1. Introduction
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) refers to the set of behaviors businesses ought to or are expected to perform in a society [
1]. Many companies expect to increase profits through CSR action, and in fact, Fortune 500 companies spend in excess of
$15 billion annually on CSR activities [
2]. CSR behavior build positive brand image and business reputation, which leads to higher sales and investment [
3]. The positive effects of CSR also apply to consumers. The factors that consumers consider in their purchase decisions are not only the functional values of products, but also the brand values of the business. When they purchase products from businesses known for their CSR behavior, consumers feel that they have contributed to fulfilling their social responsibilities.
The research interests of recent CSR studies have been extended to internal stakeholders including employees [
4,
5]. Initial studies have examined if and how CSR influences the attitudes or behaviors of employees. In addition, they have attempted to explore if CSR behavior have the same effects on internal stakeholders as on external stakeholders. Despite the contributions of previous studies, the following four questions have risen.
First, CSR studies at the individual level remain lacking, even though studies on the relationships between employees and CSR have been conducted. A CSR review paper [
6] in 2014 indicated that only 4% of total CSR studies focused on the individual-level. It is very important to understand how internal members of an organization perceive the activities and performances of the organization because the perceptions of the employees about the organization will influence their attitudes and behavior, which will ultimately have an impact on both personal and organizational performance [
7]. The same can be applied to CSR. Employees’ perceptions of CSR behavior will influence their attitudes and behaviors regarding the business, which will in turn influence the performance of the business [
4]. D’Aprile and Talo [
5] viewed the relationships between CSR and employees’ commitment to the organization as a psychological process, and emphasized the need for in-depth study of this process. Barrena-Martínez et al. [
8] recently pointed out the need for socially responsible human resource management to increase CSR, employee commitment, and performance. Therefore, it is needed to study further about CSR at the individual level and therefore socially responsible human resource management, as well.
Second, the question is whether CSR behavior has the same positive effects on all employees. In recent years, the concept of fit or congruence has been presented in the CSR field. For example, the fit between the business’ CSR behavior and the fairness of internal management of the business [
9], and the fit between the business’ CSR behavior and ethical level of individuals in the business, will have different effects on employees’ attitudes and behaviors [
10]. Sen & Bhattacharya [
11] explained that customers were not always supportive of businesses which engaged in CSR actively, and rather, they were favorable only when the products/service of the company were associated with the CSR behavior of the business. Rupp et al. [
9] illustrates that employees may perceive injustice when the businesses’ CSR behavior towards external stakeholders, including consumers, are not consistent with the businesses’ policies towards internal stakeholders.
Third, the question of whether each dimension of economic, legal, ethical, and philanthropic CSR has the same positive effect on employees is an important consideration. According to the pyramid of CSR presented in Caroll [
12], there is a difference in required social level for each dimension. Among the dimensions of CSR, economic and legal responsibilities are two basic required responsibilities that must be achieved. On the other hand, ethical and philanthropic responsibilities are considered optional (not mandatory). Thus, the difference in the necessity and importance of CSR can be applied equally to employees, and employees may perceive the importance and necessity of each dimension differently.
Fourth, we consider the generalization of the positive effects of CSR found in the previous research. Since CSR is literally a corporate activity required by society, there will be a difference in CSR standards depending on which society the business belongs. This is due to the fact that the scope or standard applied to CSR is associated with the values or moral norms of the society or the country where the businesses are located [
13]. So far the CSR studies have been conducted on businesses in Europe and America, and therefore, the empirical studies in the context of other countries will be critical to generalize the results of these CSR studies [
13].
Based on these research questions drawn from the literature review, this study attempts to explore the relationships between organizational commitment and the fit between perceived needs of CSR of individual employees and CSR behavior in Korea and China. To obtain a better understanding of the effect of fit between employees’ CSR needs and organizations’ CSR behavior on employees’ organizational commitment, this study adopts the person–organization fit theory (P-O fit theory).
6. Discussion
6.1. Conclusions
CSR is no longer optional for companies, but is a necessary factor for long-term growth. Previous empirical studies have found that CSR positively affects external stakeholders such as customers and shareholders. On the other hand, studies on the influence of CSR on internal members have been lacking. In this study, the influence of CSR on organizational members was examined in detail. The results of this study are as follows.
First, this study found that CSR activities affect organizational members according to the fit between employee’s CSR needs and CSR behavior. Previous studies have examined the two-dimensional relationship between CSR and employee’s commitment. In this study, we examined the three-dimensional relationship between NEED, CSR activities and employee’s commitment to CSR. Haski-Leventhal et al. [
27] emphasized that the impact of CSR activities on employees’ attitudes and behaviors can be clearly identified through the FIT between CSR behavior and employees’ perception of CSR. The results of this study shed light on the deeper understanding of the effect of CSR on employees by verifying that the CSR activities themselves do not increase the commitment of the organization members, but rather the fit to the employees’ need for CSR results in increased commitment.
In the case that the need for CSR is larger than behavior of CSR, employees’ satisfaction is lower because employees may perceive that the company does not perform CSR well enough, which lead to lower organizational commitment. If behavior of CSR is larger than the need of CSR, employees’ satisfaction becomes lower as well because employees may perceive that the company wastes the resources, which leads to lower organizational commitment. Therefore, the fit between need and behavior of CSR becomes strongly influential.
Second, in this study, we examine the relationship between CSR and attitude of its employees based on the person-organization fit. As suggested by Rupp et al. [
9], individual employees take certain roles for the organization’s evolving social consciousness since they are members of the organization. They are concerned with, contribute to, and respond to it. In addition, it can be seen that the positive behavior of the organization positively affects the organizational members through the ‘trickle-down effect’.
Third, this study verified the different effects of CSR dimensions. Carroll [
12]’s CSR pyramid theory has proposed different effects of each dimension of CSR, but studies validating this theory are limited. Results of this study found that companies should prioritize economic and legal social responsibility. In addition, the results of this study show that ethical responsibility is also recognized as fundamental as economic and legal responsibility are. Results of this study suggest that companies need to prioritize social responsibility activities. It is expected that fulfilling charitable responsibilities should be based on the fulfillment of other basic responsibilities, and for companies with limited resources, it is expected that prioritizing CSR activities will result in maximizing the positive effects derived from CSR.
Fourth, in this study, there was a statistically significant difference between Korea and China in terms of the effect of CSR on organizational commitment. For both countries, there was no difference in the effect of need and conformity between the economic and legal CSR on organizational commitment, but there was a significant difference in ethical responsibility. These results may imply the difference in CSR perception of each country. In China and Korea, congruence between the needs of employees and the organization’s behavior regarding the economic and legal responsibility has a significant positive effect on organizational commitment. On the other hand, in terms of ethical responsibility, incongruence between CSR needs and CSR behavior results in a significantly more negative reaction to organizational commitment in Korea than in China. This indicates that negative attitudes toward the organization are more strongly formed in the case of Korea in which the CSR needs of employees do not fit CSR behavior. Ethical responsibility is recognized as essential and fundamental in Korea. Thus, compared to China, in Korea, economic, legal, and ethical responsibilities of CSR are perceived as “obligation” of organizations that exceed “responsibility”. These findings can be explained in relation to CSR described in social stakeholder theory and institutional theory. The CSR effectiveness of a company can be different in relation to the understanding of stakeholders, and the level of CSR in which social justification is secured can be applied differently depending on the social situation. In other words, it was understood that the interest group could affect the socially responsible behavior of the company.
6.2. Limitation and Further Research
The limitations and future research of this study are as follows. First, subsequent relationships among the four dimensions of CSR may be considered. Some dimensions of CSR may take precedence over the others. Results of this study suggest that the effect of philanthropic responsibility differs from those of the other social responsibilities, so more detailed research on each dimension of CSR is needed. Second, we can consider various control effects in the relationship between CSR and organizational commitment. Therefore, future studies also need to take into account control variables such as psychological ownership, perceived corporate image or corporate reputation that strengthen or weaken the relationship between CSR awareness and organizational commitment. Third, in this study, differences of CSR effects between Korea and China were analyzed, but results are likely to be interpreted as a result of reflecting the collective cultures of these countries. Therefore, in the future, it will contribute to the generalization of CSR effects by analyzing CSR effects among various countries. Fourth, it will be necessary to study socially responsible human resource management practices that will link corporate-level CSR with employees’ attitude and behavior. Finally, even though CSR is viewed as essential for long-term survival, few studies has been done on long-term period. Therefore it will be needed to conduct longitudinal studies.