Next Article in Journal
Anti-Scale Performance and Mechanism of Valonia Tannin Extract for Calcium Carbonate in Circulating Cooling Water System
Next Article in Special Issue
Economic Policy Uncertainty and Firm Value: Impact of Investment Sentiments in Energy and Petroleum
Previous Article in Journal
Ecological Quality Status Evaluation of Port Sea Areas Based on EW-GRA-TOPSIS Model
Previous Article in Special Issue
Corporate Governance, Media Coverage, and Corporate Environmental Protection Investment: Empirical Evidence from Listed Companies in China’s High-Pollution Industries
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 11
10.3390/su15118810
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Does Corporate Social Responsibility Moderate the Nexus of Organizational Culture and Job Satisfaction?

by
Sania Khan
1,*,
Wadi B. Alonazi
2,
Azam Malik
1 and
Noor Raihani Zainol
3
1
Department of Human Resource Management, College of Business Administration, Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University, Al Kharj 11942, Saudi Arabia
2
Health Administration Department, College of Business Administration, King Saud University, Riyadh 11587, Saudi Arabia
3
Faculty of Entrepreneurship and Business, Universiti Malaysia Kelantan, Kota Bharu 16100, Malaysia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(11), 8810; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15118810
Submission received: 12 April 2023 / Revised: 15 May 2023 / Accepted: 26 May 2023 / Published: 30 May 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Corporate Social Performance, Responsibility and Value)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is necessary in today’s organizations because they must balance profitability with the development of a positive reputation through environmental and social responsibilities. Therefore, the purpose of this research is to discover how organizational culture (OC) and corporate social responsibility (CSR) relate to job satisfaction (JS), as well as how CSR moderates their interaction. The research data were collected from 463 respondents of SME organizations in Saudi Arabia using an online survey questionnaire (and few by in-person survey) to determine the impact of hypothesized relations. The data were analyzed using SPSS 26.0 and AMOS to test the study hypotheses. The results indicated that corporate social responsibility moderated the relationship between OC and JS and improved employee’s job satisfaction. Among the hypothesized relationships of the variables, OC indicated a mediocre effect on JS, while CSR was found to have low influence on JS. However, the study revealed significant impact among the variables, thereby supporting all three hypotheses of the study. As the study only attempted to understand the associations among three variables, it lacks to explain the role of other potentially important factors such as business success, organizational structure, leadership style, and firm size. The only stakeholders considered by the study was the employees, which is considered a major limitation of this study. Further researchers may also consider the role of other primary stakeholders on CSR activities, who are vital in improving employee JS. The study’s findings have some practical implications for managers who seek to create contented personnel and prioritized CSR efforts.

1. Introduction

Employee and client satisfaction is a key indicator of a company’s market productivity [1]. Furthermore, Kaliski [2] asserts that job satisfaction (JS) is an important factor in the identification, compensation, promotion, and resolution of a variety of problems. Furthermore, researchers have discovered that job satisfaction affects both job productivity and personal well-being. Furthermore, it has been demonstrated that employee satisfaction has a substantial effect on an organization [3]. However, employee satisfaction in the workplace is challenging because it requires reliability in work motivation, management, and organizational culture that must be recognized by all employees [4]. As a result, all companies try to engage in various aspects of social responsibility to improve employee job satisfaction [5].
The link between JS and OC is a contentious topic that is difficult to quantify objectively, as both concepts consist of a multitude of different aspects for which there is no theoretical basis [6]. Employees form a comprehensive, idiosyncratic image of the company based on characteristics such as position, authority, interdependence, and people’s support from others [7]. Consequently, the organization’s culture or personality is shaped by this comprehensive perspective. Employee performance and JS are influenced by these positive or negative opinions, with greater effects in stronger cultures [8]. Moreover, within the current socially mindful corporate climate, in today’s socially conscious business climate, corporate social responsibility (CSR) has risen in importance [9]. Several companies have understood the need to combine profitability with the creation of a positive image through environmental and social responsibility. Moreover, numerous studies show that consumer expectations of CSR are so high that while choosing a job, potential employees consider corporate social and environmental responsibility when choosing a job [10,11]. Moreover, according to Fatma et al. [12], CSR efforts enhance consumer trust while improving the company’s brand equity and reputation.
They may consider whether the company makes environmentally and socially responsible donations to society, as well as whether it operates in a fair and transparent manner [13]. According to Aguinis [14], most CSR researchers have concentrated on concerns relating to firms’ external stakeholders, whereas the relationship between CSR and internal stakeholders has received little academic attention. CSR, according to Bonini and Swartz [15], can improve worker confidence as well as minimize attrition. Previous studies have mostly concentrated on the link between CSR and the consumer, but more and more researchers are now focusing their research on the influence of CSR on the enterprise’s inner related person, namely the employee [16]. Therefore, the relevance of CSR and its beneficial moderating effect on employee work performance were emphasized [17]. The fusion of these three factors may improve organizational performance and fortify organizational culture. Lazim et al. [18] explained the performance of the workforce mediates the relationship between organizational performance and HRM practices. Sociologists believe that adversity fosters stronger levels of unanimity, enhanced social awareness, and an increased sense of sympathy for the community. The prevailing situation in the world’s economic system has compelled numerous businesses to reconsider their strategies in light of their respective social and environmental consequences. Changes in social norms about the role of business in society have been facilitated by the reduction in trade barriers, liberalization, and the exercise of control over corporations. Assuming greater social and sustainable initiatives, organizations today are more cognizant than ever before of the need to achieve a balance between returns and their ethical need to exist. The need for more ethical behavior may come from the organization’s top management, which is driven to grow profits and provide a good public image, or potentially from the community, which may take the form of organizational intervention or an upsurge in society’s opinion and influence. While CSR can have significant consequences for the many recipients of such programs, there has not been much research conducted on how it affects employee job satisfaction and corporate culture particular to Saudi Arabian SME organizations. Furthermore, researchers found no significant relationship between workplace culture and employee innovation [19,20].
CSR is a tremendously popular phenomenon in Saudi Arabia and has evolved into a comprehensive effort to realize the country’s 2030 objective. Numerous empirical studies were conducted in the Saudi Arabian context to investigate the impact of CSR on corporate sustainability [21], non-financial benefits [22], and job satisfaction [23]. Ghardallou [21] revealed that the companies that engaged in CSR practices saw an improvement in their financial performance. A scientific study by Allui and Pinto [22] identified the non-financial advantages of CSR for Saudi Arabian businesses. The author discovered that CSR raises a positive impact and significantly reduces the detrimental effect on the business’s socioeconomic, environmental, and economic bottom lines. Few studies have explored the connections among corporate culture and firms’ achievement in the contexts of Nigeria and Korea. However, Aldhuwaihi et al. [24] conducted research on the Saudi Arabian banking sector to inspect the association between corporate culture and overall work performance. The findings demonstrated that there is a positive, statistically significant relationship between job satisfaction and organizational culture, but the correlation differs conditionally based on the category of organizational culture. These studies in the Saudi context hold scattered opinions, and few are applicable to very specific industry or large companies [22,24]. As a result, more research is needed to understand the interactions among CSR, corporate culture, and work contentment. Therefore, the focus of this study is on the influence of CSR on corporate culture and work satisfaction. Because of this, managers will not only be able to increase their CSR operations across firms, but they will also be able to better understand how corporate culture can boost employee satisfaction. However, this initial effort attempts to look into the connection between CSR, organizational culture, and job happiness among Saudi Arabian employees working for diverse firms. The following questions are covered in the paper: “Are there feasible gains within the organizations, in regard to improved organizational culture and employee job satisfaction?” and “Does cultural growth and job contentment exist among employees who actively engage in CSR and obtain potential benefits?” Hence, the principal aim of this research is to study the impact of CSR on organizational culture and employee job satisfaction. Further, it also aims to determine the impact of corporate culture on employees’ job satisfaction. The present work aims to conclude the influence of OC on JS, along with inspecting the role of CSR as a moderator among OC and JS.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Job Satisfaction

JS is a pleasant or good emotional state that occurs due to a person’s evaluation of their employment or experience at work [25,26,27]. JS is a good or undesirable feeling that arises after a worker’s assessment of their degree of job satisfaction. As a result, JS is one of the most commonly used organizational variables in research and is widely used in managerial behavior because it has the potential to be a good indicator of how employees perceive their jobs and forecasts about job behavior such as enthusiasm, absence, and performance [28,29,30,31]. The results of the study of Locke [32] showed that an employee’s emotional state and personal experiences affect his or her job satisfaction. In addition, job satisfaction takes into account how employees feel about other aspects of their jobs, such as compensation, benefits, career advancement, and work assignments. Depending on how satisfied they are, this can range from likely to unlikely. According to Ahmed et al. [33], these initiatives are closely related to the company’s strategy to satisfy its employees and reduce turnover. Barakat et al. [34] examined the role of social responsibility on corporate human resource practices in more detail. Employee satisfaction at work, corporate culture, employee behavior, and career development phenomena are the most commonly studied areas in human resources. Many other internal and external issues such as the quality of the job, the employee’s identification with the company, and the person’s values, rules and regulations, and norms influence the individual’s job satisfaction [35].
Glavas and Kelly [36] pointed out that CSR activities can promote and improve the work environment and job satisfaction. The social exchange theory supports the idea of why employee participation in company CSR activities will translate into positive outcomes. For instance, De Roeck and Maon [37] found a firm’s commitment to CSR has a significant influence on employees and increases the likelihood of reciprocal exchange with the company. More specifically, employees feel obligated to do something good in return when they believe they are supported by the firm’s pro-social efforts and friendly behavior by following the ‘norm of reciprocity’ [38].
The strategic congruence between a firm’s dedication to behave in a socially responsible manner and the personal goals of its employees, with a focus on issues that employees truly care about, shapes employees’ attitudes toward the company. According to this theory, the employees’ commitment and attachment to their organization may depend on how valuable they consider their affiliation with the company to be. From the perspective of social responsibility, Jones [39] illustrated a positive behavior concerning an activity that encourages employee volunteerism and can lead to positive employee reactions toward the company. Hackman and Oldman [40] created a new model of work satisfaction to explain how the features of a job affect employee behavior. There are three psychological elements that affect this connection: their job had meaning for them, they accepted responsibility for the outcomes, and they were aware of the outcomes of their labor in reality. In line with this theory, employees are more likely to like their work if they believe they are doing good work, are accountable for their actions, and are aware of how well they do their duties. Task identification (completing a distinct task), task significance (a task’s impact on other people), and skill variety are three key job features that have an impact on the first psychological condition (different activities require different skills). The job characteristic of autonomy (independence and freedom while working on a task) has an impact on the second requirement, while the job feature of feedback (offering correct information about a specific activity’s efficacy and performance) has an impact on the third condition. The total of the values of these five variables determines how inspiring the work can be. The motivating potential is the extent to which an employee’s intrinsic motivation can be sparked, and it is determined by the intersection of the aforementioned five traits.

2.2. Organizational Culture

The prevalence of organizations and institutions around the world has made general well-being at work a subject of intense theoretical interest and investigation. According to Warr [41], a measure of an organization’s effectiveness is how well-liked it is and effective it feels to its employees. Employees’ social well-being, along with their bodily and mental health, is linked to the concept of “work contentment” [42]. According to Spector [43], work satisfaction is one of the factors that has been most extensively researched in relation to organizational culture, attitude, and a variety of employment roles, such as defining a job and administration. Employment satisfaction is a general term used to describe how an employee feels about their job. However, studies have exposed that work satisfaction is a complex issue which is affected by numerous cultural factors in an organization, including a person’s beliefs, standards, norms, conduct, prospects, and work challenges, to name a few [44]. Numerous aspects of job satisfaction have been established and researched as part of the attempt to understand and enhance it from organizational culture aspects.
Since 1920, numerous researchers have examined cultural differences to cast light on human nature. Taylor [45] defined culture as the mental dispositions and not the physical object or evident action. In addition, Hofstede [46] argued that a community’s social norms may be regarded as its inhabitants’ shared cognitive paradigm. The author went on to say that it is the “character” of the community as a whole, similar to the attitude of an individual. This profoundly symbolic and intricate theme illuminates the ways in which individuals interact and construct their shared identities. According to Deshpande and Webster [47], organizational culture is a multifaceted phenomenon of shared views, values, and attitudes in the workplace that binds employees to abide by specific rules in the organization. Similarly, other studies characterized organizational culture as an established set of norms and values, conveyed via goals and executed in a variety of ways throughout an organization’s workforce. Few others presented organizational culture from various dimensions and referred to the set of values and common attitudes and behaviors practiced by employees to achieve organizational goals; some presented as corporate strategies, policies and procedures, work approaches or techniques, morals, mindset, symbols, conduct, and the role played by a particular position.

2.3. Corporate Social Responsibility

Companies across a wide range of industries strive to create a positive public image and improve society’s quality of life while maximizing their own contribution to society [48,49]. According to the theoretical foundations of previous research, CSR mainly focuses on two dimensions: social and environmental [50,51]. From this perspective, it becomes clear how the company’s board of directors should communicate with the different stakeholders, except their own. According to Elkington [52], who outlined the three bottom lines of sustainability (human beings, the environment, and profitability), people and the planet are included in the socio-environmental perspective. In this context, employees’ understanding of CSR can be considered as the extent to which they behave in accordance with the organization’s procedures and policies in order to fulfill the company’s responsibilities to stakeholders and do good for society. CSR has been evaluated through various activities and theoretical frameworks, and its impact on various performance metrics has been highlighted [53]. This has created interest among employees and awareness of how important CSR strategies are for the growth of a company [54]. McWilliams and Siegel [55] define corporate social responsibility (CSR) as “activities that appear to serve societal benefit outside of the corporation’s benefits other than those mandated by law.” Matten and Moon [56] state that CSR is defined as a set of corporate policies and actions that demonstrate a company’s commitment to society as a whole. According to Aguinis [57], CSR is described as corporate initiatives that are appropriate to a certain situation, as well as rules that include shareholders’ standards, as well as the three-bottom-line measure of the economy, the environment, and society.

2.4. Organizational Culture and Job Satisfaction

Satisfaction research conducted by Shurbagi and Zahari [58] discovered that a positive and substantial relationship exists among various types of culture in an organization, viz., market, clan, adhocracy, and hierarchical cultures, and five areas of job happiness, namely supervision, pay, promotion, opportunities, and coworkers. Tsai et al. [59] mentioned that the organizational atmosphere has a considerable impact on work satisfaction. According to the study, employees who have clear and more profitable rewards and encouragement for job achievement are happier and feel more secure in their positions. On the contrary, Belias et al. [60] identified a link between organizational culture and employee JS, and indicated that JS is an assessment of organizational culture since the dimensions of work satisfaction are organizational components. Other investigations, such as the one conducted by Avram et al. [61], have found substantial links between work happiness and corporate culture. According to the results, the author said that there is a favorable workplace atmosphere that is associated with an improved level of work satisfaction, which makes employees feel appreciative of the company and leads to long-term relationships based on mutual trust.
Hypothesis H1.
Organizational culture has a positive significant relationship with job satisfaction.

2.5. Corporate Social Responsibility and Job Satisfaction

CSR initiatives encourage companies to think about how their actions affect society as a whole. As a result, CSR initiatives can show companies how to effectively engage with a range of stakeholders. The reputation of the organization gains from awareness of environmental and social issues. In line with this idea, a company’s well-intentioned CSR efforts send a signal that it is a socially responsible company. For example, companies can build a reputation for environmentally friendly business practices by meeting stakeholder needs for environmentally sustainable products and services [62].
Social identity theory is a key idea that explains how employees’ attitudes, such as their job satisfaction, can be influenced by how they perceive the company’s CSR measures. This paradigm, as previously stated, posits that employees want to become acquainted with organizations that gained credibility as ethical business partners by devoting themselves to causes other than generating revenue [63]. As a result, a positive assessment of a company’s CSR commitment should provide employees with a better feeling of responsibility and a sense of belonging to a wider social group. This could result in positive effects on the workplace. De Roeck et al. [64] uncover a favorable link between these parameters and hospital staff, which supports this idea. According to Schaefer et al. [65], the positive evaluation of many CSR categories, including ecological and societal categories, has a good impact on fulfillment with work, which is particularly true for our analysis. In terms of environmental CSR, Raineri and Paille [66] demonstrated employees are more likely to behave in a sustainable way if they perceive their firm is engaging in green tasks, according to research. Employees feel obligated to reciprocate their employer’s good deeds with a benevolent attitude, which further substantiates the social exchange hypothesis.
According to Bauman and Skitka [67], a company’s CSR initiatives provide employees with an idea of the nature of the company. Employees are inspired to develop positive feelings regarding themselves, and as a result they feel like they are making the world a better place, which can increase their job satisfaction. This is especially the case given the implications of the notion of social identity and social interaction theories, as well as earlier theoretical claims that workers’ assessments of a company’s CSR have a favorable effect on work fulfillment [68,69,70]. According to Riordan et al. [71], employee work satisfaction is higher in organizations that positively manage their social environment. However, the study found a connection among ethical behavior in organizations and work satisfaction that might be mentioned. Employees who believe their companies are fair to their employees also believe the company’s ethical duties have been met. The increase in work satisfaction is a consequence of this circumstance [72]. According to studies, decreased job happiness is observed when an organization does not follow ethical guidelines. However, an increase in job satisfaction is observed when high-level managers behave in the opposite manner [73]. Furthermore, there is a link between volunteering, social responsibility, and satisfaction with one’s job. Companies that participate in volunteer activities will have a better image among workers and the general public, resulting in increased job satisfaction [74]. The amount of employee voluntariness is another element that influences work happiness. Employees may develop their teamwork, problem-solving, communication, creativity, and leadership skills by participating in the optional programs [73].
Hypothesis H2.
Corporate social responsibility has a positive association with job satisfaction.

2.6. Role of CSR between OC and JS

CSR has evolved into a competitive advantage for businesses by projecting a favorable picture of them in society, which might aid in their maintenance as well as entice new workers and consumers [75]. An organization’s seamless interaction with its workers is necessary to ensure the predominance of corporate social responsibility. If a company does not take care of its employees, it will not be able to take care of its clients or the environment in which it works [76]. The scientific study of Valentine and Fleischman [69] also explored CSR has a mediating role between organizational culture (ethical codes and training) and job satisfaction. Other than this, there is limited research between CSR and JS in the Saudi Arabia context.
According to Raineri and Paille [66], workers are more satisfied with their jobs when they know the company is well-regarded in society. This connection could be well demonstrated by the social identity theory, which contends that employees want to be associated with companies that have a good reputation. The impression of a company’s values, and morals, as well as societal awareness, have a crucial impact in determining its apparent attraction to prospective workers [77]. When a business participates in CSR initiatives, it advances the firm’s reputation in the eyes of its workers as well as increases worker contentment [78].
Hypothesis H3.
Corporate social responsibility significantly moderates the relationship between organizational culture and job satisfaction.

3. Research Methodology

3.1. Research Framework

Organizational culture is an independent variable in this study. According to the literature, the variable will be examined and assessed to see if it has a direct influence on JS. Furthermore, CSR will be assessed as a moderating variable that is expected to have a controlling influence among OC and JS. According to the aim of the study, the dependent variable will be job satisfaction. Based on this, the below research framework was outlined for future investigation (See Figure 1).

3.2. Measurement Items

In this investigation, the quantitative technique was used. Figure 1 depicts the study’s framework. To measure organizational culture, the items were modified from research by [79]. Six items from Tsui et al. [80] were modified for job satisfaction. The instrument’s final portion, which dealt with CSR, included four items that were used to measure CSR to the society, CSR for employees, and clients. The items were taken from Turker [81] and Maignan and Ferrell [82]. The survey questionnaire was planned using closed-ended questions. On a Likert scale with five points, each closed-ended question or statement item received a score between strongly agree (SA) 5, agree (A) 4, disagree (DA) 3, agree (DA) 2, and strongly disagree (SDA) 1. To administer and evaluate the gathered data, SPSS version 29.0 and Amos edition 26 were both employed.

4. Data Analysis

Sample Size and Data Collection

The researcher employed a random sample strategy to carry out the study. It is determined that this approach is essential since it enables researchers to rapidly and easily recruit individuals. We approached 700 respondents from small and medium (SME) firms in Saudi Arabia. The data were collected from these SME companies both by emails that were made available after discussions with the HR managers and, in a few cases, personally reaching the respondents with the support of operational managers. Prior to the primary survey, we conducted a pilot test (n = 50) using data that were arbitrarily provided by various organizations. As there were no comments from the respondents regarding the survey, this indicates the questions asked were reasonably clear. The aggregate data were gathered in two steps over the course of nearly a month each. Levene’s test for homogeneity of variance was performed between two phases (early and later) of replies prior to doing the data analysis, and it was found that Levene’s statistics were insignificant, indicating that there are no discrepancies in the variances. Because there were no non-response biases in the study’s dataset, the findings can be applied to a larger population [83,84]. We calculated the minimum sample size needed for the data analysis using Cochran’s formula, and we discovered that the study needed 458 replies with a 0.05 alpha value and a margin of error. Overall, we were able to collect 463 responses. Only 463 responses were found to be complete and usable for data analysis. Very few employees failed to respond as they were on sick and annual leaves, however such non-response is random. All of the study’s indicators had acceptable Cronbach’s alpha values. The demographic profile of the respondents is presented in Table 1. The respondents were primarily non-Saudi (62.4%), between the ages of 18 and 25 (34.8%), most of whom were female (59.6%), held a bachelor’s degrees (55.5%), and possessed between 2 and 5 years of job experience on average.

5. Results

5.1. Method of Testing Common Bias

Harman [85] recommended exploratory factor analysis (EFA) for testing data with any possible bias that may affect the results during the data analysis. To minimize the data and identify the dimensions of the constructs, with 16 measurement items, an EFA using PCA with varimax rotation was performed. The EFA produced three factors with eigenvalues greater than one, as indicated in Table 2, and all items were fed into each of these constructs in turn. A significant Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin value of 0.825 and Bartlett’s test of sphericity (p < 0.001) furthermore confirmed the factorability conditions. The reliability test assesses how well a summated scale measurement tool produces consistent findings across a series of trials. Although summated scales are often an association of related items intended to evaluate underlying components, it is crucial to understand whether the same collection of items evokes the same responses when the same questions were asked. One method of evaluating the dependability of measuring scales is Cronbach’s coefficient, which must be more than or equal to 0.7 to be considered acceptable [86]. The Variance Inflation Factor (VIF), as described by Kleinbaum et al. [87], was a practical instrument employed in this work to examine the possibility of multicollinearity among independent variables. According to the analysis, the VIF runs between 1.681 to 2.243, which is much less than 10. According to this analysis, there is no multicollinearity among the independent variables.

5.2. Estimation of Measurement Model (Reliability and Validity)

Internal reliability, validity of discrimination, and item-by-item reliability, along with convergent validity, are all investigated in this paper [88,89,90]. The outside loadings of every construct’s measure were used to assess individual item dependability [89,91]. Researchers argue models with factor loading estimates of 0.70 or higher should be deemed extra credible [60]. In this sense, Table 2 gives more information. In addition, the composite reliability coefficient was calculated to regulate the internal reliability of the measurements used. Consequently, the present research evaluated average variance-extracted (AVE) scores for convergent validity, as recommended by [92]. Accordingly, AVE ratings are a superior way to test convergent validity, and statisticians suggest that each latent concept has a value of 0.50 or beyond. Table 2 shows that every construct’s AVE has met the specified level by varying between 0.607 and 0.794. The outcomes as shown in Table 3 validate the model’s ability to discriminate. The discriminant validity of the model was tested using the [93] criterion as shown in Table 3, which states that all diagonal values of constructs are larger than their correlation with other constructs. Holbert and Stephenson [94] fundamentally stated that the composite reliability coefficient necessarily needed to be less than 0.70. The current study demonstrates a high degree of internal reliability, ranging from 0.705 to 0.927.

5.3. Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to verify the evaluation model’s factor structure. The estimated results of the measurement model are shown in Table 4 and structural model along with their standard values according to the statisticians. The following was observed: Good fit indices, χ2/df = 2.468; Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) = 0.915; Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI) = 0.934; IFI = 0.935; Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = 0.923; NFI = 0.924; Root Mean Square Error Approximation (RMSEA) = 0.065. The t-values corresponding to all the items was significant at less than 5%.
The measurement values of the structural model revealed an excellent data fit with the goodness of fit indices (χ2/df = 2.614), IFI, NFI, CFI, GFI, and AGFI all above 0.900 [99]. The Root Mean Square Error Approximation (RMSEA) is below the threshold limit of less than 0.080 [96].
Figure 2 represents the path analysis of the structural model (causal effect) and the results of hypothesis testing in Table 5 shows the standardized value of organizational culture on job satisfaction (β = 0.509; t = 10.571), corporate social responsibility on job satisfaction (β = 0.221; t = 3.993). To study the moderation effect, the study combined the interaction effect of organizational culture and corporate social responsibility on job satisfaction (β = 0.141; t = 2.976). Since all the values are significantly below the level of 5%, all the hypotheses were supported by the data and we accept H1, H2, and H3.

6. Discussion

The research examined the role of OC and CSR on employee job satisfaction. Though OC contributed a moderate effect on JS, CSR showed a low impact on employees’ job satisfaction. The study also attempted to investigate the interaction effect of OC and CSR on JS and found it to be a minimal impact. This study advanced our knowledge of how employees view CSR and how it affects workplace culture and job satisfaction. According to the study, CSR programs successfully increase employee productivity, boosts business revenues, and fully satisfy staff members by offering competitive pay and supporting their professional growth. Additionally, CSR controls the employee confidence in management and promotes their overall job satisfaction. However, at present, it is evident that the Saudi organizations’ CSR practices are in the initial stage towards their internal stakeholders. Our study findings are also consistent with Farid et al. and Manzoor et al. [17,100] who discovered a favorable moderating effect of CSR on employee job satisfaction. The positive influence of CSR activities connects the firms and the society which in turn builds corporate loyalty and gains reputation. Therefore, organizations must improve their culture of social responsibility and such efforts must be reinforced with the efforts of employees to bring change in their attitude and behavior and have an optimistic opinion of their company’s CSR measures.
The discovery that OC and CSR are organizational components that impact JS is the study’s main theoretical contribution. Ashforth et al. [63] stated that employees gain satisfaction when they are identified by their firm’s reputation. From this viewpoint, this study measured the employees’ trustworthiness, culture of learning, opportunities to grow, and collaboration with their peers. The study confirmed CSR can significantly influence the culture toward employee satisfaction. The findings that particular forms of culture are related to an advanced degree of work satisfaction compared to others is another theoretical contribution of the study. The study’s conclusions have useful implications to those managers who want to generate contented staff who should prioritize CSR efforts.

7. Limitations and Future Research

The choice to analyze OC at the individual level was the study’s theoretical shortcoming. Although this choice was justified since JS is a distinct concept, the worker’s view of the prevalent kind of OC was extra relevant compared to the kind of OC that really prevailed from this perspective. The limitation of the study to a sum of features that might impact the association among CSR, organizational culture, and JS was a methodological limitation. Additionally, the sample size was limited given the number of organizations present in Saudi Arabia, which restricted the generalizability of the results. The objective of the present research was to determine the direct association among OC and JS as well as the moderating role of CSR in this relationship. Therefore, further research studies have many potential scopes to enhance these research findings. While OC, JS, and CSR are distinct topics in human resource management, future researchers can include additional measurement items for each topic and conduct holistic and in-depth study. The study strengthens the findings of [101] and states the employees may not randomly be assigned to the workplace, and the subjective measures of their well-being at work may lead to different findings. Therefore, further researchers may address such issues using such heterogeneity variables as employees’ wages, age, gender, and work histories.
Second, the only stakeholder in this study was the individual employee. These parties have a role in more than just upholding corporate social responsibility. The study did not foresee the other stakeholders, such as investors, suppliers, and customers, who are also crucial to an organization’s continued survival. The involvement of these additional parties will undoubtedly have an impact on how satisfied employees are at work. Thirdly, several potentially important organizational characteristics like business performance, organizational structure, leadership style, and company scope were not taken into consideration. These aspects may be taken into account in future research to understand employee job satisfaction within the firm. Fourthly, several companies take part in various corporate social responsibility initiatives. Future studies may focus on specific industries to better understand how CSR influences employee job satisfaction. Additionally, the function of such particular CSR actions can be researched to improve organizational culture.

8. Theoretical and Managerial Implications

Our main research contributions to the scientific literature are on evaluating the direct effects of OC and the moderating effects of CSR on employee job satisfaction, which have been empirically confirmed. In recent research reviews, this is a unique approach that incorporates cultural values and CSR to predict job satisfaction. Our findings offer a more thorough perspective of OC on JS through employee participation in CSR initiatives. This finding implies that the influence of corporate culture may vary depending on various circumstances. Consistent with this study’s results, most other research studies indicated a substantial connection between OC and JS [15,16]. However, this study found an insignificant relationship between these two variables, urging a more explicit investigation by including other dimensional components of OC. Our study adds to the growing body of research on CSR in the field of human resources in a broader sense and more particularly advances the discussion on enhancing CSR’s relevance as a corporate image. We offer compelling conceptual and numerical evidence that are also consistent with past studies [102].
Most importantly, our findings give managers a reason to support CSR programs, particularly in determining employee satisfaction and abiding by the rules governing employment, benefits, compensation, and career advancement. According to our findings, organizations must make their CSR initiatives more intuitive to staff members. Essentially, this gives organizations even more excuses not to engage in the repulsive practice of false corporate image. Our main suggestion is that, at the operational level, employee-related factors must be taken into account when designing and carrying out CSR initiatives. The second point is that the idea of CSR’s importance to employees play a crucial role, as shown by a significant moderation. The important lesson is that companies must ensure that their employees comprehend the value of CSR for the sake of both the business and the individuals working there. A firm’s social CSR will have a larger favorable effect on employee perceptions of internal processes built on fairness and transparency, which is a resounding conclusion from the research.

9. Conclusions

On a larger scale, the current work makes a significant effort to look into the role of the OC in the interaction with JS by focusing on two key aspects. First, the researchers wanted to see if there was a direct link between OC, CSR, and JS. Second, the current research tried to determine if CSR may moderate these connections. The findings demonstrate that CSR has a positive association with worker JS, which is also consistent with other studies [103] that discovered an encouraging relationship between employees and CSR actions within services, energy, and customer products businesses. The outcomes are also consistent with those of Raub and Blunschi [104], as well as Ilham [105], who revealed that organizational culture had an impact on job satisfaction. This study also used different measures of organizational culture that were considered by other studies [106,107,108,109]. However, the findings suggest assessing job satisfaction with most effective organizational culture practices. In comparison with the literature, this study recommends that culture is a component of organization which affects job satisfaction, and the key contribution of this study is just a realization of such few measures of organizational culture and may not sufficiently predict the general view of overall job satisfaction. However, the findings of the moderation reveal that CSR significantly moderates OC and JS. The findings imply that companies that engage in CSR efforts have a stronger organizational culture, which will boost employee job satisfaction. The employees see their work and organization positively when they notice the change within themselves and thus possess high job satisfaction. Therefore, there is a potential for cultural growth and job contentment among employees who actively engage in CSR activities. The study findings reconfirm the statements of [17], recommending that “culture alone cannot determine the competitive advantage, rather, it is its impact on behavior that distinguishes it”. The second contribution of this study is that it found that some cultural measures are more strongly correlated with a higher level of job satisfaction than other measures. According to the practical application of the study’s findings, managers must concentrate on creating a task culture rather than a role culture in order to produce contented personnel. The research findings, however, do not study the indirect or moderation effect of organizational cultures. Future research should look into such relationships because it is feasible that organizational culture influences other work characteristics that may have an indirect impact on job satisfaction.
The most extensively researched topic in human resource management is JS. Referring to the work of literature, they happen within a range of company cultures throughout the world and are having a noteworthy impact on worker behavior, work performance, and daily life. Furthermore, organizational culture can both influence and predict job satisfaction. More specifically, creative work environments appear to be strongly related to individual achievement, implying that employees who perceive their work environments to be more vibrant and innovative are more satisfied in their jobs. Furthermore, this influence can be mitigated by their firm’s CSR efforts, and work satisfaction is expected to be higher when the firm is involved in CSR events.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.K.; methodology, S.K. and N.R.Z.; software, W.B.A.; validation, S.K. and A.M.; formal analysis, S.K. and N.R.Z.; investigation, W.B.A. and A.M.; resources, W.B.A.; data curation, S.K., A.M. and N.R.Z.; writing—original draft preparation, S.K. and A.M.; writing—review and editing, S.K. and W.B.A.; visualization, S.K. and W.B.A.; supervision, S.K.; project administration, S.K.; funding acquisition, W.B.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

Thanks for Researchers Supporting Project number (RSP2023R332), King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Budur, T.; Demir, A. Leadership perceptions based on gender, experience, and education. Int. J. Soc. Sci. Educ. Stud. 2019, 6, 142–154. [Google Scholar]
  2. Kaliski, B.S. Views on the Future of Business Education: Responses to Six Critical Questions. Delta Pi Epsil. J. 2007, 49, 9–14. [Google Scholar]
  3. Zardasht, P.; Omed, S.; Taha, S. Importance of HRM Policies on Employee Job Satisfaction. Black Sea J. Manag. Mark. 2020, 1, 49–57. [Google Scholar]
  4. Paais, M. Effect of work stress, organization culture and job satisfaction toward employee performance in Bank Maluku. Acad. Strateg. Manag. J. 2018, 17, 1–12. [Google Scholar]
  5. Suher, I.K.; Bir, C.S.; Yapar, A. The effect of corporate social responsibility on employee satisfaction and loyalty: A research on Turkish employees. Int. Res. J. Interdiscip. Multidiscip. Stud. (IRJIMS) 2017, 7969, 87–105. [Google Scholar]
  6. Woolliams, P.; Moseley, T. Organisation Culture and Job Satisfaction; Earlybrave: Chelmsford, UK, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  7. Appelbaum, P.S.; Lidz, C.W.; Grisso, T. Therapeutic misconception in clinical research: Frequency and risk factors. IRB Ethics Hum. Res. 2004, 26, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Saha, S.; Kumar, S.P. Organizational culture as a moderator between affective commitment and job satisfaction: Empirical evidence from Indian public sector enterprises. Int. J. Public Sect. Manag. 2018, 31, 184–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Sanusi, F.A.; Johl, S.K. A proposed framework for assessing the influence of internal corporate social responsibility belief on employee intention to job continuity. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2020, 27, 2437–2449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Lee, S.; Heo, C.Y. Corporate social responsibility and customer satisfaction among US publicly traded hotels and restaurants. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2009, 28, 635–637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Mozes, M.; Josman, Z.; Yaniv, E. Corporate social responsibility organizational identification and motivation. Soc. Responsib. J. 2011, 7, 310–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Fatma, M.; Rahman, Z.; Khan, I. Building company reputation and brand equity through CSR: The mediating role of trust. Int. J. Bank Mark. 2015, 33, 840–856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Kim, H.L.; Woo, E.; Uysal, M.; Kwon, N. The effects of corporate social responsibility (CSR) on employee well-being in the hospitality industry. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2018, 30, 1584–1600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Aguinis, H.; Glavas, A. What we know and don’t know about corporate social responsibility: A review and research agenda. J. Manag. 2012, 38, 932–968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Bonini, S.; Swartz, S. Bringing Discipline to Your Sustainability Initiatives; McKinsey & Company: New York, NY, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  16. You, C.S.; Huang, C.C.; Wang, H.B.; Liu, K.N.; Lin, C.H.; Tseng, J.S. The relationship between corporate social responsibility, job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Int. J. Organ. Innov. 2013, 5, 65–77. [Google Scholar]
  17. Manzoor, F.; Wei, L.; Nurunnabi, M.; Subhan, Q.A.; Shah, S.I.A.; Fallatah, S. The impact of transformational leadership on job performance and CSR as mediator in SMEs. Sustainability 2019, 11, 436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Lazim, Y.Y.; Azizan, N.A.B.; Sorooshian, S. How are the Performance of Small Businesses Influenced by HRM Practices and Governmental Support? Mediterr. J. Soc. Sci. 2015, 6, 97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Khan, S. Examining the relationship between sme’s organizational factors and employee creativity. Acad. Strateg. Manag. J. 2021, 20, 1–12. [Google Scholar]
  20. Khan, S. Exploring the firm’s influential determinants pertinent to workplace innovation. Probl. Perspect. Manag. 2021, 19, 272–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Ghardallou, W. Corporate sustainability and firm performance: The moderating role of CEO education and tenure. Sustainability 2022, 14, 3513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Allui, A.; Pinto, L. Non-financial benefits of corporate social responsibility to Saudi companies. Sustainability 2022, 14, 3446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Al-Ghazali, B.M.; Sohail, M.S.; Jumaan, I.A.M. CSR perceptions and career satisfaction: The role of psychological capital and moral identity. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Aldhuwaihi, A.; Shee, H.K.; Stanton, P. Organisational culture and the job satisfaction-turnover intention link: A case study of the Saudi Arabian banking sector. World 2012, 2, 127–141. [Google Scholar]
  25. Berglund, V.; Johansson Sevä, I.; Strandh, M. Subjective well-being and job satisfaction among self-employed and regular employees: Does personality matter differently? J. Small Bus. Entrep. 2016, 28, 55–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Fauzi, A.A.; Suryani, T. Measuring the effects of service quality by using CARTER model towards customer satisfaction, trust and loyalty in Indonesian Islamic banking. J. Islam. Mark. 2019, 10, 269–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Judge, T.A.; Weiss, H.M.; Kammeyer-Mueller, J.D.; Hulin, C.L. Job attitudes, job satisfaction, and job affect: A century of continuity and of change. J. Appl. Psychol. 2017, 102, 356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Guarnaccia, C.; Scrima, F.; Civilleri, A.; Salerno, L. The role of occupational self-efficacy in mediating the effect of job insecurity on work engagement, satisfaction and general health. Curr. Psychol. 2018, 37, 488–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Hanaysha, J.; Tahir, P.R. Examining the effects of employee empowerment, teamwork, and employee training on job satisfaction. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2016, 219, 272–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Siengthai, S.; Pila-Ngarm, P. The interaction effect of job redesign and job satisfaction on employee performance. In Evidence-Based HRM: A Global Forum for Empirical Scholarship; Emerald Group Publishing Limited: Bradford, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  31. Zhang, S. Workplace spirituality and unethical pro-organizational behavior: The mediating effect of job satisfaction. J. Bus. Ethics 2020, 161, 687–705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Locke, E.A. The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psycho; Dunnette, M.D., Ed.; Rand McNally: Chicago, IL, USA, 1976; pp. 1297–1349. [Google Scholar]
  33. Ahmed, P.K.; Rafiq, M.; Saad, N.M. Internal marketing and mediating role of organizational competencies. Eur. J. Mark. 2003, 37, 1221–1241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Barakat, S.R.; Isabella, G.; Boaventura, J.M.G.; Mazzon, J.A. The influence of corporate social responsibility on employee satisfaction. Manag. Decis. 2016, 54, 2325–2339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Sengupta, A.S.S.; Yavas, U.; Babakus, E. Interactive effects of personal and organizational resources on frontline bank employees’ job outcomes. Int. J. Bank Mark. 2015, 33, 884–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Glavas, A.; Kelley, K. The effects of perceived corporate social responsibility on employee attitudes. Bus. Ethics Q. 2014, 24, 165–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. De Roeck, K.; Maon, F. Building the theoretical puzzle of employees’ reactions to corporate social responsibility: An integrative conceptual framework and research agenda. J. Bus. Ethics 2018, 149, 609–625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Blau, P.M. Exchange and Power in Social Life; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1964. [Google Scholar]
  39. Jones, D.A. Does serving the community also serve the company? Using organizational identification and social exchange theories to understand employee responses to a volunteerism program. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry 2010, 83, 857–878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Hackman, J.R.; Oldman, G.R. Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey. J. Appl. Psychol. 1975, 60, 159–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Warr, P.B. Age and occupational well-being. Psychol. Ageing 1992, 7, 37–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Grant, A.M.; Christianson, M.K.; Price, R.H. Happiness, Health, or Relationships? Managerial Practices and Employee Well-Being Tradeoffs. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 2007, 21, 51–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Spector, P.E. Job Satisfaction: Application, Assessment, Causes, and Consequences; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1997; Volume 3. [Google Scholar]
  44. Davies, M.A.; Laschinger, H.K.S.; Andrusyszyn, M.A. Clinical educators’ empowerment, job tension, and job satisfaction: A test of Kanter’s theory. J. Nurses Prof. Dev. 2006, 22, 78–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Taylor, W.W. A Study of Archeology; American Anthropological Association; Literary Licensing, LLC: Arlington, TX, USA, 1948; Volume 69. [Google Scholar]
  46. Hofstede, G. Empirical models of cultural differences. In Contemporary Issues in Cross-Cultural Psychology; Bleichrodt, N., Drenth, P.J.D., Eds.; Swets & Zeitlinger Publishers: Lisse, The Netherlands, 1991; pp. 4–20. [Google Scholar]
  47. Deshpande, R.; Webster, F.E., Jr. Organizational culture and marketing: Defining the research agenda. J. Mark. 1989, 53, 3–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Korschun, D.; Bhattacharya, C.B.; Swain, S.D. Corporate social responsibility, customer orientation, and the job performance of frontline employees. J. Mark. 2014, 78, 20–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Kotler, P.; Lee, N. Corporate Social Responsibility Doing the Most Good for Your Company and Your Cause; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  50. De Roeck, K.; Farooq, O. Corporate social responsibility and ethical leadership: Investigating their interactive effect on employees’ socially responsible behaviors. J. Bus. Ethics 2018, 151, 923–939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Lee, E.M.; Park, S.Y.; Lee, H.J. Employee perception of CSR activities: Its antecedents and consequences. J. Bus. Res. 2013, 66, 1716–1724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Elkington, J. 25 years ago I coined the phrase “triple bottom line.” Here’s why it’s time to rethink it. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2018, 25, 2–5. [Google Scholar]
  53. Luo, X.; Bhattacharya, C.B. The debate over doing good: Corporate social performance, strategic marketing levers, and firm-idiosyncratic risk. J. Mark. 2009, 73, 198–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Scheidler, S.; Edinger-Schons, L.M.; Spanjol, J.; Wieseke, J. Scrooge posing as Mother Teresa: How hypocritical social responsibility strategies hurt employees and firms. J. Bus. Ethics 2019, 157, 339–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. McWilliams, A.; Siegel, D. Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2001, 26, 117–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Matten, D.; Moon, J. “Implicit” and “explicit” CSR: A conceptual framework for a comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2008, 33, 404–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Aguinis, H. Organizational responsibility: Doing good and doing well. In APA Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol 3: Maintaining, Expanding, and Contracting the Organization; Zedeck, S., Ed.; American Psychological Association: Washington, DC, USA, 2011; pp. 855–879. [Google Scholar]
  58. Shurbagi, A.M.A.; Zahari, I. The relationship between transformational leadership, job satisfaction and the effect of organizational culture in National Oil Corporation of Libya. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Management, Applied and Social Sciences (ICMASS’2012), Dubai, United Arab Emirates, 24–25 March 2012. [Google Scholar]
  59. Tsai, M.L.; Su, S.H.; Chang, J.K.; Tsai, D.S.; Chen, C.H.; Wu, C.I.; Li, L.J.; Chen, L.J.; He, J.H. Monolayer MoS2 heterojunction solar cells. ACS Nano 2014, 8, 8317–8322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Belias, D.; Koustelios, A.; Vairaktarakis, G.; Sdrolias, L. Organizational culture and job satisfaction of Greek banking institutions. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2015, 175, 314–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Avram, E.; Ionescu, D.; Mincu, C.L. Perceived safety climate and organizational trust: The mediator role of job satisfaction. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2015, 187, 679–684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Menguc, B.; Ozanne, L.K. Challenges of the “green initiative”: A natural resource-based approach to the environmental orientation-business performance relationship. J. Bus. Res. 2005, 58, 430–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Ashforth, B.E.; Harrison, S.H.; Corley, K.G. Identification in organizations: An examination of four fundamental questions. J. Manag. 2008, 34, 325–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. De Roeck, K.; Marique, G.; Stinglhamber, F.; Swaen, V. Understanding employees’ responses to corporate social responsibility: Mediating roles of overall justice and organisational identification. Int. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2014, 25, 91–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Schaefer, S.D.; Terlutter, R.; Diehl, S. Talking about CSR matters: Employees’ perception of and reaction to their company’s CSR communication in four different CSR domains. Inter. Int. J. Advert. 2020, 39, 191–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Raineri, N.; Paillé, P. Linking corporate policy and supervisory support with environmental citizenship behaviors: The role of employee environmental beliefs and commitment. J. Bus. Ethics 2016, 137, 129–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Bauman, C.W.; Skitka, L.J. Corporate social responsibility as a source of employee satisfaction. Res. Organ. Behav. 2012, 32, 63–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Malik, A.; Alam, I.; Faridi, M.R.; Ayub, S. Corporate social irresponsibility towards the planet: A study of heavy metals contamination in groundwater due to industrial wastewater. Soc. Responsib. J. 2019, 16, 793–807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Valentine, S.; Fleischman, G. Ethics programs, perceived corporate social responsibility and job satisfaction. J. Bus. Ethics 2008, 77, 159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Vlachos, P.A.; Panagopoulos, N.G.; Rapp, A.A. Feeling good by doing good: Employee CSR-induced attributions, job satisfaction, and the role of charismatic leadership. J. Bus. Ethics 2013, 118, 577–588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Riordan, C.M.; Gatewood, R.D.; Bill, J.B. Corporate image: Employee reactions and implications for managing corporate social performance. J. Bus. Ethics 1997, 16, 401–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Koh, H.C.; El’fred, H.Y. Organisational ethics and employee satisfaction and commitment. Manag. Decis. 2004, 42, 677–693. [Google Scholar]
  73. Reddy, P.S.; Venkat, N.; Nagabhaskar, M.; Subbareddy, D. An empirical study of octapace culture and organizational commitment. MIJBR 2018, 5, 38–45. [Google Scholar]
  74. Upham, S.P. A model for giving: The effect of corporate charity on employees. J. Corp. Citizsh. 2006, 22, 81–90. [Google Scholar]
  75. Jones, D.A.; Willness, C.R.; Madey, S. Why are some job seekers attracted to socially responsible companies? Testing underlying mechanisms. In Academy of Management Proceedings; Academy of Management: Briarcliff Manor, NY, USA, 2010; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  76. Rupp, D.E.; Ganapathi, J.; Aguilera, R.V.; Williams, C.A. Employee reactions to corporate social responsibility: An organizational justice framework. J. Organ. Behav. Int. J. Ind. Occup. Organ. Psychol. Behav. 2006, 27, 537–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Greening, D.W.; Turban, D.B. Corporate social performance as a competitive advantage in attracting a quality workforce. Bus. Soc. 2000, 39, 254–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Galbreath, J. Drivers of corporate social responsibility: The role of formal strategic planning and firm culture. Br. J. Manag. 2010, 21, 511–525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Okta Tri, B.P. An Analysis of a Dominant Students’ Problem in Speaking at English Teacher Education Department Uin Sunan Ampel Surabaya. Ph.D. Thesis, UIN Sunan Ampel Surabaya, Surabaya, Indonesia, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  80. Tsui, A.S.; Egan, T.D.; O’Reilly III, C.A. Being different: Relational demography and organizational attachment. Adm. Sci. Q. 1992, 37, 549–579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Turker, D. Measuring corporate social responsibility: A scale development study. J. Bus. Ethics 2009, 85, 411–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Maignan, I.; Ferrell, O.C. Measuring corporate citizenship in two countries: The case of the United States and France. J. Bus. Ethics 2000, 23, 283–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Cochran, W.G. Sampling Techniques, 3rd ed.; John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 1977. [Google Scholar]
  84. Armstrong, J.S.; Overton, T.S. Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. J. Mark. Res. 1977, 14, 396–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Harman, H.H. Modern Factor Analysis; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1976; ISBN 0226316521. [Google Scholar]
  86. Nunnally, J.C. Psychometric Theory; McGraw Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1978. [Google Scholar]
  87. Kleinbaum, D.G.; Kupper, L.L.; Muller, K.E. Applied Regression Analysys and Other Nultivariable Methods. In Applied Regression Analysys and Other Nultivariable Methods; Cengage Learning: Boston, MA, USA, 1988; p. 718. [Google Scholar]
  88. Hair, J.F.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. Partial least squares: The better approach to structural equation modeling? Long Range Plan. 2012, 45, 312–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Hair, J.F.; Gabriel, M.; Patel, V. AMOS covariance-based structural equation modeling (CB-SEM): Guidelines on its application as a marketing research tool. Braz. J. Mark. 2014, 13, 44–55. [Google Scholar]
  90. Henseler, J.; Ringle, C.M.; Sinkovics, R.R. The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. In New Challenges to International Marketing; Emerald Group Publishing Limited: Bradford, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  91. Duarte, P.A.O.; Raposo, M.L.B. A PLS model to study brand preference: An application to the mobile phone market. In Handbook of Partial Least Squares; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2010; pp. 449–485. [Google Scholar]
  92. Fornell, C.; Bookstein, F.L. Two structural equation models: LISREL and PLS applied to consumer exit-voice theory. J. Mark. Res. 1982, 19, 440–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Holbert, R.L.; Stephenson, M.T. Structural Equation Modeling in the Communication Sciences, 1995–2000. Hum. Commun. Res. 2002, 28, 531–551. [Google Scholar]
  95. Bentler, P.M.; Bonett, D.G. Significance Tests and Goodness of Fit in the Analysis of Covariance Structures. Psychol. Bull. 1980, 88, 588–606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Jöreskog, K.G.; Sörbom, D. LISREL 8: Structural Equation Modeling with the SIMPLIS Command Language; Scientific Software International: Skokie, IL, USA, 1993. [Google Scholar]
  97. McDonald, R.P.; Ho, M.-H.R. Principles and Practice in Reporting Structural Equation Analyses. Psychol. Methods 2002, 7, 64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Bagozzi, R.P.; Yi, Y. On the Evaluation of Structural Equation Models. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 1988, 16, 74–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Browne, M.W.; Cudeck, R. Testing Structural Equation Models. In Alternative Ways of Assessing Model Fit; Bollen, K.A., Long, J.S., Eds.; Sage: New York, NY, USA, 1993; pp. 136–162. [Google Scholar]
  100. Farid, T.; Iqbal, S.; Ma, J.; Castro-González, S.; Khattak, A.; Khan, M.K. Employees’ perceptions of CSR, work engagement, and organizational citizenship behavior: The mediating effects of organizational justice. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 1731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  101. Böckerman, P.; Bryson, A.; Ilmakunnas, P. Does high involvement management improve worker wellbeing? J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 2012, 84, 660–680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Feisal, M.; Sandipan, S.; Katrina, S.; Hangjun, X. CSR and job satisfaction: Role of CSR importance to employee and procedural justice. J. Mark. Theory Pract. 2021, 29, 518–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Kim, M.; Hoegen, M.; Dugundji, J.; Wardle, B.L. Modeling and experimental verification of proof mass effects on vibration energy harvester performance. Smart Mater. Struct. 2010, 19, 045023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Raub, S.; Blunschi, S. The power of meaningful work: How awareness of CSR initiatives fosters task significance and positive work outcomes in service employees. Cornell Hosp. Q. 2014, 55, 10–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Ilham, R. The impact of organizational culture and leadership style on job satisfaction and employee performance. J. Adv. Manag. Sci. 2018, 6, 50–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Hofstede, G. Motivation, leadership, and organization: Do American theories apply abroad? Organ. Dyn. 1980, 9, 42–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Trompenaars, F.; Woolliams, P. A new framework for managing change across cultures. J. Chang. Manag. 2002, 3, 361–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. House, R.J.; Hanges, P.J.; Javidan, M.; Dorfman, P.W.; Gupta, V. (Eds.) Culture, Leadership, and Organizations: The Globe Study of 62 Societies; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  109. Eskildsen, J.; Kristensen, K.; Antvor, H.G. The relationship between job satisfaction and national culture. TQM J. 2010, 22, 369–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 15 08810 g001 550
Figure 1. Proposed Research Framework.
Figure 1. Proposed Research Framework.
Sustainability 15 08810 g001
Sustainability 15 08810 g002 550
Figure 2. Structural Model.
Figure 2. Structural Model.
Sustainability 15 08810 g002
Table
Table 1. Demographic Profile of respondents.
Table 1. Demographic Profile of respondents.
DescriptionClassificationPercentage
Age18–25 years34.8
26–30 years14.5
31–35 years20.1
36–40 years15.1
>40 years15.6
GenderMale40.4
Female59.6
EducationBachelors55.5
Masters29.4
Doctorate15.1
Experience<2 years13.2
2–5 years26.3
5–10 years20.5
10–15 years15.8
>15 years24.2
NationalitySaudi37.6
Non-Saudi62.4
Table
Table 2. Reliability and validity test (Item loading, AVE, Composite Reliability, Cronbach alpha).
Table 2. Reliability and validity test (Item loading, AVE, Composite Reliability, Cronbach alpha).
ConstructsItem LoadingAVECRα Value
Organizational Culture
How trustworthy is my management? (OC1)0.843
Is my organization’s learning and innovation culture satisfactory? (OC2)0.7640.7940.8250.846
I am satisfied with the available task opportunities in my organization to grow? (OC3)0.825
I am satisfied with the collaboration (role) with whom I work? (OC4)0.788
Corporate Social Responsibility
I believe we have been successful at maximizing our profits and closely monitor employee’s productivity. (CSR1)0.768
Our company encourage the diversity of our workforce and seeks to comply with all laws regulating hiring and employee benefits. (CSR2)0.757
Our company’s internal policies prevent discrimination in employees’ compensation and promotion. (CSR3)0.7050.6070.8390.815
Fairness toward co-workers and business partners is an integral part of the employee evaluation process. (CSR4)0.897
A confidential procedure is in place for employees to report any misconduct at work. (CSR5)0.927
Our business supports employees who acquire additional education. (CSR6)0.746
Job Satisfaction
I am satisfied with the nature of the work I perform? (JS1)0.723
I am satisfied with the person who supervises me at work (organizational superior)? (JS2)0.774
I am satisfied with my relations with others in the organization with whom I work (co-workers or peers)? (JS3)0.7360.6750.8240.869
I am satisfied with the pay I receive for my job? (JS4)0.717
I am satisfied with the opportunities which exist in this organization for career advancement (higher education, promotion)? (JS5)0.742
From all perspectives, how satisfied are you with your current job situation? (JS6)0.817
Table
Table 3. Discriminant Validity.
Table 3. Discriminant Validity.
ConstructsOCCSRJS
OC0.795
CSR0.6780.845
JS0.7510.7250.868
Table
Table 4. Fitness Indices (CFA and Structural model).
Table 4. Fitness Indices (CFA and Structural model).
Fit IndicesMeasurement Values of CFAMeasurement Values of Structural ModelStandard ValueReferences
χ2/df2.4682.614<3[94]
IFI0.9350.923>0.900[95]
NFI0.9240.916>0.900[95]
CFI0.9230.914>0.900[96]
GFI0.9150.904>0.900[95]
AGFI0.9240.918>0.900[93]
TLI0.9340.927≥0.900[97]
SRMR0.0460.064<0.080[95]
RMSEA0.0650.076<0.080[97,98]
Table
Table 5. Structural Model (Hypothesis Testing).
Table 5. Structural Model (Hypothesis Testing).
HypothesisUnstandardized BetaStd. ErrorStandardized Beta Valuet Statisticsp ValueDecision
H1: OC → JS0.509 0.0480.50910.571<0.001Supported
H2: CSR → JS0.2210.0550.2213.993<0.001Supported
H3: OC*CSR → JS0.0770.0260.1412.9760.003Supported
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Khan, S.; Alonazi, W.B.; Malik, A.; Zainol, N.R. Does Corporate Social Responsibility Moderate the Nexus of Organizational Culture and Job Satisfaction? Sustainability 2023, 15, 8810. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15118810

AMA Style

Khan S, Alonazi WB, Malik A, Zainol NR. Does Corporate Social Responsibility Moderate the Nexus of Organizational Culture and Job Satisfaction? Sustainability. 2023; 15(11):8810. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15118810

Chicago/Turabian Style

Khan, Sania, Wadi B. Alonazi, Azam Malik, and Noor Raihani Zainol. 2023. "Does Corporate Social Responsibility Moderate the Nexus of Organizational Culture and Job Satisfaction?" Sustainability 15, no. 11: 8810. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15118810

APA Style

Khan, S., Alonazi, W. B., Malik, A., & Zainol, N. R. (2023). Does Corporate Social Responsibility Moderate the Nexus of Organizational Culture and Job Satisfaction? Sustainability, 15(11), 8810. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15118810

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop