Next Article in Journal
Simulation Analysis of Bus Passenger Boarding and Alighting Behavior Based on Cellular Automata
Previous Article in Journal
A Comparative LCA of Aeroponic, Hydroponic, and Soil Cultivations of Bioactive Substance Producing Plants
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 14
Issue 4
10.3390/su14042428
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

Corporate Social Responsibility and Hotel Employees’ Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Roles of Organizational Pride and Meaningfulness of Work

by
Hyewon Youn
and
Jong-Hyeong Kim
*
School of Tourism Management, Sun Yat-sen University, Tangzhou Rd. 1, Zhuhai 519082, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(4), 2428; https://doi.org/10.3390/su14042428
Submission received: 16 January 2022 / Revised: 18 February 2022 / Accepted: 18 February 2022 / Published: 20 February 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Tourism, Culture, and Heritage)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The corporate social responsibility (CSR) literature documents inconsistent results regarding the relationship between CSR and employees’ organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). Additionally, few empirical studies examine the mediating factors explaining how employees’ CSR perception affects their attitudes and behaviors. Thus, we propose an extended M-R model linking hotels’ CSR activities, employees’ perceived meaningfulness of work and organizational pride, and organizational citizenship behavior. We recruited 363 Chinese hotel employees in Guangzhou for our sample and employed partial least squares structural equation modeling for our analysis. The results showed that CSR practices benefiting both internal (i.e., employees) and external stakeholders (i.e., community and customers) positively influenced employees’ organizational pride. However, only CSR activities benefiting customers significantly affected employees’ perceived meaningfulness of work. CSR influenced employees’ OCB through meaningfulness of work and organizational pride. The findings provide hotel management insights regarding the development of CSR initiatives to enhance employees’ organizational attitudes and work performance. The study limitations are that the survey methodology has weaknesses and that we do not consider the influence of corporate culture on OCB.

1. Introduction

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) refers to “actions that appear to further some social good, beyond the interests of the firm and that which is required by law” [1]. Various organizations have begun to recognize the strategic importance of CSR to the sustainability of their business operations, as consumers are willing to reward companies perceived to be socially responsible and penalize those perceived to be socially irresponsible [2]. Accordingly, CSR has received extensive scholarly attention in the past two decades, and numerous empirical studies have evaluated the impact of CSR practices on external stakeholders, particularly customers [3,4].
Extending the literature on CSR effects, some researchers have examined the impact of CSR on internal stakeholders, such as employees [5,6]. For example, they have examined the influence of CSR on employees’ attitudes toward their organization, such as organizational commitment [6,7], organizational identification [8], and job satisfaction [9]. However, a thorough literature review identified several significant research gaps.
First, limited research has focused on employees’ behaviors that benefit their organization, such as organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) [10,11]. Researchers have noted that OCB, a discretionary employee behavior, is critically important because it contributes to the effective functioning of an organization [12]. In the few studies examining the effect of CSR on OCB, researchers have reported inconsistent results; some support a significant effect, and others do not [13]. Therefore, to address this discrepancy, this study examines whether and how employees’ CSR perception affects their OCB.
Another research gap is that researchers have generally measured the influence of employee perceptions of CSR practices directed at a single group of stakeholders and have not distinguished between CSR initiatives targeting different stakeholders (e.g., employees, community, and customers). As a result, it is still unclear how employees’ perceptions of organizational CSR practices toward different stakeholders influence their work behaviors [14]. Thus, this study examines the comparative influence of different components of CSR (i.e., internal and external CSR, hereafter ICSR and ECSR) on employees. Although organizational justice theory expects that an organization showing responsibility toward external stakeholders also cares for its internal stakeholders (i.e., employees) [15], some organizations do not strike a balance between ICSR (for employees) and ECSR (for external stakeholders) in practice [16]. In other words, firms may prefer ECSR over ICSR because ECSR can earn firms a good reputation, while they have a limited understanding of the benefits of ICSR. As a result, employees may perceive unfairness, which may hinder firms from maximizing the positive outcomes from CSR activities because employees are also primary stakeholders who are critical to the long-term success and survival of hospitality firms [17]. Theoretically, employees are both beneficiaries of ICSR initiatives and contributors to ECSR programs. Hence, employees’ perceptions of the two types of CSR are likely to emerge through different mechanisms and have disparate impacts on their attitudes and behaviors.
The other gap in the literature is the lack of studies examining the mediating factors explaining the mechanism by which employees’ CSR perception affects their attitudinal and behavioral outcomes. Accordingly, researchers have called for more recognition of mediating factors in CSR research. For example, Farooq et al. [7] and Nazir and Islam [18] urged future research to identify potential mechanisms explaining the effect of CSR on employees. Adopting social identity and social exchange theories, some researchers have identified the mediating effects of employees’ cognitive responses, such as their company identification [19] and organizational trust [7]. However, the influence of employees’ emotional responses, such as organizational pride, has been ignored. Given that emotions have a significant impact on human behavior [20], this lack of consideration creates a significant research gap. Furthermore, prior research suggests that employees’ sense of meaningfulness through their work drives positive employee attitudes and behaviors [21]. However, little research has examined the influence of meaningful work in the hospitality industry [18].
The main objectives of this study are (1) to clarify the contradictory findings on the influence of CSR on OCB and (2) to develop and test a conceptual model that enhances our understanding of CSR and its consequences in the hotel business context. Specifically, this study seeks to answer the following research questions:
  • Research question 1: Do hotels’ CSR practices impact their employees’ OCB?
  • Research question 2: If so, how do hotels’ CSR practices influence employees’ OCB?
  • Research question 3: Which CSR practices—ICSR or ECSR—have a more significant impact on OCB?
To answer these research questions, this study employs Mehrabian and Russell’s (1974, hereafter M-R) model and examines the influence of various CSR practices on OCB. The M-R model argues that stimuli affect individuals’ emotions, in turn eliciting their responses. As the original M-R model primarily focuses on emotional responses to stimuli, this study extends the model by examining the underlying cognitive (i.e., meaningfulness of work) and emotional (i.e., organizational pride) mechanisms by which CSR practices influence employees’ OCB. This study contributes to the existing CSR literature by testing the influence of different CSR practices on OCB and revealing the underlying mechanisms by which CSR benefits organizations. Additionally, the findings have practical implications for the development of CSR programs, internal education, and training programs to attain positive employee outcomes.

2. Literature Review

2.1. M-R Model

The M-R model suggests that environmental stimuli provoke individuals’ emotional responses, which in turn result in a behavior [22]. Thus, hospitality researchers have widely utilized this model to examine the influence of the service environment on individuals’ behavioral responses [23]. However, researchers have argued that individuals react not only to environmental stimuli but also to other types of stimuli, such as perceived authenticity [24]. Thus, this study extends the M-R model to examine how employees’ perceptions of CSR practices affect their responses and work behavior. Furthermore, we extend the M-R model by focusing on hotel employees’ cognitive responses. The original model mainly discusses individuals’ emotional responses to stimuli; however, researchers argue that individuals respond both cognitively and emotionally to stimuli [25]. Thus, this study utilizes an extended M-R model to explain the mechanism by which employees’ perceptions of different CSR practices (S) affect their OCB (R) through the perceived meaningfulness of work (O1) and pride (O2). The following sections discuss each theoretical construct included in the study model.

2.2. CSR

CSR initiatives are generally defined as a set of actions that contribute to social welfare and go beyond the self-interested profit motive of an organization [1]. The extant literature documents diverse classifications of CSR. For example, Carroll [26] classified CSR into four dimensions: economic, legal, philanthropic, and ethical CSR. On the other hand, by adopting a stakeholder approach to the management of CSR, Clarkson [17] classified CSR initiatives based on the targeted stakeholder groups, including ICSR (i.e., employees) and ECSR (i.e., community and environment). ICSR mainly concerns employees, aiming to address problems with their wellbeing, health and security, advancement, work–life balance, and equal rights [27]. On the other hand, ECSR is directed toward external stakeholders to make positive contributions to the community and customers [28]. Given that different stakeholders are affected by, or can affect, an organization’s operations as well as its decision-making processes, this stakeholder-based CSR classification is useful to understand the demands and expectations of different stakeholder groups [29]. In the current study, we aim to examine the influence of different stakeholder-focused CSR activities on employees’ perceptions and behavior. Accordingly, we distinguish an organization’s CSR as ICSR and ECSR and examine their influences on employees’ organizational citizenship behavior through organizational pride and meaningfulness of work.

2.3. Organizational Pride

Psychologists define pride as a self-conscious emotion generated by appraisals of individuals’ internalized standards [30]. Based on individuals’ needs for self-esteem and their desires to be positively evaluated by others [31], individuals feel pride when they accomplish significant personal achievements (e.g., winning a competition) or engage in altruistic behavior (e.g., helping others). Researchers have noted that individuals can also feel pride toward the organization for which they work [32,33]. For example, employees want to be affiliated with an organization that is evaluated positively by outgroup members to meet their self-esteem needs [34]. Thus, Jones [33] defined organizational pride as a construct grounded in employee group membership and suggested that employees feel organizational pride when they obtain self-respect and pleasure from being part of their organizations. Employees who feel organizational pride then develop strong bonds to their organizations and have lower turnover intentions [35,36]. Accordingly, researchers have suggested that organizational pride is a crucial factor for a firm’s success [34]. Given that an organization’s CSR activities are oriented toward treating its ingroup members well and benefiting external others, employees develop organizational pride toward firms that practice CSR activities. The M-R model suggests that individuals’ emotional responses lead to behaviors. Accordingly, we examine the mediating role of employees’ organizational pride in the relationship between CSR and OCB. The following section discusses the other mediating variable examined in this study.

2.4. Meaningfulness of Work

Kahn [37] defined meaningfulness in the workplace as a state in which employees “felt worthwhile, useful, and valuable as though they made a difference and were not taken for granted” (p. 704). According to work psychology research, human beings possess an innate desire to do something meaningful; therefore, engaging in meaningful work enhances employees’ self-worth and esteem in the workplace, which are important for psychological wellbeing [38,39]. Acknowledging significant positive consequences of the meaningfulness of work, such as employee engagement [18], job performance [40], and job satisfaction [41], researchers have examined what influences employees’ perception of meaningfulness in the workplace [42,43]. For example, employees experience meaningfulness (1) when they achieve a tangible material benefit (e.g., job security, Bellah et al. [44]), (2) when they accomplish career development goals (e.g., promotion, Aguinis and Glavas [42]), or (3) when they feel that their work benefits the world (i.e., calling orientation, Beadle and Knight [43]). Based on this finding, CSR activities can be prerequisite conditions for employees’ perceptions of whether their work is meaningful. Prior research also suggests that perceived meaningfulness is a factor driving volunteer work [45]. Thus, this study examines the mediating effect of employees’ sense of meaningfulness of work on the relationship between CSR and OCB.

2.5. OCB

Prior research investigating how a firm’s CSR affects employees has primarily focused on employees’ attitudinal outcomes, such as organizational commitment [6], job satisfaction [9], and organizational identification [8]. Accordingly, He et al. [10] urged that the CSR literature needs to focus more on employees’ work behaviors. In this regard, this study focuses on OCB, which is defined as employees’ extra-role behaviors that go beyond a formal job description but promote the effective operation of an organization [12]. There are two main reasons to focus on OCB in this study. First, OCB promotes teamwork and cooperation among employees, which can ensure quick responses to customer needs and improve service quality [10]. Therefore, OCB is regarded as an essential factor in the hospitality industry [11]. Second, the extant literature provides inconsistent conclusions about the relationship between CSR and OCB, reporting both significant and insignificant relationships [13]. Sen and Bhattacharya [46] provided plausible reasons for the contradictions, indicating that the relationships are complex and may be susceptible to situational and/or mediating effects. Thus, this study utilizes multiple dimensions of CSR and examines how employees’ CSR perception influences their OCB while considering the mediating effects of organizational pride and meaningfulness of work.

2.6. Hypothesis Development

The research model is depicted in Figure 1. Through the extended M-R model, CSR activities are expected to influence employees’ OCB through organizational pride and meaningfulness of work. The following sections provide a discussion leading to the hypothesis development.

2.6.1. The Effect of CSR on Organizational Pride

The extant literature suggests that organizations’ participation in CSR activities enhances their corporate image and reputation [47]. Accordingly, employees have positive perceptions of organizations that incorporate CSR practices into their operations and feel that their affiliation with these organizations is worthwhile [48]. This positive perception of their group membership then results in organizational pride because their association with these organizations boosts their self-esteem, self-worth, and positive self-image [31]. Corroborating this, Tsachouridi and Nikandrou [49] noted that employees’ pride increases when observing that their organizations are engaging in CSR actions. In line with the above discussion, the following hypotheses are proposed:
Hypothesis 1 (H1).
Employees’ perceptions of their firm’s CSR activities toward (a) employees (ICSR), (b) the community (ECSR1), and (c) customers (ECSR2) have a positive influence on employees’ organizational pride.

2.6.2. The Effect of CSR on the Meaningfulness of Work

Individuals feel a sense of meaningfulness when they perceive themselves as useful and worthwhile [37]. In prior research grounded in social identity theory, CSR researchers have discussed that employees are likely to categorize themselves with their organizations and share benefits from this association [42]. Thus, the CSR activities of their organizations that involve taking care of people and communities can provide a sense of meaning regarding their membership and work in those organizations [50]. Based on this discussion, employees’ perception of CSR activities influences their meaningfulness of work. Thus, we propose the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2 (H2).
Employees’ perceptions of their firm’s CSR activities toward (a) employees (ICSR), (b) the community (ECSRcommunity), and (c) customers (ECSRcustomers), have a positive influence on employees’ sense of the meaningfulness of work.

2.6.3. The Effect of Organizational Pride on OCB

According to the M-R model, individuals’ emotional responses elicited from exposure to stimuli determine their future behavior [22]. Thus, employees’ organizational pride, a positive emotion aroused from their organizational membership [33], should result in positive work behaviors. In support of this theoretical notion, empirical research has identified a significant relationship between organizational pride and employees’ in-role behaviors, such as commitment in the workplace [32]. Researchers have also found that the effect of organizational emotions can be extended to employees’ extra-role behaviors [51]. For example, organizational pride enhances teamwork with colleagues and encourages employees to help their colleagues [52]. Based on the theoretical discussion and the empirical findings, we propose the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3 (H3).
Organizational pride has a positive influence on OCB.

2.6.4. The Effect of Organizational Pride on Meaningfulness of Work

Researchers in philosophy have noted that meaningfulness comprises feelings of pride, admiration of others, joy, hope, and self-esteem [53]. In line with this notion, some researchers have examined the relationship between organizational pride and meaningfulness of work [54,55]. In a qualitative study sampling employees in the hospitality industry, Dimitrov [54] found that pride in organizational membership and organizations’ products are sources of meaningfulness of work. Yim and Fock [55] provided empirical evidence that employees’ pride in volunteer work enhances their perception of the meaningfulness of volunteer work. Thus, we propose that employees who feel pride in their organization tend to perceive meaning in their work. Specifically, we propose the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 4 (H4).
Organizational pride has a positive influence on the meaningfulness of work.

2.6.5. The Effect of Meaningfulness of Work on OCB

Consistent with previous findings that the meaningfulness of work has a positive relationship with behavioral outcomes, some researchers have examined the effect of this meaningfulness on OCB [11,52]. For example, sampling hotel employees working for South Korean hotels, Kim et al. [52] found that hotel employees’ CSR perception increases their OCB. However, Supanti and Butcher [11] found that Thai hotel employees’ CSR perception affects their helping behavior in the workplace not directly but indirectly through their perception of the meaningfulness of work. Therefore, this study attempts to clarify these contradictory findings in the literature. Grounded in the M-R model, this study posits that an organization’s CSR activities that create a positive image among its employees promotes employees’ OCB through the psychological mechanism of employees’ perceptions of the meaningfulness of work. Accordingly, we propose the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 5 (H5).
Meaningfulness of work has a positive influence on OCB.

3. Methods

3.1. Data Collection

Previous research has reported that luxury hotels (four- to five-star hotels) are more likely to engage in CSR practices than lower-rated hotels [56]. Accordingly, we specifically targeted employees who worked for four- and five-star hotels in Guangzhou, China. To collect data, we first identified four- to five-star hotels located in Guangzhou from the websites of Guangzhou hotel associations and contacted the HR manager of each hotel to elicit their cooperation. Of 20 hotels (eight with four stars and 12 with five stars), six allowed us to collect data. Hotel employees in these hotels received a survey link.
We calculated an appropriate sample size based on the number of hotel employees in Guangzhou with a 95% confidence interval and a 5% margin of error. According to Guangzhou Statistics Bureau [57], there are 41,389 employees in star-rated hotels in Guangdong. Thus, an appropriate sample for the current study was 381. Since we expected to have some unusable data, we collected 400 survey questionnaires. For each returned questionnaire, we checked the time respondents spent completing the survey and determined whether there was a significant number of missing responses. After discarding invalid questionnaires, we included a total of 363 questionnaires in the analyses.

3.2. Measurement

All scales utilized in this study were developed and validated from prior research [11,48,58,59,60]. Each construct was measured using multiple items and a seven-point Likert scale (strongly disagree [42] to strongly agree [44]). Specifically, internal CSR was assessed by four items adapted from Turker [60]: “The hotel policies encourage employees to develop their skills and careers”, “this hotel implements flexible policies to provide a good work–life balance for its employees”, “the managerial decisions related to employees are usually fair”, and “this hotel supports employees who want to acquire additional education”. The Cronbach’s α was 0.85.
External CSR toward community was measured using four items adapted from Turker [60]: “This hotel participates in activities that aim to protect and improve the quality of the natural environment”, “this hotel implements special programs to minimize its negative impact on the natural environment”, “this hotel targets sustainable growth that considers future generations”, “this hotel contributes to campaigns and projects that promote the well-being of society”. The Cronbach’s α was 0.83. External CSR toward customers was assessed using three items adapted from Turker [60]: “this hotel respects consumer rights beyond the legal requirements”, “this hotel provides full and accurate information about its products/services to customers”, and “customer satisfaction is highly important for this hotel”. The Cronbach’s α was 0.84.
Organizational pride was measured using three items adapted from Ng et al. [48]: “I feel proud to be an employee of this hotel”, “I feel proud to tell others that I work for this hotel”, and “I feel proud to identify myself personally with this hotel”. The Cronbach’s α was 0.91. Perceived meaningfulness of work was measured using four items adapted from May et al. [59] and Supanti and Butcher [11]: “The work I do at the hotel is very important to me”, “the work I do at the hotel is very worthwhile”, “the work I do on this job at the hotel is meaningful to me”, and “I feel that the work I do in my job at the hotel is valuable”. The Cronbach’s α was 0.88.
Employees’ OCB was measured using three items adapted from Buil et al. [58]: “I attend functions that are not required but that help the image of this hotel”, “I offer ideas to improve the functioning of this hotel”, “I take actions to protect this hotel from potential problems”. The Cronbach’s α was 0.84. The survey questionnaire also included work-related variables, such as participants’ salary and organizational tenure, which were utilized as control variables in the data analyses.
The questionnaire was first developed in English and was translated into Chinese using a professional language service. Then, two bilingual Chinese colleagues back-translated the questionnaire to ensure linguistic and conceptual equivalence between the translated and original versions [61]. The survey was then pretested with 87 undergraduate students who were interns at a hotel. None of them reported any difficulties understanding the survey questions.

3.3. Data Analysis

The data were analyzed in several stages. First, to examine common method bias (CMB), we performed Harman’s single-factor test using SPSS (version 25). Then, we conducted exploratory factor analysis to determine the dimensions of external CSR.
To test the research hypotheses, partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) with SmartPLS (version 3.3.3) was used to examine the effect of CSR on OCB through organizational pride and meaningfulness of work. The data were analyzed using a two-step approach in which the measurement model quality was first confirmed and, subsequently, a test of the structural model was conducted. Recently, a growing number of researchers have used PLS-SEM in tourism and hospitality research given its following advantages: (1) it does not require an assumption of normality in the data distribution [62], (2) it can handle complex models with a wide range of sample sizes [63], and (3) it allows inferences regarding all effects in a mediation model [64]. Given that the data in this study were nonnormally distributed and the aim was to examine the mediating effects of pride and perceived meaningfulness of work, PLS-SEM was an appropriate method for this study.

4. Results

4.1. Participants

As reported in Table 1, more females than males (60.3% vs. 39.7%) participated in this study. The participants ranged in age from 18 to 62 years, with the majority in the 18–30 age group (65.0%). Most participants held a bachelor’s degree (45.2%). Frequently reported job positions included lower-level managers (44.6%) and middle-level managers (30.3%). Regarding salary, most participants earned between RMB 3001 and RMB 6000 (39.4%), followed by those earning RMB 6001 and RMB 10,000 (38.0%). Most participants had worked between 1 and 3 years (35.3%), followed by those working 3–5 years (30.9%).

4.2. Common Method Variance Test

This study also examined CMB and multicollinearity issues. First, Harman’s single-factor test results showed that the total variance for a single factor was below the threshold of 50%. These results indicated the nonexistence of multicollinearity and CMB issues in the data [65]. Furthermore, the variance inflation factor (VIF) values for all constructs ranged from 1.823 to 2.608 (<5, Hair et al. [63]).

4.3. Exploratory Factor Analysis

To determine the underlying dimensionality of external CSR, we conducted exploratory factor analysis for the nine items using varimax rotation. The results showed that Bartlett’s test of sphericity was 1151.351 (p < 0.001), and the KMO measure of sampling adequacy for the data was 0.858, demonstrating that the factor analysis was appropriate. Two items that had low factor loadings (<0.5) were removed (Hair et al. [62]): “This hotel makes investments to create a better life for the future generations” and “This hotel supports nongovernmental organizations working in problematic areas”. A total of seven items were retained after refinement, producing a two-dimensional factor structure that accounted for 70.605% of the total variance. The first factor, labeled external CSR toward the community, consisted of the following items: “This hotel participates in activities that aim to protect and improve the quality of the natural environment”, “This hotel implements special programs to minimize its negative impact on the natural environment”, “This hotel targets sustainable growth that considers future generations”, and “This hotel contributes to campaigns and projects that promote the well-being of society”. The second factor, labeled external CSR toward customers, included the following items: “This hotel respects consumer rights beyond the legal requirements”, “This hotel provides full and accurate information about its products/services to customers”, and “Customer satisfaction is highly important for this hotel”.

4.4. Measurement Model Assessment

The assessment of a measurement model entails evaluation of the latent variables and their indicators [63]. This involves reliability and validity tests of the study constructs. As reported in Table 2, all indicators’ outer loadings were above the 0.70 threshold, indicating good indicator reliability. The average variance extracted (AVE) values for all constructs exceeded 0.50 (ranging from 0.54 to 0.76). Furthermore, the composite reliability (CR) values ranged from 0.82 to 0.86 (>0.70), indicating satisfactory internal consistency (>0.70). These results satisfy the criteria for construct validity [66].
In assessing discriminant validity, following the Fornell–Larcker criterion, this study first confirmed that the square root of each AVE was greater than the correlations between corresponding constructs (see Table 3). Additionally, this study utilized the heterotrait-monotrait (HTMT) ratio of correlations as criteria to assess discriminant validity [67]. Researchers have suggested that the HTMT ratio has high power in testing for discriminant validity [64]. All results of the HTMT criterion were below the threshold of 0.85, confirming discriminant validity for the measurements [67].

4.5. Structural Model Assessment

The structural model and research hypotheses were then tested. Applying a bootstrapping procedure with 5000 iterations [68], we examined the statistical significance of the path coefficients. Prior to testing the research hypotheses, the structural model was evaluated using the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) value and the goodness-of-fit (GoF) index. The SRMR value of the model was 0.049 (≤0.08, Hair et al. [63]). Furthermore, as shown in Table 4, the GoF value (0.6) was greater than the minimum acceptable value of 0.36 [69]. These results demonstrate a good fit for the structural model.
Additionally, we tested the predictive power of the structural model using the R2 value and the Q2 indicator for the endogenous constructs. The power of the model to explain the variance in pride, meaningful work, and OCB was 42.1%, 61.8%, and 54.2%, respectively. All these values surpassed the minimum acceptable level (i.e., 20%) suggested by Hair et al. [62]. Stone [70] and Geisser [71] developed the Q2 indicator to assess the predictive power of a model (Q2 > 0). Q2 values obtained through the blindfolding procedure showed that all endogenous constructs had values significantly higher than 0. All these results showed that the structural model had strong predictive power.
Next, to further verify the research model (i.e., full mediation model), we examined the significance of total, direct, and indirect effects using the bootstrapping method. Table 5 shows that the direct effect of internal CSR on OCB decreased considerably (Δ = 0.125), from a significant relationship of 0.210 to a nonsignificant level of 0.085. Similar results were found for the external CSR constructs. The direct effect of external CSR toward the community on OCB decreased significantly (Δ = 0.225), from a significant relationship of 0.307 to a nonsignificant level of 0.082. Furthermore, the direct effect of external CSR toward customers on OCB decreased considerably (Δ = 0.157), from a significant relationship of 0.175 to a nonsignificant level of 0.018. These results support the hypothesized full mediation model.
Table 6 and Figure 2 report the path coefficients for the hypothesized causal relationships in the structural model. ICSR had a significant positive influence on employees’ pride (β = 0.177, p < 0.05). Thus, H1a was supported. Furthermore, hotels’ CSR practices benefiting the local community (β = 0.414, p < 0.001) and their customers (β = 0.152, p < 0.01) enhanced hotel employees’ pride; therefore, H1b and H1c were supported. These results indicate that the more hotel management implements CSR practices benefiting employees as well as external stakeholders (i.e., community and customers), the more organizational pride hotel employees feel.
H2a to H2c concerned the effects of hotels’ CSR activities on employees’ perception of the meaningfulness of work. The results showed that ECSRcustomers had significant positive influences on employees’ sense of the meaningfulness of work (β = 0.195, p < 0.001). However, neither ICSR (β = 0.107, p > 0.05) nor ECSRcommunity (β = 0.111, p > 0.05) had a significant impact on the meaningfulness of work. Therefore, H2c was supported, but H2a and H2b were not. These results suggest that hotels’ CSR practices benefiting customers are more effective than those benefitting other stakeholders in increasing employees’ perception of the meaningfulness of work.
In support of H3 and H4, employees’ pride had positive influences on OCB (β = 0.221, p < 0.001) and meaningfulness of work (β = 0.517, p < 0.001). These results suggest that the more organizational pride hotel employees feel, the greater their perception of having meaningful work and their involvement in OCB. Additionally, hotel employees’ perception of the meaningfulness of work had a significant positive influence on OCB (β = 0.549, p < 0.001). That is, the more an employee perceives his or her work as meaningful, the greater his or her involvement in OCB. Thus, H5 is supported. To evaluate the practical relevance of significant effects, this study examined the effect sizes (f2) for the causal relationships tested in the structural model (see Table 6). According to Cohen’s (1988) guidelines [72] (i.e., 0.02 to 0.15 for small effects, 0.15 to 0.35 for medium effects, and 0.35 or above for large effects), this study had adequate statistical power.
This study then examined the indirect effects of CSR practices on OCB. As reported in Table 6, internal CSR had a significant indirect effect on OCB through pride (β = 0.039, p < 0.05). However, employees’ perceptions of meaningful work did not mediate the impact of internal CSR on OCB (β = 0.059, p > 0.05). Similarly, external CSR toward the community had a significant indirect effect on OCB through pride (β = 0.091, p < 0.01) but not through meaningful work (β = 0.061, p > 0.05). Furthermore, external CSR toward customers had significant indirect effects on OCB through both pride (β = 0.034, p < 0.05) and meaningful work (β = 0.107, p < 0.001). These results suggest that employees’ emotions of pride in their organization play a critical role in mediating CSR effects on OCB. Finally, the results of multiple mediation effects showed the following: ICSR → pride → meaningful work → OCB (β = 0.050, p < 0.05), ECSRCommunity → pride → meaningful work → OCB (β = 0.117, p < 0.001), ECSRCustomer → pride → meaningful work → OCB (β = 0.043, p < 0.05).

5. Discussion

The extant CSR literature has reported mixed findings on the influence of firms’ CSR activities on OCB [13]. Thus, this study was motivated by the need to clarify the contradictory findings in the literature. By focusing on different CSR activities toward different stakeholders (i.e., employees, community, and customers), this study investigated the effect of CSR on hotel employees’ OCB. Grounded in an extended M-R model, this study proposed that CSR influences OCB through the mechanisms of organizational pride and meaningfulness of work. The results confirmed that hotels’ CSR activities benefiting employees (H1a), the community (H1b), and customers (H1c) affect employees’ organizational pride. CSR activities toward customers were found to increase employees’ sense of the meaningfulness of work (H2c). Organizational pride significantly affected employees’ OCB and the perceived meaningfulness of work (H3 and H4). This study further identified that the meaningfulness of work increases OCB (H5).

5.1. Theoretical Contributions

The results of this study provide several significant theoretical contributions. First, this study enriches our understanding of the CSR effect on positive work outcomes in the hospitality industry. Previous research has discussed the significant influence of CSR on employees’ attitudes toward their firms [6,8,9]. However, limited research has focused on employees’ extra-role behaviors in the workplace. As OCB increases customer satisfaction, thereby improving organizational performance [10], it is critically important to understand how CSR practices promote employees’ OCB. Furthermore, the few studies that have examined the effect of CSR on OCB have reported inconsistent results [13]. Thus, this study contributes to the extant literature by clarifying the contradictory findings in the literature. In support of previous research that identified a significant influence of CSR on OCB [10], the results showed that hotels’ CSR programs are effective in enhancing their employees’ OCB.
Second, this study responds to calls for research to clarify the mechanisms through which CSR influences employees’ work-related behaviors [18]. We developed and tested a mediation model based on an extended M-R model by also examining employees’ cognitive responses to their firms’ CSR activities. Accordingly, we hypothesized that hotels’ CSR impacts employees’ organizational pride and meaningfulness of work, which then result in OCB. Our findings showed that a full mediation model, which does not include the direct effect of CSR, has better model fit indices and a stronger ability to predict employees’ OCB than a partial mediation model. This is similar to previous studies that identified indirect effect of CSR on employees’ OCB. For example, He et al. [10] found that employees’ organization identification serves as a full mediator between CSR and OCB. Findings from this study provide an alternative mechanism how CSR affects OCB.
The results also support previous findings of positive relationships between CSR and organizational pride [31,48] as well as between CSR and meaningfulness of work [50]. Furthermore, corroborating previous research that found positive consequences of organizational pride in the workplace [34,35], we found that stronger organizational pride is associated with perceptions of more meaningful work and with OCB. Additionally, this study provides empirical support for the significant relationship between the meaningfulness of work and OCB [11].
Another important contribution of this study is its examination of the comparative influences of different CSR activities on employees’ perceptions and behaviors. Utilizing multiple dimensions of CSR directed toward different stakeholders, namely, employees, society, and customers, this study’s findings provide a more nuanced understanding of which types of CSR are effective in eliciting positive emotional and cognitive responses from employees, which ultimately lead to higher levels of OCB. The results showed that ECSR activities that benefit both communities and customers have a stronger influence on employees’ organizational pride and on the perceived meaningfulness of work than ICSR activities do. Similarly, Fu et al. [13] found that hotel employees’ OCB are directly influenced by the firm’s social-responsibility reputation (e.g., philanthropy) rather than employee treatment reputation (e.g., competitive salary and career development). Furthermore, previous research found that employees perceive CSR activities that support external stakeholders as goodwill toward the community [73]. Perceived meaningfulness of work is related to individuals feeling that their work benefits the world [43].

5.2. Managerial Contributions

This study has several implications for hotel management. First, we demonstrated that hotels’ CSR activities can be used for HRM strategies. The findings further suggested that different types of CSR activities are effective in enhancing employees’ organizational pride and meaningfulness of work. Combined, the results indicate that employees who have more positive emotional and cognitive evaluations of their organization and work are more likely to engage in OCB. Thus, hotel management can allocate resources effectively when developing CSR programs by focusing on different stakeholders. For example, the results showed that CSR activities contributing to the welfare of employees and other stakeholders (i.e., community and customers) are important for enhancing employees’ organizational pride. On the other hand, CSR practices benefiting customers are significant for developing employees’ sense of the meaningfulness of their work.
As hotel employees’ perceptions of their companies’ CSR activities significantly influence employee attitudes and behaviors in the workplace, hotel managers should actively share CSR information with their staff. Furthermore, hotel managers can utilize internal education and training programs to improve employees’ understanding of the firm’s CSR practices. Moreover, compared with employees’ perceptions of CSR, their actual participation in CSR activities is more effective for promoting positive attitudes toward the organization and work-related outcomes [11,18]. Therefore, hotel management should carefully develop CSR activities in which employees can enjoy participating.
Finally, considering that hotels’ CSR activities impact employees’ OCB through organizational pride and perceived meaningfulness of work, hotel management needs to develop and maintain a work environment that promotes pride and a sense of meaningful work among employees. For example, the creation of a recognition culture, which communicates an employee’s extraordinary work behavior among their colleagues, can foster employees’ organizational pride. Furthermore, hotel managers should devote significant effort to exploring the sources and characteristics of meaningfulness and actually implement relevant strategies in the workplace, such as providing autonomy in decision-making.

5.3. Limitations and Future Research

This study has several limitations. First, it was conducted in China using a sample of Chinese hotel employees. Therefore, our findings may not be generalizable to other countries and/or other industries. Given that cultural factors may play a role in influencing employees’ CSR perceptions as well as their behaviors, future research utilizing samples of different nationalities is required to validate this study’s findings. Furthermore, to collect data, this study employed a self-report survey method, which might be susceptible to social desirability bias. Although this study utilized an online survey method to avoid such response bias and used statistical tests to ensure that CMB did not influence the results, future research can validate this study’s findings by employing multiple data sources (e.g., supervisors’ evaluations of work behaviors).
Furthermore, this study adopted a cross-sectional design, which is limited in explaining the causal relationship between CSR and employees’ attitudes and behavioral outcomes. We recommend longitudinal research to address the limitation of our cross-sectional design. In addition, this study did not consider the influence of other organizational contexts. For instance, organizational culture [74] and employees’ perception of organizational support [75] influence employees’ engagement with their organization and positive work-related outcomes. Therefore, future research should consider adding these factors to the current theoretical model and test the interaction effects of CSR and organizational contexts.

6. Conclusions

The purposes of this study were (1) to clarify the influence of CSR on OCB and (2) to examine mediating variables that explain the mechanism by which CSR practices affect OCB. Utilizing the extended M-R model as the theoretical background, this study developed and tested a CSR model in the hotel business context. The results showed that both ICSR and ECSR are effective in enhancing employees’ organizational pride, but only ICSR has a positive influence on employees’ perceived meaningfulness of work. The results also confirmed the combined effects of organizational pride and perceived meaningfulness of work on OCB. Based on the study results, we suggest that hotel managers effectively develop CSR practices and communicate them with their employees to enhance employees’ organizational attitudes and work performance.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, H.Y.; methodology, H.Y. and J.-H.K.; validation, H.Y. and J.-H.K.; formal analysis, J.-H.K., investigation, H.Y. and J.-H.K.; resources, H.Y. and J.-H.K.; data curation, H.Y. and J.-H.K.; writing—original draft preparation, H.Y. and J.-H.K.; writing—review and editing, H.Y. and J.-H.K.; visualization, H.Y.; supervision, J.-H.K. 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

The data was gathered by conducting a survey in China.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. McWilliams, A.; Siegel, D.; Wright, P.M. Introduction by guest editors corporate social responsibility: International perspectives. J. Bus. Strateg. 2006, 23, 1–18. [Google Scholar]
  2. Porter, M.E.; Kramer, M.R. Strategy and society: The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2006, 84, 78–92. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  3. Titko, J.; Svirina, A.; Tambovceva, T.; Skvarciany, V. Differences in Attitude to Corporate Social Responsibility among Generations. Sustainability 2021, 13, 10944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Uslu, A.; Şengün, H.İ. The multiple mediation roles of trust and satisfaction in the effect of perceived corporate social responsibility on loyalty. Bus. Manag. Econ. Eng. 2021, 19, 49–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Titko, J.; Skvarciany, V.; Tambovceva, T. Corporate Social Responsibility Perceived by Employees: Latvian Survey Results. Central Eur. Bus. Rev. 2021, 10, 37–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Wong, I.K.A.W.I.; Gao, J.H. Exploring the direct and indirect effects of CSR on organizational commitment. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2014, 26, 500–525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Farooq, O.; Payaud, M.; Merunka, D.; Valette-Florence, P. The Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on Organizational Commitment: Exploring Multiple Mediation Mechanisms. J. Bus. Ethics 2014, 125, 563–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Tian, Q.; Robertson, J.L. How and when does perceived CSR affect employees’ engagement in voluntary pro-environmental behavior? J. Bus. Ethics 2019, 155, 399–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Appiah, J.K. Community-based corporate social responsibility activities and employee job satisfaction in the U.S. hotel industry: An explanatory study. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2019, 38, 140–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. He, J.; Zhang, H.; Morrison, A.M. The impacts of corporate social responsibility on organization citizenship behavior and task performance in hospitality: A sequential mediation model. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2019, 31, 2582–2598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Supanti, D.; Butcher, K. Is corporate social responsibility (CSR) participation the pathway to foster meaningful work and helping behavior for millennials? Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2019, 77, 8–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Organ, D.W.; Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B. Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Its Nature, Antecedents, and Consequences; SAGE Publications: London, UK, 2006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Fu, H.; Li, Y.; Duan, Y. Does employee-perceived reputation contribute to citizenship behavior?: The mediating role of organizational commitment. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2014, 26, 593–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Newman, A.; Nielsen, I.; Miao, Q. The impact of employee perceptions of organizational corporate social responsibility practices on job performance and organizational citizenship behavior: Evidence from the Chinese private sector. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2014, 26, 1226–1242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Peterson, D.K. The Relationship between Perceptions of Corporate Citizenship and Organizational Commitment. Bus. Soc. 2004, 43, 296–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. 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 2018, 157, 339–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Clarkson, M.B.E. A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1995, 20, 92–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Nazir, O.; Islam, J.U. Influence of CSR-specific activities on work engagement and employees’ innovative work behaviour: An empirical investigation. Curr. Issues Tour. 2019, 23, 3054–3072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Kim, H.-R.; Lee, M.; Lee, H.-T.; Kim, N.-M. Corporate Social Responsibility and Employee–Company Identification. J. Bus. Ethics 2010, 95, 557–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Bagozzi, R.P.; Gopinath, M.; Nyer, P.U. The role of emotions in marketing. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 1999, 27, 184–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Saks, A.M. Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. J. Manag. Psychol. 2006, 21, 600–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Mehrabian, A.; Russell, J.A. An Approach to Environmental Psychology; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1974. [Google Scholar]
  23. Alipour, H.; Amelshahbaz, S.; Safaeimanesh, F.; Peyravi, B.; Salavati, A. The Impact of Environmental Stimuli on Hotel Service Employees’ Service Sabotage—Mediation Role of Emotional Intelligence and Emotional Dissonance. Sustainability 2021, 13, 876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Kim, J.-H. Service authenticity and its effect on positive emotions. J. Serv. Mark. 2021, 35, 572–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Kim, J.-H.; Youn, H.; Rao, Y. Customer responses to food-related attributes in ethnic restaurants. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2017, 61, 129–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Carroll, A.B. The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Bus. Horiz. 1991, 34, 39–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Turker, D. How Corporate Social Responsibility Influences Organizational Commitment. J. Bus. Ethics 2008, 89, 189–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Verdeyen, V.; Put, J.; van Buggenhout, B. A social stakeholder model. Int. J. Soc. Welf. 2004, 13, 325–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Yoon, B.; Chung, Y. The effects of corporate social responsibility on firm performance: A stakeholder approach. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2018, 37, 89–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Tracy, J.L.; Robins, R.W. TARGET ARTICLE: “Putting the Self into Self-Conscious Emotions: A Theoretical Model”. Psychol. Inq. 2004, 15, 103–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. John, A.; Qadeer, F.; Shahzadi, G.; Jia, F. Getting paid to be good: How and when employees respond to corporate social responsibility? J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 215, 784–795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Gouthier, M.H.; Rhein, M. Organizational pride and its positive effects on employee behavior. J. Serv. Manag. 2011, 22, 633–649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. 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 programme. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 2010, 83, 857–878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Raza, A.; Farrukh, M.; Iqbal, M.K.; Farhan, M.; Wu, Y. Corporate social responsibility and employees’ voluntary pro-environmental behavior: The role of organizational pride and employee engagement. In Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  35. Kraemer, T.; Gouthier, M.H.J.; Heidenreich, S. Proud to Stay or Too Proud to Stay? How Pride in Personal Performance Develops and How It Affects Turnover Intentions. J. Serv. Res. 2016, 20, 152–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Lee, S.; Lee, K.; Gao, Y.; Xiao, Q.; Conklin, M. Do a company’s sincere intentions with CSR initiatives matter to employees? A comparison of customer-related and employee-related CSR initiatives. J. Glob. Responsib. 2018, 9, 355–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Kahn, W.A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Acad. Manag. J. 1990, 33, 692–724. [Google Scholar]
  38. Lysova, E.I.; Allan, B.A.; Dik, B.J.; Duffy, R.D.; Steger, M.F. Fostering meaningful work in organizations: A multi-level review and integration. J. Vocat. Behav. 2018, 110, 374–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Yeoman, R. Conceptualising Meaningful Work as a Fundamental Human Need. J. Bus. Ethics 2013, 125, 235–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Bailey, C.; Yeoman, R.; Madden, A.; Thompson, M.; Kerridge, G.P. A Review of the Empirical Literature on Meaningful Work: Progress and Research Agenda. Hum. Resour. Dev. Rev. 2018, 18, 83–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. De Clercq, D.; Haq, I.U.; Azeem, M.U. Why happy employees help: How meaningfulness, collectivism, and support transform job satisfaction into helping behaviours. Pers. Rev. 2019, 48, 1001–1021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Aguinis, H.; Glavas, A. On Corporate Social Responsibility, Sensemaking, and the Search for Meaningfulness Through Work. J. Manag. 2019, 45, 1057–1086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Beadle, R.; Knight, K. Virtue and Meaningful Work. Bus. Ethics Q. 2012, 22, 433–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Bellah, R.N.; Madsen, R.; Sullivan, W.M.; Swidler, A.; Tipton, S.M. Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life; University of California Press: Berkeley, CA, USA, 1985. [Google Scholar]
  45. Im, S.; Chung, Y.W. Employee Volunteering Meaningfulness and Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Exploring the Effects of Organizational Support, Pride, and Trust. Sustainability 2018, 10, 4835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Sen, S.; Bhattacharya, C. Does Doing Good Always Lead to Doing Better? Consumer Reactions to Corporate Social Responsibility. J. Mark. Res. 2001, 38, 225–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Minor, D.; Morgan, J. CSR as Reputation Insurance: Primum Non Nocere. Calif. Manag. Rev. 2011, 53, 40–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Ng, T.W.H.; Yam, K.C.; Aguinis, H. Employee perceptions of corporate social responsibility: Effects on pride, embeddedness, and turnover. Pers. Psychol. 2018, 72, 107–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Tsachouridi, I.; Nikandrou, I. Organizational virtuousness and spontaneity: A social identity view. Pers. Rev. 2016, 45, 1302–1322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Quinn, R.E.; Thakor, A.V. The Economics of Higher Purpose: Eight Counterintuitive Steps for Creating a Purpose-Driven Organization; Berrett-Koehler Publishers: Oakland, CA, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  51. Helm, S.V.; Renk, U.; Mishra, A. Exploring the impact of employees’ self-concept, brand identification and brand pride on brand citizenship behaviors. Eur. J. Mark. 2016, 50, 58–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Kim, Y.J.; Van Dyne, L.; Lee, S.M. A dyadic model of motives, pride, gratitude, and helping. J. Organ. Behav. 2018, 39, 1367–1382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Kauppinen, A. Meaningfulness and time. Philos. Phenomenol. Res. 2012, 84, 345–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Dimitrov, D. Sources of meaningfulness in the workplace: A study in the US hospitality sector. Eur. J. Train. Dev. 2012, 36, 351–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Yim, F.; Fock, H. Social responsibility climate as a double-edged sword: How employee-perceived social responsibility climate shapes the meaning of their voluntary work? J. Bus. Ethics 2013, 114, 665–674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Le, H.D.; Ferguson, D.L. Customer relationship enhancements from corporate social responsibility activities within the hospitality sector: Empirical research from Vietnam. Corp. Reput. Rev. 2016, 19, 244–262. [Google Scholar]
  57. Guangzhou Statistics Bureau. Guangzhou Statistical Yearbook. 2020. Available online: https://lwzb.gzstats.gov.cn:20001/datav/admin/home/www_nj/ (accessed on 27 December 2021).
  58. Buil, I.; Martínez, E.; Matute, J. From internal brand management to organizational citizenship behaviours: Evidence from frontline employees in the hotel industry. Tour. Manag. 2016, 57, 256–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. May, D.R.; Gilson, R.L.; Harter, L.M. The psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 2004, 77, 11–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Turker, D. Measuring Corporate Social Responsibility: A Scale Development Study. J. Bus. Ethics 2008, 85, 411–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Soriano, M.Y.; Foxall, G. A Spanish translation of Mehrabian and Russell’s emotionality scales for environmental consumer psychology. J. Consum. Behav. 2002, 2, 23–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Hair, J.F.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. J. Mark. Theory Pract. 2011, 19, 139–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Hair, J.F.; Howard, M.C.; Nitzl, C. Assessing measurement model quality in PLS-SEM using confirmatory composite analysis. J. Bus. Res. 2019, 109, 101–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Merli, R.; Preziosi, M.; Acampora, A.; Ali, F. Why should hotels go green? Insights from guests experience in green hotels. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2019, 81, 169–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Podsakoff, N.P. Sources of Method Bias in Social Science Research and Recommendations on How to Control It. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2012, 63, 539–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. 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]
  67. Henseler, J.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2015, 43, 115–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  68. Chin, W.W.; Peterson, R.A.; Brown, S.P. Structural Equation Modeling in Marketing: Some Practical Reminders. J. Mark. Theory Pract. 2008, 16, 287–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Hoffmann, A.; Birnbrich, C. The impact of fraud prevention on bank-customer relationships: An empirical investigation in retail banking. Int. J. Bank Mark. 2012, 30, 390–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Stone, M. Cross-validatory choice and assessment of statistical predictions. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B 1974, 36, 111–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Geisser, S. The predictive sample reuse method with applications. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 1975, 70, 320–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for The Behavioral Sciences; Lawrence Erlbaum: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 1988. [Google Scholar]
  73. Hameed, Z.; Khan, I.U.; Islam, T.; Sheikh, Z.; Khan, S.U. Corporate social responsibility and employee pro-environmental behaviors: The role of perceived organizational support and organizational pride. South Asian J. Bus. Stud. 2019, 8, 246–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Youn, H.; Kim, J.-H.; Song, H. The leading causes and consequences of citizenship pressure in the hotel industry. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2017, 29, 1541–1559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Rhoades, L.; Eisenberger, R. Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature. J. Appl. Psychol. 2002, 87, 698–714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 14 02428 g001 550
Figure 1. Research model.
Figure 1. Research model.
Sustainability 14 02428 g001
Sustainability 14 02428 g002 550
Figure 2. Results of the structural model. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Figure 2. Results of the structural model. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Sustainability 14 02428 g002
Table
Table 1. Sample characteristics.
Table 1. Sample characteristics.
VariablesCategoryDistribution (Percentage)
AgeMean (standard deviation)29.5 (6.7)
Median28
GenderMale144 (39.7)
Female219 (60.3)
Highest educationHigh school or below22 (6.1)
Vocational school157 (43.3)
University164 (45.2)
Postgraduate20 (5.5)
Job positionNonmanagerial employees68 (18.7)
Lower-level manager162 (44.6)
Middle-level manager110 (30.3)
Upper-level manager23 (6.3)
Monthly salary (CNY)<300037 (10.2)
3000–6000143 (39.4)
6001–10,000138 (38.0)
>10,00045 (12.4)
Organizational tenure<1 year54 (14.9)
1–3 years128 (35.3)
3–5 years112 (30.9)
>5 years69 (19.0)
Table
Table 2. CFA results.
Table 2. CFA results.
VariablesMeanSt. Dev.Loading
ICSR (Turker [60]) α = 0.848; CR = 0.848; AVE = 0.584; rho_A = 0.854
The hotel policies encourage employees to develop their skills and careers.5.7111.1120.736
This hotel implements flexible policies to provide a good work–life balance for its employees.5.4131.1030.725
The managerial decisions related to employees are usually fair.5.2451.1770.721
This hotel supports employees who want to acquire additional education.5.3061.2410.865
ECSR-community (Turker [60]) α = 0.825; CR = 0.825; AVE = 0.541; rho_A = 0.825
This hotel participates in activities that aim to protect and improve the quality of the natural environment.5.3141.1970.725
This hotel implements special programs to minimize its negative impact on the natural environment.5.3331.2090.732
This hotel targets sustainable growth that considers future generations.5.1021.3290.715
This hotel contributes to campaigns and projects that promote the well-being of society.5.2561.3480.769
ECSR-customer (Turker [60]) α = 0.843; CR = 0.846; AVE = 0.650; rho_A = 0.858
This hotel respects consumer rights beyond the legal requirements.5.0691.3310.786
This hotel provides full and accurate information about its products/services to customers.5.5901.0750.911
Customer satisfaction is highly important for this hotel.6.1291.0950.709
Pride (Ng et al. [48]) α = 0.906; CR = 0.906; AVE = 0.763; rho_A = 0.906
I feel proud to be an employee of this hotel.5.5841.1330.864
I feel proud to tell others that I work for this hotel.5.4791.1790.869
I feel proud to identify myself personally with this hotel.5.6531.1330.887
Meaningfulness of work (May et al. [59]; Supanti and Butcher [11]) α = 0.880; CR = 0.881; AVE = 0.648; rho_A = 0.881
The work I do at the hotel is very important to me.5.6250.9610.761
The work I do at the hotel is very worthwhile.5.5871.0420.829
The work I do on this job at the hotel is meaningful to me.5.5901.0680.822
I feel that the work I do in my job at the hotel is valuable.5.7251.0260.808
Organizational citizenship behavior (Buil et al. [58]) α = 0.840; CR = 0.840; AVE = 0.637; rho_A = 0.841
I attend functions that are not required but that help the image of this hotel.5.4411.1780.772
I offer ideas to improve the functioning of this hotel.5.4161.0940.787
I take actions to protect this hotel from potential problems.5.5481.1210.833
Table
Table 3. Construct intercorrelations and the heterotrait–monotrait ratio (HTMT).
Table 3. Construct intercorrelations and the heterotrait–monotrait ratio (HTMT).
F&L Criterion Constructs123456
1. ICSR0.764 a
2. ECSRCommunity0.634 **0.736 a
3. ECSRCustomer0.501 **0.596 **0.806 a
4. PR0.513 **0.617 **0.483 **0.873 a
5. MW0.542 **0.615 **0.561 **0.736 **0.805 a
6. OCB0.495 **0.550 **0.461 **0.632 **0.719 **0.798 a
HTMT criterion constructs
1. ICSR-
2. ECSRCommunity0.756-
3. ECSRCustomer0.5920.712-
4. PR0.5830.7120.555-
5. MW0.6280.7210.6560.824-
6. OCB0.5850.6600.5510.7230.836-
Note: ** p < 0.01 (two-tailed test). a Square root of AVE. ICSR = internal CSR; ECSR = external CSR; PR = pride; MW = meaningfulness of work; OCB = organizational citizenship behavior.
Table
Table 4. Prediction relevance (Q2) test and goodness-of-fit (GOF) index.
Table 4. Prediction relevance (Q2) test and goodness-of-fit (GOF) index.
ConstructR2AVEQ2
PR0.4210.7630.347
MW0.6180.6480.446
OCB0.5420.6370.405
Average0.5270.683-
GoF0.600
Table
Table 5. Summary of the results of the mediation effect test.
Table 5. Summary of the results of the mediation effect test.
Total EffectDirect EffectIndirect Effect
ICSR → OCB0.210 **0.085 (n.s.)0.125 **
ECSRCommunity → OCB0.307 ***0.082 (n.s.)0.225 ***
ECSRCustomer → OCB0.175 ***0.018 (n.s.)0.157 ***
Note: ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.
Table
Table 6. Summary of the structural model results.
Table 6. Summary of the structural model results.
Hypothesis CodePathPath Coefficientt-Valuep-ValueEffect Size (f2)Results
H1aICSR → PR0.1772.446<0.050.031Supported
H1bECSRCommunity → PR0.4146.121<0.0010.145Supported
H1cECSRCustomer → PR0.1522.639<0.010.025Supported
H2aICSR → MW0.1071.889>0.050.017Not supported
H2bECSRCommunity → MW0.1111.701>0.050.014Not supported
H2cECSRCustomer → MW0.1954.279<0.0010.060Supported
H3PR → OCB0.2214.142<0.0010.049Supported
H4PR → MW0.5179.690<0.0010.405Supported
H5MW → OCB0.54910.427<0.0010.287Supported
Control variablesSalary → OCB−0.0140.334>0.050.000
Organizational tenure → OCB0.0441.019>0.050.002
Indirect effect assessment
Path coefficientt-valuep-value
ICSR → PR → OCB 0.0392.090<0.05
ICSR → MW → OCB 0.0591.878>0.05
ICSR → PR → MW → OCB 0.0502.315<0.05
ECSRCommunity → PR → OCB 0.0913.278<0.01
ECSRCommunity → MW → OCB 0.0611.657>0.05
ECSRCommunity → PR → MW → OCB 0.1174.569<0.001
ECSRCustomer → PR → OCB 0.0342.132<0.05
ECSRCustomer → MW → OCB 0.1073.736<0.001
ECSRCustomer → PR → MW → OCB 0.0432.574<0.05
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Youn, H.; Kim, J.-H. Corporate Social Responsibility and Hotel Employees’ Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Roles of Organizational Pride and Meaningfulness of Work. Sustainability 2022, 14, 2428. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14042428

AMA Style

Youn H, Kim J-H. Corporate Social Responsibility and Hotel Employees’ Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Roles of Organizational Pride and Meaningfulness of Work. Sustainability. 2022; 14(4):2428. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14042428

Chicago/Turabian Style

Youn, Hyewon, and Jong-Hyeong Kim. 2022. "Corporate Social Responsibility and Hotel Employees’ Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Roles of Organizational Pride and Meaningfulness of Work" Sustainability 14, no. 4: 2428. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14042428

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