future investigations should emphasize
the influence of CSR on employees’ attitudes and behaviours contributing to commu-
nity well-being and environmental preservation.

13
 Y. Yassin, M. Beckmann

Moreover, a noticeable gap exists in understanding employees’ perceptions of their

company’s motivation for engaging in CSR, with only 8 out of 270 studies address-
ing this aspect. This gap may contribute to the scarcity of studies revealing negative
impacts of CSR on employees, particularly when employees perceive CSR activities
as self-serving (symbolic CSR), resulting in adverse effects on organizational relation-
ships, work-related attitudes, and behaviours.
Additionally, there is a dearth of studies investigating undesirable impacts of CSR
on employees, especially those related to society and the environment. Future research
should delve into the undesirable outcomes of CSR initiatives, shedding light on poten-
tial adverse effects on employees and broader communities.
Further investigation is warranted to examine the role of contextual factors, such as
geographical region, national culture, industry sector, and economic status, in determin-
ing employees’ CSR outcomes. Additionally, there is a need to explore novel employee
behavioural outcomes like creativity, innovative work behaviour, and employee advo-
cacy behaviour, as well as adverse outcomes like organizational cynicism, employee
deviance, counterproductive work behaviour, and perceived organizational corruption.
These emerging themes require attention in future research to advance the existing
knowledge base.
Future research should also consider societal factors in CSR-Employee outcomes
relationship that may strengthen or weaken the relationship between CSR and employee
outcomes. This includes investigating the influence of social needs, networks, role
models, family support, and the societal and economic circumstances of employees’
families.

7 Conclusion

The primary objective of this paper was to explore the correlation between vari-
ous dimensions of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and diverse employee
outcomes. The methodology was a systematic review, which involved a thorough
examination of existing literature pertaining to CSR and its impact on employee out-
comes, leading to the development of a comprehensive conceptual framework. This
framework not only delineates the desirable and undesirable outcomes of CSR activ-
ities on employees but also incorporates the underlying mechanisms (mediators) and
contextual factors (moderators) influencing this relationship.
The analysis of the literature underscored that each dimension of CSR exerts dis-
tinct effects on employees’ attitudes and behaviors. Notably, the majority of studies
predominantly focused on outcomes at the individual or organizational levels.
The research reveals that out of 270 studies, only 28 investigate the impact of cor-
porate social responsibility (CSR) on societal and environmental outcomes, such as
pro-environmental behaviour. Additionally, the understanding of employees’ percep-
tions of their company’s CSR motives is limited, with just 8 studies exploring this,
potentially explaining why few studies report CSR’s negative impacts on employees.
These perceived negative impacts, especially when CSR is seen as symbolic or self-
serving, can adversely affect organizational relationships and employee behaviour.
Furthermore, there remains a scarcity of research on the potentially harmful effects

13
CSR and employee outcomes: a systematic literature review

of CSR on employees, particularly in societal and environmental contexts. We call

on future research to address these gaps.
In addition to its theoretical contributions, the review has practical implications.
Recognizing the diverse effects of CSR on employees proves valuable for compa-
nies, enabling managers to discern the relative significance of these effects and, con-
sequently, formulate and implement CSR strategies and policies that generate busi-
ness value. A key recommendation is for managers to actively monitor and assess
employees’ perceptions of CSR, allowing for prompt responsiveness and the cultiva-
tion of a positive perception regarding the company’s CSR initiatives. This proac-
tive approach not only enhances the company’s relationship with employees but can
also facilitate the attraction and retention of highly qualified staff, thereby fostering
increased productivity, commitment, and other positive attitudes and behaviors.
Moreover, by addressing negative perceptions stemming from CSR, such as cyni-
cism, emotional exhaustion, and counterproductive work behaviors, companies can
preemptively detect and rectify potential issues. This, in turn, culminates in a com-
petitive advantage and sustainable growth for the organization.
Funding Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.

Data availability The authors confirm that all data generated or analysed during this systematic review
are included in this article.

Declarations
Conflict of interest The authors declare that no funds, grants, or other support were received during the
preparation of this manuscript. In addition, they have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to
disclose. The authors confirm that all data generated or analysed during this systematic review are included
in this article.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License,
which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long
as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative
Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this
article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line
to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended
use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permis-
sion directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by/4.0/.

References
Afridi SA, Afsar B, Shahjehan A, Rehman ZU, Haider M, Ullah M (2020) Perceived corporate social
responsibility and innovative work behavior: The role of employee volunteerism and authenticity.
Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 27(4):1865–1877. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​csr.​1932
Afsar B, Al-Ghazali BM, Rehman ZU, Umrani WA (2020a) The moderating effects of employee corpo-
rate social responsibility motive attributions (substantive and symbolic) between corporate social
responsibility perceptions and voluntary pro-environmental behavior. Corp Soc Responsib Environ
Manag 27(2):769–785. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​csr.​1843

13
 Y. Yassin, M. Beckmann

Afsar B, Al-Ghazali B, Umrani W (2020b) Corporate social responsibility, work meaningfulness, and
employee engagement: The joint moderating effects of incremental moral belief and moral identity
centrality. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 27(3):1264–1278. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​csr.​1882
Afsar B, Cheema S, Javed F (2018) Activating employee’s pro-environmental behaviors: The role of
CSR, organizational identification, and environmentally specific servant leadership. Corp Soc
Responsib Environ Manag 25(5):904–911. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​csr.​1506
Afsar B, Umrani WA (2020) Corporate social responsibility and pro-environmental behavior at work-
place: the role of moral reflectiveness, coworker advocacy, and environmental commitment. Corp
Soc Responsib Environ Manag 27(1):109–125. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​csr.​1777
Aggarwal P, Singh RK (2022) Synthesizing the affinity between employees’ internal-external CSR
perceptions and work outcomes: a meta-analytic investigation. Bus Ethics Environ Responsib
31(4):1053–1101
Aguinis H, Glavas A (2012) What we know and don’t know about corporate social responsibility: a
review and research agenda. J Manag 38(4):932–968. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​01492​06311​436079
Aguinis H, Glavas A (2019) On corporate social responsibility, sensemaking, and the search for mean-
ingfulness through work. J Manag 45(3):1057–1086. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​01492​06317​691575
Ahmad R, Ahmad S, Islam T, Kaleem A (2020) The nexus of corporate social responsibility (CSR),
affective commitment and organisational citizenship behaviour in academia: a model of trust. Empl
Relat 42(1):232–247. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​ER-​04-​2018-​0105
Ahmed Z, Khan H (2019) Impact of perceived corporate social responsibility on organizational citi-
zenship behavior: Mediating role of organizational identification. Pakistan J Comm Soc Sci
13(4):892–914
Ali HY, Asrar-ul-Haq M, Amin S, Noor S, Haris-ul-Mahasbi M, Aslam MK (2020) Corporate social
responsibility and employee performance: The mediating role of employee engagement in the man-
ufacturing sector of Pakistan. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 27(6):2908–2919. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1002/​csr.​2011
da Almeida M, G. M. C., & Coelho, A. F. M. (2019) The antecedents of corporate reputation and image
and their impacts on employee commitment and performance: the moderating role of CSR. Corp
Reput Rev 22(1):10–25. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1057/​s41299-​018-​0053-8
Allen NJ, Meyer JP (1990) The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative
commitment to the organization. J Occup Psychol 63(1):1–18
Álvarez-Pérez MD, Carballo-Penela A, Rivera-Torres P (2020) Work-life balance and corporate social
responsibility: The evaluation of gender differences on the relationship between family-friendly
psychological climate and altruistic behaviors at work. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag
27(6):2777–2792. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​csr.​2001
Asante Boadi E, He Z, Boadi EK, Bosompem J, Avornyo P (2019) Consequences of corporate social
responsibility on employees: the moderating role of work motivation patterns. Pers Rev 49(1):231–
249. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​PR-​08-​2018-​0288
Asante Boadi E, He Z, Bosompem J, Opata CN, Boadi EK (2020) Employees’ perception of corporate
social responsibility (CSR) and its effects on internal outcomes. Ser Indus J 40(9–10):611–632
Babu N, De Roeck K, Raineri N (2020) Hypocritical organizations: implications for employee social
responsibility. J Bus Res 114(August):376–384. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jbusr​es.​2019.​07.​034
Baric A (2017) Corporate social responsibility and stakeholders: Review of the last decade (2006–2015).
Bus Syst Res 8(1):133–146. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1515/​bsrj-​2017-​0011
Barrena-Martínez J, López-Fernández M, Márquez-Moreno C, Romero-Fernández PM (2015) Corporate
social responsibility in the process of attracting college graduates. Corp Soc Responsib Environ
Manag 22(6):408–423. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​csr.​1355
Bohlmann C, Krumbholz L, Zacher H (2018) The triple bottom line and organizational attractiveness
ratings: the role of pro-environmental attitude. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 25(5):912–
919. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​csr.​1507
Brammer S, He H, Mellahi K (2015) Corporate social responsibility, employee organizational iden-
tification, and creative effort: the moderating impact of corporate ability. Group Org Manag
40(3):323–352. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​10596​01114​562246
Brammer S, Millington A, Rayton B (2007) The contribution of corporate social responsibility to
organizational commitment. Int J Hum Resour Manag 18(10):1701–1719. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1080/​09585​19070​15708​66

13
CSR and employee outcomes: a systematic literature review

Bravo R, Buil I, de Chernatony L, Martínez E (2017) Brand Identity Management and Corporate
Social Responsibility: an analysis from employees’ perspective in the banking sector. J Bus
Econ Manag 18(2):241–257. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3846/​16111​699.​2016.​12097​85
Brieger SA, Anderer S, Fröhlich A, Bäro A, Meynhardt T (2020) Too much of a good thing? On the
relationship between CSR and employee work addiction. J Bus Ethics 166(2):311–329. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10551-​019-​04141-8
Buchholtz AK, Carroll AB (2009) Business & society: ethics & stakeholder management, 7th edn. South-
Western Cengage Learning, Mason
Camilleri MA (2016) Reconceiving corporate social responsibility for business and educational out-
comes. Cogent Bus Manag 3(1):1–14. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​23311​975.​2016.​11420​44
Carroll AB (1991) The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: toward the moral management of
organizational stakeholders. Bus Horiz 34(4):39–48. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​0007-​6813(91)​
90005-g.​hdl:​11323/​2358.​ISSN0​007-​6813
Carlini J, Grace D (2021) The corporate social responsibility (CSR) internal branding model: align-
ing employees’ CSR awareness, knowledge, and experience to deliver positive employee per-
formance outcomes. J Mark Manag 37(7–8):732–760. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​02672​57x.​2020.​
18601​13
Chaudhary R (2020) Corporate social responsibility and employee performance: a study among
Indian Business Executives. Int J Hum Resour Manag 31(21):2761–2784. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1080/​09585​192.​2018.​14691​59
Chatzopoulou E, Manolopoulos D, Agapitou V (2021) Corporate social responsibility and employee
outcomes: interrelations of external and internal orientations with job satisfaction and organiza-
tional commitment. J Bus Ethics. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10551-​021-​04872-7
Cheema S, Afsar B, Al-Ghazali BM, Maqsoom A (2020a) How employee’s perceived corporate social
responsibility affects employee’s pro-environmental behaviour? The influence of organizational
identification, corporate entrepreneurship, and environmental consciousness. Corp Soc Respon-
sib Environ Manag 27(2):616–629. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​csr.​1826
Cheema S, Afsar B, Javed F (2020b) Employees’ corporate social responsibility perceptions and
organizational citizenship behaviors for the environment: the mediating roles of organizational
identification and environmental orientation fit. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 27(1):9–
21. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​csr.​1769
Cheruiyot TK, Maru LC (2014) Corporate human rights social responsibility and employee job outcomes
in Kenya. Int J Law Manag 56(2):152–168. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​IJLMA-​01-​2013-​0002
Chen LF, Khuangga DL (2021) Configurational paths of employee reactions to corporate social
responsibility: an organizational justice perspective. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag
28(1):389–403
CEC (2001) Green paper promoting a European framework for corporate social responsibility. Commis-
sion of the European Communities, Brussels
Chomvilailuk R, Butcher K (2022) How hedonic and perceived community benefits from employee
CSR involvement drive CSR advocacy behavior to co-workers. Bus Ethics Environ Responsib
31(1):224–238
Dahlsrud A (2008) How corporate social responsibility is defined: an analysis of 37 definitions. Corp Soc
Responsib Environ Manag 15(1):1–13. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​csr.​132
Daily BF, Bishop JW, Govindarajulu N (2009) A conceptual model for organizational citizenship behav-
ior directed toward the environment. Bus Soc 48:243–256
de Roeck K, Delobbe N (2012) Do environmental CSR initiatives serve organizations’ legitimacy in the
oil industry? Exploring employees’ reactions through organizational identification theory. J Bus
Ethics 110(4):397–412. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10551-​012-​1489-x
De Roeck K, El Akremi A, Swaen V (2016) Consistency matters! How and when does corporate social
responsibility affect employees’ organizational identification? J Manage Stud 53(7):1141–1168.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​joms.​12216
De Roeck K, Farooq O (2018) Corporate social responsibility and ethical leadership: investigating their
interactive effect on employees’ socially responsible behaviors. J Bus Ethics 151(4):923–939.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10551-​017-​3656-6
De Roeck K, Maon F (2018) Building the theoretical puzzle of employees’ reactions to corporate social
responsibility: an integrative conceptual framework and research agenda. J Bus Ethics 149(3):609–
625. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10551-​016-​3081-2

13
 Y. Yassin, M. Beckmann

de Roeck K, Marique G, Stinglhamber F, Swaen V (2014) Understanding employees’ responses to corpo-

rate social responsibility: mediating roles of overall justice and organisational identification. Int J
Hum Resour Manag 25(1):91–112. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​09585​192.​2013.​781528
Deng X, Long X, Schuler DA, Luo H, Zhao X (2020) External corporate social responsibility and labor
productivity: a S-curve relationship and the moderating role of internal CSR and government sub-
sidy. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 27(1):393–408. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​csr.​1877
Dögl C, Holtbrügge D (2014) Corporate environmental responsibility, employer reputation and employee
commitment: an empirical study in developed and emerging economies. Int J Hum Resour Manag
25(12):1739–1762. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​09585​192.​2013.​859164
Donia MBL, Ronen S, Tetrault Sirsly CA, Bonaccio S (2019) CSR by any other name? The differen-
tial impact of substantive and symbolic CSR attributions on employee outcomes. J Bus Ethics
157(2):503–523. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10551-​017-​3673-5
Donia MBL, Tetrault Sirsly CA (2016) Determinants and consequences of employee attributions of cor-
porate social responsibility as substantive or symbolic. Eur Manag J 34(3):232–242. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1016/j.​emj.​2016.​02.​004
Denyer D, Tranfield D (2009) Producing a systematic review. In: Buchanan DA, Bryman A (eds) The
Sage handbook of organizational research methods. Sage Publications Ltd, pp 671–689
Dumitrescu D, Simionescu L (2015) Empricial Research Regarding the influence of corporate social
responsibility (csr) activites on companies employees and financial performance. Econ Comput
Econ Cyber Stud Res 49(3)
Du S, Bhattacharya CB, Sen S (2015) Corporate social responsibility, multi-faceted job-products, and
employee outcomes. J Bus Ethics 131(2):319–335. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10551-​014-​2286-5
Dung LT (2021) The mediating role of employee intrapreneurial behavior in Nexus between constructs
of internal corporate social responsibility practices and organizational outcomes. J Asia-Pac Bus
22(2):134–154
Edwards MR, Kudret S (2017) Multi-foci CSR perceptions, procedural justice and in-role employee
performance: the mediating role of commitment and pride. Hum Resour Manag J 27(1):169–188.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​1748-​8583.​12140
Espasandín-Bustelo F, Ganaza-Vargas J, Diaz-Carrion R (2021) Employee happiness and corporate social
responsibility: the role of organizational culture. Employee Relat: Int J 43(3):609–629. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1108/​er-​07-​2020-​0343
Evans WR, Davis W (2014) Corporate citizenship and the employee: an organizational identification per-
spective. Hum Perform 27(2):129–146. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​08959​285.​2014.​882926
Evans WR, Davis WD (2011) An examination of perceived corporate citizenship, job applicant attrac-
tion, and CSR work role definition. Bus Soc 50(3):456–480. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​00076​50308​
323517
Evans WR, Davis WD, Frink DD (2011a) An examination of employee reactions to perceived corporate
citizenship. J Appl Soc Psychol 41(4):938–964. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/j.​1559-​1816.​2011.​00742.x
Evans WR, Goodman JM, Davis WD (2011b) The impact of perceived corporate citizenship on organiza-
tional cynicism, OCB, and employee deviance. Hum Perform 24(1):79–97. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​
08959​285.​2010.​530632
Fairlie P, Svergun O (2015) The interrelated roles of CSR and stress in predicting employee outcomes.
International Conference on Occupational Stress and Health, Atlanta, USA, (May)
Farooq M, Farooq O, Jasimuddin SM (2014a) Employees response to corporate social responsibility:
exploring the role of employees” collectivist orientation. Eur Manag J 32(6):916–927. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1016/j.​emj.​2014.​03.​002
Farooq O, Payaud M, Merunka D, Valette-Florence P (2014b) The impact of corporate social respon-
sibility on organizational commitment: exploring multiple mediation mechanisms. J Bus Ethics
125(4):563–580. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10551-​013-​1928-3
Farrukh M, Sajid M, Lee JWC, Shahzad IA (2020) The perception of corporate social responsibility
and employee engagement: Examining the underlying mechanism. Corp Soc Responsib Environ
Manag 27(2):760–768. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​csr.​1842
Gao Y, He W (2017) Corporate social responsibility and employee organizational citizenship behavior:
the pivotal roles of ethical leadership and organizational justice. Manag Decis 55(2):294–309.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​MD-​05-​2016-​0284
Gao Y, Zhang D, Huo Y (2018) Corporate social responsibility and work engagement: testing a moder-
ated mediation model. J Bus Psychol 33(5):661–673. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10869-​017-​9517-6

13
CSR and employee outcomes: a systematic literature review

Garrido-Ruso M, Aibar-Guzmán B (2022) The moderating effect of contextual factors and employees’
demographic features on the relationship between CSR and work-related attitudes: a meta-analysis.
Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 29(5):1839–1854
Getele GK, Li T, Arrive TJ (2020) Corporate culture in small and medium enterprises: application of
corporate social responsibility theory. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 27(2):897–908. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1002/​csr.​1853
George N, Aboobaker N, Edward M (2020) Corporate social responsibility, organizational trust and
commitment: a moderated mediation model. Pers Rev 50(4):1093–1111. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1108/​pr-​03-​2020-​0144
Ghosh D, Gurunathan L (2014) Linking perceived corporate social responsibility and intention to
quit: the mediating role of job embeddedness. Vision: J Bus Perspect 18(3):175–183. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1177/​09722​62914​539219
Ghosh K (2018) How and when do employees identify with their organization? Perceived CSR, first-
party (in)justice, and organizational (mis)trust at workplace. Pers Rev 47(5):1157–1175. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1108/​PR-​08-​2017-​0237
Glavas A (2016) Corporate social responsibility and organizational psychology: an integrative review.
Front Psychol 7(February). https://​doi.​org/​10.​3389/​fpsyg.​2016.​00144
Glavas A, Kelley K (2014) The effects of perceived corporate social responsibility on employee atti-
tudes. Bus Ethics Q 24(2):165–202. https://​doi.​org/​10.​5840/​beq20​143206
Glavas A, Piderit SK (2014) How does doing good matter? J Corp Citizsh 2009(36):51–70. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​9774/​gleaf.​4700.​2009.​wi.​00007
Garkisch M, Heidingsfelder J, Beckmann M (2017) Third sector organizations and migration: a system-
atic literature review on the contribution of third sector organizations in view of flight, migration
and refugee crises. Voluntas 1:56. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11266-​017-​9895-4
Gazzola P (2014) Csr: Focus on Employees. Italian Cases. Annals of the University of Oradea, Economic
Science Series, 23(2):11–21
Gupta M (2017) Corporate social responsibility, employee-company identification, and organizational
commitment: mediation by employee engagement. Curr Psychol 36(1):101–109. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1007/​s12144-​015-​9389-8
Gupta M, Sayeed O (2016) Social responsibility and commitment in management institutes: media-
tion by engagement. Bus: Theory Pract 17(3):280–287. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3846/​btp.​2016.​633
Gupta N, Sharma V (2016) The relationship between corporate social responsibility and employee
Engag...: Discover. J Organ Behav. Retrieved from http://​eds.a.​ebsco​host.​com.​yorksj.​idm.​oclc.​
org/​eds/​pdfvi​ewer/​pdfvi​ewer?​vid=​14&​sid=​3e61a​38b-​d472-​42eb-​ab3e-​0ec69​078b7​be%​40ses​
sionm​gr400​6&​hid=​4213
Guzzo RF, Wang X, Abbott J (2020) Corporate social responsibility and individual outcomes: the
mediating role of gratitude and compassion at work. Cornell Hosp Q. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​
19389​65520​981069
Hansen SD, Dunford BB, Boss AD, Boss RW, Angermeier I (2011) Corporate social responsibility
and the benefits of employee trust: a cross-disciplinary perspective. J Bus Ethics 102(1):29–45.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10551-​011-​0903-0
He J, Morrison AM, Zhang H (2020) Being sustainable: the three-way interactive effects of CSR,
green human resource management, and responsible leadership on employee green behav-
ior and task performance. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management,
(November), 1–12. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​csr.​2104
He J, Zhang H, Morrison AM (2019) The impacts of corporate social responsibility on organization
citizenship behavior and task performance in hospitality: a sequential mediation model. Int J
Contemp Hosp Manag 31(6):2582–2598. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​IJCHM-​05-​2018-​0378
Hofman PS, Newman A (2014) The impact of perceived corporate social responsibility on organi-
zational commitment and the moderating role of collectivism and masculinity: evidence from
China. Int J Hum Resour Manag 25(5):631–652. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​09585​192.​2013.​
792861
Hollingworth D, Valentine S (2014) Corporate social responsibility, continuous process improve-
ment orientation, organizational commitment and turnover intentions. Int J Qual Reliab Manag
31(6):629–651. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​IJQRM-​09-​2012-​0131
Hosseini SA, Moghaddam A, Damganian H, Shafiei Nikabadi M (2022) The effect of perceived cor-
porate social responsibility and sustainable human resources on employee engagement with the
moderating role of the employer brand. Employee Responsib Rights J 1–21

13
 Y. Yassin, M. Beckmann

Hur WM, Moon TW, Choi WH (2019) When are internal and external corporate social responsibil-
ity initiatives amplified? Employee engagement in corporate social responsibility initiatives on
prosocial and proactive behaviors. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 26(4):849–858. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1002/​csr.​1725
Hur WM, Moon TW, Choi WH (2021) The role of job crafting and perceived organizational support
in the link between employees’ CSR perceptions and job performance: a moderated mediation
model. Curr Psychol 40(7):3151–3165
Hur WM, Rhee SY, Lee EJ, Park H (2022) Corporate social responsibility perceptions and sustainable
safety behaviors among frontline employees: the mediating roles of organization-based self-
esteem and work engagement. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 29(1):60–70
Islam T, Ali G, Asad H (2019) Environmental CSR and pro-environmental behaviors to reduce environ-
mental dilapidation: the moderating role of empathy. Manag Res Rev 42(3):332–351. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1108/​MRR-​12-​2017-​0408
Jamali D, Samara G, Zollo L, Ciappei C (2019) Is internal CSR really less impactful in individualist and
masculine cultures? A multilevel approach. Manag Decis 58(2):362–375. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​
MD-​11-​2018-​1260
John A, Qadeer F, Shahzadi G, Jia F (2017) Corporate social responsibility and employee’s desire: a
social influence perspective. Serv Ind J 37(13–14):819–832. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​02642​069.​
2017.​13530​81
Jiang T, Iles P (2011) Employer-brand equity, organizational attractiveness and talent management in the
Zhejiang private sector, China. J Technol Manag China 6(1):97–110
Jones DA (2010) Does serving the community also serve the company? Using organizational identifica-
tion and social exchange theories to understand employee responses to a volunteerism programme.
J Occupat Organ Psychol 83(4):857–878
Jung HJ, Kim DO (2016) Good neighbors but bad employers: two faces of corporate social responsibility
programs. J Bus Ethics 138(2):295–310. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10551-​015-​2587-3
Khaskheli A, Jiang Y, Raza SA, Qureshi MA, Khan KA, Salam J (2020) Do CSR activities increase
organizational citizenship behavior among employees? Mediating role of affective commitment
and job satisfaction. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 27(6):2941–2955. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1002/​csr.​2013
Kim H, (Lina), Woo, E., Uysal, M., & Kwon, N. (2018) The effects of corporate social responsibility
(CSR) on employee well-being in the hospitality industry. Int J Contemp Hosp Manag 30(3):1584–
1600. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​IJCHM-​03-​2016-​0166
Kim Milliman J, Lucas A J (2020) Effects of CSR on employee retention via identification and
quality-of-work-life. Int J Contemp Hosp Manag 32(3):1163–1179. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​
IJCHM-​06-​2019-​0573
Kim SY, Park H (2011) Corporate social responsibility as an organizational attractiveness for pro-
spective public relations practitioners. J Bus Ethics 103(4):639–653. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s10551-​011-​0886-x
Kim M, Kim J (2020) Corporate social responsibility, employee engagement, well-being and the task
performance of frontline employees. Manag Decis 59(8):2040–2056. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​
md-​03-​2020-​0268
Kimeli Cheruiyot T, Chemngetich Maru L (2014) Corporate human rights social responsibility and
employee job outcomes in Kenya. Int J Law Manag 56(2):152–168
Klimkiewicz K, Oltra V (2017) Does CSR enhance employer attractiveness? The role of millennial job
seekers’ attitudes. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 24(5):449–463. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​csr.​
1419
Ko A, Chan A, Wong SCK (2019) A scale development study of CSR: hotel employees’ perceptions. Int J
Contemp Hosp Manag 31(4):1857–1884. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​IJCHM-​09-​2017-​0560
Kahn WA (1990) Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Acad
Manag J 33(4):692–724
Kongrerk T (2017) The model of corporate social responsibility, organizational commitment and
employee green behavior. UTCC Int J Bus Econom 9(2):17–38
Korschun D, Bhattacharya CB, Swain SD (2014) Corporate social responsibility, customer orientation,
and the job performance of frontline employees. J Mark 78(3):20–37. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1509/​jm.​
11.​0245
Krainz KD (2015) ENHANCING WELLBEING OF EMPLOYEES THROUGH Megatrend revija. Meg-
atrend Rev 12(2):137–154

13
CSR and employee outcomes: a systematic literature review

Kunz J (2020) Corporate social responsibility and employees motivation—Broadening the perspective.
Schmalenbach Business Review 72(2):159–191. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s41464-​020-​00089-9
Locke EA (1976) The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In: Dunnette MD (ed) Handbook of industrial
and organisational psychology. Rand McNally, Chicago, IL, pp 1297–1349
Lee L, Chen LF (2018) Boosting employee retention through CSR: a configurational analysis. Corp Soc
Responsib Environ Manag 25(5):948–960. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​csr.​1511
Lee Y (2021) Bridging employee advocacy in anonymous social media and internal corporate social
responsibility (CSR). Manag Decis 59(10):2473–2495. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​md-​01-​2020-​0101
Lewin LD, Warren DE, AlSuwaidi M (2020) Does CSR make better citizens? The influence of
employee CSR programs on employee societal citizenship behavior outside of work. Bus Soc Rev
125(3):271–288. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​basr.​12212
Li L, Li G, Chan SF (2019) Corporate responsibility for employees and service innovation performance
in manufacturing transformation: The mediation role of employee innovative behavior. Career Dev
Int 24(6):580–595. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​CDI-​04-​2018-​0109
Lin CP, Tsai YH, Joe SW, Chiu CK (2012) Modeling the relationship among perceived corporate citizen-
ship, firms’ attractiveness, and career success expectation. J Bus Ethics 105(1):83–93. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1007/​s10551-​011-​0949-z
Lin YT, Liu NC (2019) Corporate citizenship and employee outcomes: Does a high-commitment work
system matter? J Bus Ethics 156(4):1079–1097. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10551-​017-​3632-1
Lin YT, Liu NC, Lin JW (2022) Firms’ adoption of CSR initiatives and employees’ organizational
commitment: Organizational CSR climate and employees’ CSR-induced attributions as media-
tors. J Bus Res 140:626–637
Lis B (2012) The relevance of corporate social responsibility for a sustainable human resource man-
agement: an analysis of organizational attractiveness as a determinant in employees’ selection
of a (potential) employer. Management revue 279–295
List J, Momeni F (2021) When corporate social responsibility backfires: evidence from a natural field
experiment. Manage Sci 67(1):8–21. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1287/​mnsc.​2019.​3540
Loor-Zambrano H, Santos-Roldán L, Palacios-Florencio B (2020) Corporate social responsibility, fac-
ets of employee job satisfaction and commitment: the case in Ecuador. TQM J 33(2):521–543.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​tqm-​01-​2020-​0011
Low MP, Ong SF, Tan PM (2017) would internal corporate social responsibility make a difference in
professional service industry employees’ turnover intention? A two-stage approach using PLS-
SEM. Glob Bus Manag Res 9(1):24–41
Lu J, Ren L, Zhang C, Wang C, Ahmed RR, Streimikis J (2020) Corporate social responsibility and
employee behavior: evidence from mediation and moderation analysis. Corp Soc Responsib
Environ Manag 27(4):1719–1728. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​csr.​1919
Luu DT (2020) The effect of internal corporate social responsibility practices on pharmaceuti-
cal firm’s performance through employee intrapreneurial behaviour. J Organ Chang Manag
33(7):1375–1400. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​JOCM-​03-​2020-​0072
Luu TT (2017) CSR and organizational citizenship behavior for the environment in hotel industry:
The moderating roles of corporate entrepreneurship and employee attachment style. Int J Con-
temp Hosp Manag 29(11):2867–2900. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​IJCHM-​02-​2016-​0080
Macassa G, McGrath C, Tomaselli G, Buttigieg SC (2021) Corporate social responsibility and inter-
nal stakeholders’ health and well-being in Europe: a systematic descriptive review. Health Pro-
mot Int 36(3):866–883
Maignan I, Ferrell OC (2001) Antecedents and benefits of corporate citizenship: an investigation of
French businesses. J Bus Res 51(1):37–51. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​S0148-​2963(99)​00042-9
Malik A (2015) Corporate social responsibility and organizational performance: Empirical evidence
from banking sector. Pakistan J Commerce Soc Sci (PJCSS) 4(12):286–299
Maon F, Vanhamme J, De Roeck K, Lindgreen A, Swaen V (2019) The dark side of stakeholder reac-
tions to corporate social responsibility: tensions and micro-level undesirable outcomes. Int J
Manag Rev 21(2):209–230. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​ijmr.​12198
Mascarenhas C, Mendes L, Marques C, Galvão A (2020) Exploring CSR’s influence on employees’
attitudes and behaviours in higher education. Sustainab Account Manag Policy J 11(4):653–
678. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​SAMPJ-​04-​2018-​0101
May AYC, Hao GS, Carter S (2021) Intertwining corporate social responsibility, employee green
behavior, and environmental sustainability: the mediation effect of organizational trust and
organizational identity. Econ Manag Financ Mark 16(2):32–61

13
 Y. Yassin, M. Beckmann

Mael F, Ashforth BE (1992) Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of
organizational identification. J Organ Behavior 13(2):103–123
Maier F, Meyer M, Steinbereithner M (2016) Nonprofit organizations becoming business-like: a system-
atic review. Nonprofit and voluntary sector quarterly 45(1):64–86
Memon KR, Ghani B, Khalid S (2020) The relationship between corporate social responsibility and
employee engagement-a social exchange perspective. Int J Bus Sci Appl Manag 15(1):1–16
Mensah HK, Agyapong A, Nuertey D (2017) The effect of corporate social responsibility on organi-
zational commitment of employees of rural and community banks in Ghana. Cogent Bus Manag
4(1):1–19. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​23311​975.​2017.​12808​95
Meyer JP, Herscovitch L (2001) Commitment in the Workplace: Toward a General Model. Human
Resource Management Review 11:299–326. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​S1053-​4822(00)​00053-X
Mohammed AA, Ferraris A, Troise C (2022) CSR practices and creativity during COVID-19 pan-
demic in the emerging market: investigating the mediating effect of affective commitment.
Manag Decis 60(10):2669–2693
Morgeson FP, Aguinis H, Waldman DA, Siegel DS (2013) Extending corporate social responsibility
research to the human resource management and organizational behavior domains: a look to the
future. Pers Psychol 66(4):805–824. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​peps.​12055
Mory L, Wirtz BW, Göttel V (2016) Factors of internal corporate social responsibility and the effect
on organizational commitment. Int J Hum Resour Manag 27(13):1393–1425. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1080/​09585​192.​2015.​10721​03
Mueller K, Hattrup K, Spiess SO, Lin-Hi N (2012) The effects of corporate social responsibility on
employees’ affective commitment: a cross-cultural investigation. J Appl Psychol 97(6):1186–
1200. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​a0030​204
Ng TWH, Yam KC, Aguinis H (2019) Employee perceptions of corporate social responsibility: effects
on pride, embeddedness, and turnover. Pers Psychol 72(1):107–137. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​peps.​
12294
Nyuur RB, Ofori DF, Amankwah MO, Baffoe KA (2022) Corporate social responsibility and employee
attitudes: the moderating role of employee age. Bus Ethics Environ Responsib 31(1):100–117
Ones DS, Dilchert S (2012) Employee green behaviors. In: Jackson SE, Ones DS, Dilchert S (eds) Man-
aging Human Resources for Environmental Sustainability. Jossey-Bass/Wiley, San Francisco, CA,
pp 85–116
Ong M, Mayer DM, Tost LP, Wellman N (2018) When corporate social responsibility motivates
employee citizenship behavior: the sensitizing role of task significance. Organ Behav Hum Decis
Process 144:44–59. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​obhdp.​2017.​09.​006
Onkila T, Sarna B (2022) A systematic literature review on employee relations with CSR: state of art and
future research agenda. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 29(2):435–447
Opoku-Dakwa A, Chen CC, Rupp DE (2018) CSR initiative characteristics and employee engagement:
an impact-based perspective. J Organ Behav 39(5):580–593. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​job.​2281
Ouakouak ML, Arya B, Zaitouni M (2019) Corporate social responsibility and intention to quit: medi-
ating role of organizational citizenship behavior. Int J Product Perform Manag 69(3):447–465.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​IJPPM-​02-​2019-​0087
Park SY, Lee CK, Kim H (2018) The influence of corporate social responsibility on travel com-
pany employees. Int J Contemp Hosp Manag 30(1):178–196. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​
IJCHM-​07-​2016-​0372
Papacharalampous N, Papadimitriou D (2021) Perceived corporate social responsibility and affective
commitment: The mediating role of psychological capital and the impact of employee participa-
tion. Hum Resour Dev Q 32(3):251–272. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​hrdq.​21426
Promislo MD, Giacalone RA, Welch J (2012) Consequences of concern: ethics, social responsibility, and
well-being. Bus Ethics 21(2):209–219. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/j.​1467-​8608.​2011.​01648.x
Pfister M (2020) Corporate social responsibility and organizational attraction: a systematic literature
review. Am J Manag 20(2)
Pilbeam C, Alvarez G, Wilson H (2012) The governance of supply networks: a systematic literature
review. Supply Chain Manag Int J 17(4):358–376. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​13598​54121​12465​12
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 Hosp Q 55(1):10–18.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​19389​65513​498300

13
CSR and employee outcomes: a systematic literature review

Raza SA, Ahmed M, Zehou S, Qureshi MA, Yousufi SQ (2020) Impact of CSR and environmental
triggers on employee green behavior: the mediating effect of employee well-being. Corpor Soc
Respons Environ Manag 27(5):2225–2239
Raza A, Farrukh M, Iqbal M, Farhan M, Wu Y (2021) Corporate social responsibility and employees’
voluntary pro-environmental behavior: The role of organizational pride and employee engagement.
Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 28(3):1104–1116. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​csr.​2109
Rodrigo P, Aqueveque C, Duran IJ (2019) Do employees value strategic CSR? A tale of affective organi-
zational commitment and its underlying mechanisms. Bus Ethics 28(4):459–475. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1111/​beer.​12227
Rupp DE, Mallory DB (2015) Corporate social responsibility: psychological, person-centric, and pro-
gressing. Annu Rev Organ Psych Organ Behav 2(April):211–236. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1146/​annur​ev-​
orgps​ych-​032414-​111505
Rupp DE, Shao R, Thornton MA, Skarlicki DP (2013) Applicants’ and employees’ reactions to corporate
social responsibility: the moderating effects of first-party justice perceptions and moral identity.
Pers Psychol 66(4):895–933. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​peps.​12030
Saad MM, Gaber HR, Labib AA (2021) The impact of CSR on employees’ engagement. A Study on
SMEs in Egypt. Glob Bus Manag Res 13(3)
Shabir A, Rosmini O (2016) Basic corporate governance models: a systematic review. Int J Law Manag
58(1):73–107. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​MBE-​09-​2016-​0047
Santhosh M, Baral R (2015) The moderating role of top management support in the Link between Csr
and employee engagement - a conceptual framework. J Contemp Manag Res 9(2):1
Sanusi FA, Johl SK (2020) A proposed framework for assessing the influence of internal corporate social
responsibility belief on employee intention to job continuity. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag
27(6):2437–2449. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​csr.​2025
Scheidler S, Edinger-Schons LM, Spanjol J, Wieseke J (2019) Scrooge posing as Mother Teresa: how
hypocritical social responsibility strategies hurt employees and firms. J Bus Ethics 157(2):339–
358. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10551-​018-​3788-3
Serrano Archimi C, Reynaud E, Yasin HM, Bhatti ZA (2018) How perceived corporate social respon-
sibility affects employee cynicism: the mediating role of organizational trust. J Bus Ethics
151(4):907–921. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10551-​018-​3882-6
Schaufeli WB, Salanova M, González-Romá V, Bakker AB (2002) The measurement of engagement and
burnout: a two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. J Happiness Stud 3:71–92
Shah S, Cheema S, Al-Ghazali B, Ali M, Rafiq N (2021) Perceived corporate social responsibility and
pro-environmental behaviors: The role of organizational identification and coworker pro-environ-
mental advocacy. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 28(1):366–377. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​csr.​
2054
Sharma D (2018) When fairness is not enough: impact of corporate ethical values on organizational
citizenship behaviors and worker alienation. J Bus Ethics 150(1):57–68. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s10551-​016-​3107-9
Sheel RC, Vohra N (2016) Relationship between perceptions of corporate social responsibility and organ-
izational cynicism: the role of employee volunteering. Int J Hum Resour Manag 27(13):1373–
1392. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​09585​192.​2015.​10721​02
Seuring S, Müller M (2008) From a literature review to a conceptual framework for sustainable supply
chain management. J Clean Prod 16(15):1699–1710
Shen J, Benson J (2016) When CSR is a social norm: how socially responsible human resource manage-
ment affects employee work behavior. J Manag 42(6):1723–1746. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​01492​
06314​522300
Shin I, Hur WM (2020) How are service employees’ perceptions of corporate social responsibility related
to their performance? Prosocial motivation and emotional labor as underlying mechanisms. Corp
Soc Responsib Environ Manag 27(6):2867–2878. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​csr.​2008
Siltaoja M, Malin V, Pyykkönen M (2015) ‘We are all responsible now’: Governmentality and responsi-
bilized subjects in corporate social responsibility. Manag Learn 46(4):444–460. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1177/​13505​07614​541199
Simpson B, Robertson JL, White K (2020) How co-creation increases employee corporate social
responsibility and organizational engagement: the moderating role of self-construal. J Bus Ethics
166(2):331–350. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10551-​019-​04138-3
Smith V, Langford P (2011) Responsible or redundant? Engaging the workforce through corporate social
responsibility. Aust J Manag 36(3):425–447. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​03128​96211​415459

13
 Y. Yassin, M. Beckmann

Story J, Neves P (2015) When corporate social responsibility (CSR) increases performance: exploring the
role of intrinsic and extrinsic CSR attribution. Bus Ethics 24(2):111–124. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​
beer.​12084
Story JSP, Castanheira F (2019) Corporate social responsibility and employee performance: Media-
tion role of job satisfaction and affective commitment. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag
26(6):1361–1370. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​csr.​1752
Suh YJ (2016) The role of relational social capital and communication in the relationship between CSR
and Employee attitudes: a multilevel analysis. J Leaders Organ Stud 23(4):410–423. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1177/​15480​51816​637564
Sultan AJ (2014) The Role of Discretionary Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) on employees philan-
thropy: evidence from Kuwait. Arab J Administ Sci 21(1):43–68
Supanti D, Butcher K, Fredline L (2015) Enhancing the employer-employee relationship through corpo-
rate social responsibility (CSR) engagement. Int J Contemp Hosp Manag 27(7):1479–1498. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1108/​IJCHM-​07-​2014-​0319
Svergun O, Fairlie P (2020) The interrelated roles of corporate social responsibility and stress in predict-
ing job outcomes. J Work Behav Health 35(3):193–210
Tafolli F, Grabner-Kräuter S (2020) Employee perceptions of corporate social responsibility and organi-
zational corruption: empirical evidence from Kosovo. Corp Govern (bingley) 20(7):1349–1370.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​CG-​07-​2020-​0274
Tahlil Azim M (2016) Responsabilidade social corporativa e comportamento do funcionário: Papel medi-
ador do compromisso organizacional. Revista Brasileira De Gestao De Negocios 18(60):207–225.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​7819/​rbgn.​v18i60.​2319
Tao W, Song B, Ferguson MA, Kochhar S (2018) Employees’ prosocial behavioral intentions through
empowerment in CSR decision-making. Public Relat Rev 44(5):667–680. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​
pubrev.​2018.​07.​002
Tranfield D, Denyer D, Smart P (2003) Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed man-
agement knowledge by means of systematic review. British J Manag 14(3):207–222
Tian Q, Robertson JL (2019) How and when does perceived CSR affect employees’ engagement in
voluntary pro-environmental behavior? J Bus Ethics 155(2):399–412. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s10551-​017-​3497-3
Tkalac Verčič A, Sinčić Ćorić D (2018) The relationship between reputation, employer branding and
corporate social responsibility. Public Relat Rev 44(4):444–452. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​pubrev.​
2018.​06.​005
Tourigny L, Han J, Baba VV, Pan P (2019) Ethical leadership and corporate social responsibility in
china: a multilevel study of their effects on trust and organizational citizenship behavior. J Bus Eth-
ics 158(2):427–440. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10551-​017-​3745-6
Ubius U, Alas R (2012) The impact of corporate social responsibility on the innovation climate. Eng
Econ 23(3):310–318. https://​doi.​org/​10.​5755/​j01.​ee.​23.3.​1935
Vitaliano DF (2010) Corporate social responsibility and labor turnover. Corp Govern: Int J Bus Soc
10(5):563–573. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​14720​70101​10855​44
Vlachos PA, Panagopoulos NG, Theotokis A, Singh R, Singh RK (2014) When do corporate social
responsibility initiatives impact on customer-facing employees? Evidence from India and the Neth-
erlands. Int J Hum Resour Manag 25(22):3086–3112. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​09585​192.​2014.​
934884
Voegtlin C, Greenwood M (2016) Corporate social responsibility and human resource management: a
systematic review and conceptual analysis. Hum Resour Manag Rev 26(3):181–197. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1016/j.​hrmr.​2015.​12.​003
van Dick R, Crawshaw JR, Karpf S, Schuh SC, Zhang XA (2020) Identity, importance, and their roles
in how corporate social responsibility affects workplace attitudes and behavior. J Bus Psychol
35:159–169
Wang CJ (2014) Do ethical and sustainable practices matter? Effects of corporate citizenship on business
performance in the hospitality industry. Int J Contemp Hosp Manag 26(6):930–947. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1108/​IJCHM-​01-​2013-​0001
Wang Y, Xu S, Wang Y (2020) The consequences of employees’ perceived corporate social responsibil-
ity: a meta-analysis. Bus Ethics 29(3):471–496. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​beer.​12273
Wang Y, Pala B (2020) Communicating philanthropic CSR versus ethical and legal CSR to employ-
ees: empirical evidence in Turkey. Corp Commun: Int J 26(1):155–175. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​
ccij-​01-​2020-​0014

13
CSR and employee outcomes: a systematic literature review

Wisse B, van Eijbergen R, Rietzschel EF, Scheibe S (2018) Catering to the needs of an aging workforce:
the role of employee age in the relationship between corporate social responsibility and employee
satisfaction. J Bus Ethics 147(4):875–888. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10551-​015-​2983-8
Wong A, Kim S, Hwang Y (2021) Effects of perceived corporate social responsibility (CSR) performance
on hotel employees’ behavior. Int J Hospital Tour Administ. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​15256​480.​
2021.​19353​90
Yang F, Gao L (2021) Corporate environmental responsibility and employees’ pro-environmental behav-
iors at work: insights from organizational identification and workplace spirituality perspective. J
Environ Plan Manag. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​09640​568.​2021.​19896​73
Yin C, Ma H, Gong Y, Chen Q, Zhang Y (2021) Environmental CSR and environmental citizenship
behavior: the role of employees’ environmental passion and empathy. J Clean Prod 320:128751.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jclep​ro.​2021.​128751
Yu Y, Choi Y (2014) Corporate social responsibility and firm performance through the mediating effect
of organizational trust in Chinese firms. Chin Manag Stud 8(4):577–592. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​
CMS-​10-​2013-​0196
Yu J, Lho LH, Han H (2022) Corporate social responsibility (environment, product, diversity, employee,
and community) and the hotel employees’ job performance: Exploring the role of the employment
types. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 29(5):1825–1838
Zaighum SAK, Ahmad G, Kaur P (2021) Workers’ perceptions of CSR practices: analysis of a textile
Organization in Pakistan. Glob Bus Manag Res 13(2)
Zhang L, Gowan MA (2012) Corporate social responsibility, applicants’ individual traits, and organiza-
tional attraction: a person-organization fit perspective. J Bus Psychol 27(3):345–362. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1007/​s10869-​011-​9250-5
Zhao X, Wu C, Chen CC, Zhou Z (2020) The influence of corporate social responsibility on incumbent
employees: a meta-analytic investigation of the mediating and moderating mechanisms. J Manag.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​01492​06320​946108
Zhou Z, Luo BN, Tang TLP (2018) Corporate social responsibility excites ‘exponential’ positive
employee engagement: the Matthew effect in CSR and sustainable policy. Corp Soc Responsib
Environ Manag 25(4):339–354. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​csr.​1464
Zhu Q, Hang Y, Liu J, Lai K, Hung. (2014) How is employee perception of organizational efforts in cor-
porate social responsibility related to their satisfaction and loyalty towards developing harmonious
society in Chinese enterprises? Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 21(1):28–40. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1002/​csr.​1302
Zhao L, Lee J, Moon S (2019) Employee response to CSR in China: the moderating effect of collectiv-
ism. Person Rev 48(3):839–863. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​PR-​05-​2017-​0146

Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps
and institutional affiliations.

13