(Luận văn thạc sĩ) corporate social responsibility and employee satisfaction a study of vietnamese firms in HCMC

UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS HO CHI MINH CITY
International School of Business
------------------------------

Le Thanh Truc

CORPORATE SOCIAL
RESPONSIBILITY AND EMPLOYEE
SATISFACTION: A STUDY OF
VIETNAMESE FIRMS IN HCMC

MASTER OF BUSINESS (Honours)

Ho Chi Minh City – Year 2012


UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS HO CHI MINH CITY
International School of Business
------------------------------

Le Thanh Truc

CORPORATE SOCIAL
RESPONSIBILITY AND EMPLOYEE
SATISFACTION: A STUDY OF
VIETNAMESE FIRMS IN HCMC
ID: 104214046

MASTER OF BUSINESS (Honours)
SUPERVISOR: Assoc. Prof. LE NGUYEN HAU

Ho Chi Minh City – Year 2012


DECLARATION
I certify that the work in the thesis entitled “Corporate Social Responsibility and
Employee Satisafction: A study of Vietnamese Firms in HCMC” is the result of my
own research and has not been submitted for a higher degree to any university or
institution other than University of Economics HCMC.
I also certify that the thesis has been written by me. Any help and assistance that I have
received in my research work and the preparation of the thesis have been appropriately
acknowledged.
In addition, the thesis was approved by ISB - University of Economics HCMC.
Signed

Date: December 2012


ACKOWLEDGEMENTS
Firstly, I would like to thank sincerely to The ISB Mbus Program, The ISB board in
VietNam and all the professors who have been helping me a lot to equip me the
intellectual knowledge, the most favorable environment conditions during the study
and implementation of this thesis.
With respect and deep gratitude, I would like to express my great gratitude to Assoc.
Prof. Le Nguyen Hau – my supervisor, for his instruction, enthusiastic helping,
intensive support, caring and oriented advises on my writing.
Secondly, I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the organizations,
individuals and businesses which have collaborated to share information, give me a lot
of resources, responses and useful material for the subject of my study, especially for
the fulfilling of research questionnaires. Without these help, I could not believe that my
study would come to an end as today.

Lastly, I would like to send my deep gratitude to my family, friends, colleagues who
have encouraged and supported me very much during the learning process, work and
completion of this thesis.
Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
December 30th 2012

Le Thanh Truc

iii


ABSTRACT
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) has received an increasing amount of attention
from practitioners and scholars alike in recent years. The growing awareness of this
issue has raised the questions about how responsible behavior of firms would impact
employees’ well-being. Because employees are primary stakeholders who directly
contribute to the success of the company, understanding employee reactions to CSR
may help answer lingering questions about the potential effects of CSR on firms as well
as illuminate some of the processes responsible for them.
Based on the survey of 391 employees and managers in Ho Chi Minh City (HCMC),
measures of internal and external social responsibility are found to be positively
associated with job satisfaction. There are 7 factors effect positively employees’ job
satisfaction: CSR to environment and generation, CSR to society, CSR to customer,
CSR to employee life, CSR to government, CSR to employee development opportunity
and CSR to competition.
CSR to society and CSR to employee life are found to be two most important factors,
other factors are sequenced as CSR to environment and generation, CSR to employee
development opportunity, CSR to customer, CSR to competition, CSR to government.
The analysis results also show that CSR factors which impact on employee satisfaction
and CSR factors which impact on manager satisfaction (middle and low level

managers) have the same trend.
Based on the statistical result, managerial implications have been dicussed and
recommendations are provided to improve CSR activities in firms in Ho Chi Minh
City.

iv


TABLE OF CONTENT
Acknowledgement
Abstract
List of tables
List of figures
Chapter 1 Introduction ............................................................................................ 1
1.1 Overview .............................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Problem statement ................................................................................................ 4
1.3 Research Scope .................................................................................................... 5
1.4 Research Process ................................................................................................. 5
1.5 Research Structure ............................................................................................... 6
Chapter 2 Literature Review .................................................................................. 7
2.1 The concept of Corporate Social Responsibility ................................................... 7
2.2 Corporate Social Responsibility Theories ............................................................ 8
2.2.1 Stakeholder theory ............................................................................................ 8
2.2.2 Caroll’s CSR conceptualization - Carroll’s CSR Pyramid ................................. 9
2.3 Previous research about Corporate Social Responsibility and Employees’
satisfaction ............................................................................................................... 10
2.4 Research Model ................................................................................................. 12

v

Chapter 3 Research Methodology ......................................................................... 16
3.1 Research Process ............................................................................................... 16
3.2 Data Collection .................................................................................................. 19
3.2.1 The primary data ............................................................................................ 19
3.2.2 The secondary ................................................................................................. 20
3.3 Field Work Organization .................................................................................... 20
3.3.1 Sampling Method ............................................................................................ 20
3.3.2 Qualitative Research ....................................................................................... 21
3.4 Measurement Scales ........................................................................................... 22
3.4.1 Measurement Construct .................................................................................. 22
3.4.2 Statistic Methods ............................................................................................. 27
3.4.3 Descripive Statistic ......................................................................................... 27
3.4.4 Assessment of Scale Reliabiliy ......................................................................... 28
3.4.5 Assessment of Scales’ Unidimensionality, Discriminant Validity and Convergent
alidity ...................................................................................................................... 29
3.4.6 Multi Regression Analysis ............................................................................... 29
Chapter 4 Data Analysis ........................................................................................ 30
4.1 Sample Descriptive Statistic ............................................................................... 30
4.2 Assessment and Refinement of Measurement Scales ......................................... 31

vi


4.2.1 Refinement of Measurement Scales ................................................................. 31
4.2.2 Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) ................................................................. 34
4.2.2.1 The Independent Factors .............................................................................. 34
4.2.2.2 The dependent Factor ................................................................................... 42
4.2.3 Revised Conceptual Model .............................................................................. 44
4.3 Hypotheses Testing ............................................................................................ 46

4.3.1 Regression analysis and Hypotheses testing .................................................... 46
4.3.2 Hypotheses testing ........................................................................................... 49
4.3.3 Moderators: Regression analysis with employees’ view and managers’ view .. 52
4.3.3.1 Regression analysis with employees’ view ................................................... 52
4.3.3.2 Regression analysis with managers’ view ..................................................... 54
4.4 Research findings ............................................................................................... 56
Chapter 5 Conlude and Recommendation ........................................................... 59
5.1 Overview ........................................................................................................... 59
5.2 Summary of findings .......................................................................................... 60
5.3 Managerial implications ..................................................................................... 61
5.4 Limitation and further research .......................................................................... 63
References
Appendix 1: Questionnaire (English Version)

vii


Appendix 2: Questionnaire (Vietnamese Version)
Appendix 3: Rotated Component Matrix
Appendix 4: Charts of testing Hypotheses
Appendix 5: Charts of testing Moderators

viii


LIST OF TABLES
Table 4.1 Gender of respondents, Working experience, Enterprise ownership ......... 30
Table 4.2 Reliability testing results ........................................................................... 32
Table 4.3 KMO and Bartlett’s Test ........................................................................... 35
Table 4.4 Total Variance Explained .......................................................................... 36

Table 4.5 Rotated Component matrix ....................................................................... 37
Table 4.6 Cronbach’s Alpha for new factors ............................................................. 40
Table 4.7 KMO and Bartlett's Test for employees’ satisfaction ................................. 42
Table 4.8 Total Variance Explained .......................................................................... 43
Table 4.9 Component Matrix ..................................................................................... 43
Table 4.10 Results of hypotheses testing ................................................................... 47
Table 4.11 Hypotheses summary .............................................................................. 51
Table 4.12 Results of hypotheses testing with employees’ view................................ 52
Table 4.13 Results of hypotheses testing with managers’ view ................................. 54
Table 4.14 Descriptive Statistics ................................................................................ 57

ix


LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1 The Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility (Carroll, 1991) ................ 10
Fifure 2.2 The proposal research model ....................................................................... 15
Figure 3.1 The research process ................................................................................... 17

x


1

Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter introduces the research background, raising the problems, the objectives,
scope and the process of the research were defined in order to solve.
1.1 Overview
The growing of global economy makes the quality of life rising fast and more
comfortable. However, in that process people destroy environment and human life. The

world development is accompanied by wrong side of society such as: natural disasters,
environmental

pollution,

resource

depletion,

discriminatory

treatment,

labor

exploitation and toxic products, etc.
Our earth will be quickly destroyed soon by ourselves. So is it reasonable to continue to
maximize profits at any cost? Will we accept to have a short life left on earth? Or is it
time we all get the same serious look about developing world responsibly and
sustainably? The question has made a major concern from 1953 to date in the process
of business development and the concept of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)
also was originated.
Currently, CSR has become a real movement and growth in worldwide. For the current
Euro-American countries, consumers are interested in not only the quality of end
product but also the way that production method which are friendly with environment,
community, human healthy or not. For example, there have been many movements to
boycott products such as fringe food, carbonated soft drinks, fur products, etc. With
social pressure, the enterprise has made CSR initiative as one of the essential and
serious activities, even drafting for their own CSR strategy. For example, a series of
programs have been implemented such as saving energy, reducing carbon emissions in

the production and using recycled materials, solar energy, improving water sources,
building schools, building epidemic diseases research center in developing countries,


2

improving the working environment of employees and helping surrounding
communities. Companies are known as CSR leaders: TNT, Google, Intel, Unilever,
Coca-Cola, GE, Nokia , HSBC, Levi Strauss, Bayer, Dupont, Toyota, Sony, Samsung, etc.
With the ongoing effort to implement CSR, corporations in the world today have
achieved a lot of success from the increasing employee satisfaction, reducing operating
costs to enhance the prestige image in public. Therefore, the implementation of the
CSR is as a key strategy for sustainable development of enterprises.
CSR in Vietnam
The state of CSR in Vietnam is intimately linked to doi moi (renovation) and the effects
of globalization. In December 1986, Vietnam’s Community Party adopted a ‘marketoriented socialist economy under state guidance.’ Since then, the Vietnamese state and
society have undergone dramatic transformations. Vietnam has been transformed from
a state-led economy to a more market-oriented one. There were challenges to stateowned enterprises, including foreign investment and donor pressure. Joining the World
Trade Organization (WTO) continued to drive the shift from state to market
orientation. With this shift, CSR, an initiative of the market, comes to the fore. CSR
plays a major role in the environmental and social sustainability of the country. The
forces of doi moi and globalization brought the pressure of international codes of
compliance to Vietnamese firms. Not only did citizens become more aware of the
importance of social responsibility, but the legal code of the country now had greater
need to adapt to meet and enforce international standards. Although Vietnam did not
adopt an explicit CSR policy, the government began to address some CSR-related
issues within the sustainability strategy called Vietnam Agenda 21. This document,
officially signed by the prime minister in 2004, provides a strategy for sustainable
development in Vietnam. It puts people at the center of development, but says that
environmental protection is inseparable from benefits for people. It aims at a balance

3

between the interests of present and future generations so that actions taken now do not
imperil the well-being of the future. The strategy calls for training, workshops and
media outreach to improve understanding of sustainable development and the
management capability to achieve it. Agenda 21 allocates budget for these activities
and calls for efforts to strengthen international cooperation on sustainable development.
In Asia, the trend of interest in CSR is increasing but the development of CSR is still
relatively low. In particular, Vietnam is one country that CSR concerns have been risen fast.
CSR was first introduced into our country through the activities of multinational
companies investing in Vietnam. The contents of CSR performance in these companies
are basic and effective: "I love Vietnam" - Honda Vietnam, educational programs for
personal hygiene for children in the mountainous provinces of Unilever; computer
training program TOPIC64 of Microsoft, Qualcomm and HP; supported programs
surgery of congenital heart defects and supporting victims of Can Tho bridge collapse
by VinaCapital, Samsung; vision rehabilitation program for poor children by Western
Union's, etc.
For domestic enterprises, the initial concern for CSR in the export enterprises such as
garment and footwear (focusing on the treatment of workers and applying the good
work). The Vietnam Business Links Initiative, a multi-stakeholder initiative, developed
a local code of conduct for the footwear sector in the late 1990s. The Initiative now
provides annual CSR Awards for the footwear, garment and textile industries, and
recently initiated an award for CSR in the marine products industry. In addition, large
corporations in Vietnam also implement CSR initiative and build a good image with
the public such as Mai Linh, Duy Loi, ACB, Sacombank, Kinh Do, etc. However, these
activities lack of depth.

4

Most small and medium enterprises in Vietnam is still relatively inactive in CSR issues
such as soy sauce 3MCPD, melamine-tainted milk, petrol station fraud or causing
serious environmental pollution, etc. So clearly, the perception about CSR is incorrect
and not enough that makes the Vietnamese enterprises losing competitive advantages
on their playground and ruin the business environment from indirectly to directly. What
is the reason? Do not managers of the enterprises have fully aware of the importance of
CSR for sustainable development? Or they do not know where they start and how they
implement CSR? Therefore, CSR perception is very important and sensitive.
1.2 Problem Statement
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in Vietnam is understood by many ways. Not
all CSR activities and campaigns of Vietnamese organizations are successful. So, how
people perceive about CSR is more important than how they operate. Employees are
more and more conscious of the widening obligations of firms towards the society. This
means that they nowadays perceive CSR as one of the important issues to be
considered by the employees.
The study by Claydon and Doyle (1996) emphasizes the importance of employee
power in organizational angagement. Similarly, in the study by Greenwood (2007)
employees as representatives of the internal side of the organization are identified as
the most salient stakeholders among all others and thus can be expected to have the
biggest power in terms of stakeholder engagement. Therefore, managers and
employees’ perception about CSR is very important in companies beacause it decides
the employees’ attitude and employees’ behavior at work.
Until now, some studies investigate the relationship between employees’ perception
about CSR and different aspects of job satisfaction all over the world. However, there


5

is not any study which find out the relationship between employees’ CSR perception
their job satisfaction in Vietnam.
The main objective of this research is to observe the relationship between employees’
CSR perception and employees’ satisfaction of Vietnamese firms in Ho Chi Minh City
(HCMC).
Thus, this research is to answer two questions:
 Is there any relation between between employees’ CSR perception and
employees’ satisfaction of Vietnamese firms in HCMC?
 How employees’ CSR perception affects on their satisfaction at work?
1.3 Research Scope
This research mainly focus on identifying the key CSR factors influencing employees’
satisfation of Vietnamese firms. The target interviewees are employees and managers
(middle and low level managers).
Quntitative research will be applied to the companies or enterprises in Ho Chi Minh
City (HCMC) only. HCMC is a central commercial city in Vietnam, where attracts
most of important and developing industries in Vietnam.
1.4 Research Process


6

Research Ojective

Literature review

Conceptual Framework

Qualitative research

Quantitative research

Data Analysis

Result and Conclusion

1.5 Research Structure
Chapter 1 Introduction to introduce the research background, the research problem.
Raising the problems, the objectives, scope and the process of the research were
defined in order to solve. Then, Chapter 2 Literature review to present the theorical
concepts and conceptual framework being the base for the research. Hypotheses
according to the conceptual framework selected for this research were discussed and
developed for testing. After that, Chapter 3 Research Methodology to present in more
detail research approach, research design, development of the measurement scales, the
questionnaire and the data analysis approach. And Chapter 4 Data Analysis to present
the resut of research and statistic analysis and discussion. It also concludes on the
theoretical and managerial implications of the research findings. Finally, Chapter 5
Conclusion and Recommendations to propose the conclusions on the research,
limitations and recommendations (if any).


7

Chapter 2 LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter presents the theorical concepts and conceptual framework being the base
for the research. Hypotheses according to the conceptual framework selected for this
research are discussed and developed for testing.
2.1 The concept of Corporate Social Responsibility
The basic concept of CSR is that corporations have responsibilities to go beyond the
traditional business objective of maximizing short-term profits and protect and nurture
society and the environment. However, implementation CSR is controversial because

there is no consistent definition of CSR and no accepted way to measure it. Numerous
studies attempt to define “corporate responsibility” from various perspectives, with
descriptions ranging from “corporate philanthropy” to “business ethics”.
The definition of CSR does not come in the form of a single conclusive definition even
though in theory and practice, there were many detailed discussion with regard to the
concept of CSR. In genral, CSR refers to making business decision associated with
ethical values, compliance with legal requirements, and respect for people,
communities and environment. Jones (1980) argues that CSR is the perception that
corporations have an obligation to groups in sciety other than stockolders and beyond
that prescribed by law and union contract. Another definition is from Kotler and Lee
(2005), who defined CSR as “a commitment to improve community well-being through
discretionary business practices and contributions of corporate resources”.
The World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) (2002) defines
CSR as “the commitment of the company to contribute to the sustained economic
development by working with employees, their families, the local community, and the
entire society in order to improve life quality”. Wood (1991) defines CSR as “a
business organization’s configuration of principles of social responsibility, processes of


8

social reponsiveness, and policies, programs, and observable outcomes as they relate to
the firm’s societal relationship”.
Adding on to the definition from the social perspectives, Baker (2003) maintained that
CSR concerns the way companies manage their business processes which positively
affect society aligned to the business. World Bank (2002) describes CSR as the
businesses’ obligations to provide renewable economic development through
cooperation with employees, their families, the local community and society in a
manner that enhances their livelihood and consequently leads to beneficial business and
development.

In this study, CSR concept from Turker (2009) is adopted. Turker (2009) defined CSR as
below
“CSR as corporate behaviors, which aim to affect stakeholders positively
and go beyond its economic interest”.

2.2 Corporate Social Responsibility Theories
2.2.1 Stakeholder theory
Many scholars point to stakeholder theory as an influencing factor in corporate
decisions and motivation to invest in CSR. Stakeholder theory says an organization’s
survival and success correlates strongly with its ability to align its objectives with that
of its various stakeholders. By satisfying stakeholder demands, corporations develop
trust and loyalty among those stakeholders. More and more corporations promote
socially responsible actions and policies to effectively respond to stakeholder demands.


9

Stakeholders consist of shareholders and investors, employees, customers, suppliers,
governmental organizations, trade associations, environmental groups, and members of
the community where a company operates.
2.2.2 Caroll’s CSR conceptualization - Carroll’s CSR Pyramid
Carroll (1979) first delineated the now-familiar four categories of CSR in a paper on
corporate social performance, depicting them as ordered layers which he labelled
economic, legal, ethical and discretionary responsibilities. Carroll (1979) explained that
the four classes “are simply to remind us that motives or actions can be categorized as
primarily one or another of these four kinds”. The order and relative weighting was “to
suggest what might be termed their fundamental role in the evolution of importance”.
In its first conception, therefore, the framework took a retrospective developmental
perspective, based on the claim that “the history of business suggests an early emphasis

on the economic and then legal aspects and a later concern for the ethical and
discretionary aspects”.
In 1991, Carroll (1991) first presented his CSR model as a pyramid, as shown in Figure
2.1. He once again uses his original historical explanation for the relative weighting,
saying: “To be sure, all these kinds of responsibilities have always existed to some
extent, but it has only been in recent years that ethical and philanthropic functions have
taken a significant place”. He also introduces dependence as a rationale, “beginning
with the basic building block notion that economic performance undergirds all else”.
Finally, he suggests that, although the components are not mutually exclusive, it “helps
the manager to see that the different types of obligations are in a constant tension with
one another”.


10

Figure 2.1 The Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility (Carroll, 1991)
Carroll (1999) appeared to briefly retract his dubious equating of philanthropy with
corporate citizenship and to abandon his pyramid concept by reconceiving his model as
“the four faces of corporate citizenship”, but soon returned to his original construct.
Most recently, Carroll reproduced his 1991 CSR pyramid once again, but this time
attempted to incorporate the notion of stakeholders, in terms of which economic
responsibility contains the admonition to “do what is required by global capitalism”,
legal responsibility holds that companies “do what is required by global stakeholders”,
ethical responsibility means to “do what is expected by global stakeholders”, and
philanthropic responsibility means to “do what is desired by global stakeholders”
(author’s original emphasis).
2.3 Previous research about Corporate Social Responsibility and Employees’ job
satisfaction
Albdour & Altarawneh (2012) investigate the impact of internal CSR perception on
employees’ engagement. Specially, this study examines the impact of five CSR factors

namely: training and education, human rights, health and safety, work life balance and
workplace diversity on the two dimensions of employees’ job engagement and
organizational engagement. All CSR factors above make positive impact on
employees’ job engagement and organizational engagement.


training and education

11

job
engagement

+

human rights

Internal
CSR

health and safety
+

work life balance

organizationa
l engagement

workplace diversity

According to the previous study of Duyu Turker (2009), an original, valid, and reliable
measure of CSR reflecting the responsibilities of a business to varoius stakeholders is
built. A scale for CSR is developed through a systematic scale development process.
There are 42 observation varaibles in four elements: CSR to employee, CSR to
customer, CSR to government and CSR to society and other stakeholders. And four
factors in the previous research of Duyu Turker (2009) have been applied to this
research. So there are four factors to measure CSR perception: CSR to employee, CSR
to customer, CSR to government and CSR to society and other stakeholders.
The study by Aharon Tziner, Yaki Bar, Lior Oren and Gal Kadosh (2011) examines the
connections between employees’ CSR perception and employee dimensions of job
satisfaction and organizational justice. The results show that employees’ CSR
perception is positive related to both job satisfaction and organizational justice. In this
research, the authors use Turker’s CSR scale to measure employees’ CSR perception.
And the model as below
Job
satisfaction

CSR to society
+

CSR to employee
CSR
+

CSR to customer
+

CSR to government

Organizational

Justice


12

2.4 Research Model
H1: There is a positive impact of CSR to employees on Employees’ satisfaction
Employees’ perceptions of CSR are likely have a positive effect on organizational trust
and job satisfaction because CSR activities elavate employees’ self-image and morale
by helping align personal identities with those of the corporation (Lee et al., inpress).
In the theoretical literature, social identity theory suggests that employees and other
stakeholders are more likely to have positive perceptions of an organization when they
feel connected to its objectives (Peterson, 2004). To this end, CSR strategies can
positively enhance the perceptions that employees have their own organization (Brown
and Dacin, 1997), and stakeholders tend to trust company that recognize and resolve
social problems in an ethical manner (Hosmer, 1995). Further, Vlachos et al. (2010)
identified a positive relationship between salespersons’ perceptions of their company’s
CSR and job satisfaction. In the hospitality literature, one recent study found that
multiple dimensions of CSR have significant, positive effects on employees’ job
satisfaction (Lee et al., in press).
H2: There is a positive impact of CSR to customers on Employees’ satisfaction
Carroll (1999) states that economic viability is something business does for society as
well and describe the economic component as a responsibility to produce goods and
servies that customers want and do right thing what customers expect.
The relationship between job satisfaction and customer orientation has been explored in
several studies (e.g., Donavanet al., 2004; Hoffman and Ingram, 1992; Pettijohn et al.,
2007). Results indicated that higher levels of customer orientation encourage
employees to have higher degrees of job satisfaction. This finding is grounded in the
theoretical literature: social exchange theory proposes that individuals engage in

13

reciprocal behaviors and support those from whom they benefit, and Hoffman and
Ingram (1992) apply this to the workplace in finding that customer orientation behavior
positively correlates with job satisfaction. In addition, it seems customer orientation is
associated with job satisfaction (Motowidlo, 1984).
H3: There is a positive impact of CSR to government on Employees’ satisfaction
Based on study by Tziner, Bar, Oren and Kadosh (2011), a significant positive
relationships were found between CSR to government and employees’ job satisfaction.
Especially, the research of Choong-Ki, Hak-Jun, Hye-Mi, Seoki, Bernhard (2012) also
found a significant and positive effect from legal CSR dimension on employees’ job
satisfaction.
According to Sim (2003), “social responsibility” and “legality” are not one and the
same thing. CSR is often seen as acts that go beyond what is prescribed by the law. The
definitions of McGuire (1963) and Davis (1973) state that legal obligations is one of
important compnent of CSR.
H4: There is a positive impact of CSR to society, environment, generations and
NGOs on Employees’ satisfaction
Philanthropic responsibility means to “do what is desired by global stakeholders”
(Caroll, 2004). And according to Choong-Ki, Hak-Jun, Hye-Mi, Seoki, Bernhard
(2012), philanthropic CSR make a positive impact on organizational trust and job
satisfaction.
Besides, a significant positive relationship were found between CSR to social, other
stakeholders and employees’ job satisfaction (Tziner, Bar, Oren and Kadosh, 2011).
Despite the fact that CSR is one of the most prominent concepts in the literature, it still
difficult to give a precise and commonly accepted definition. According to Bowen


14

(1953), one of the first scholars to define the concep CSR “to pursue policies, make
decisions, or to follow lines of action which are desirable in terms of the objectives and
values of our society”. Accoring to Carroll (1991), there is a natural fot between the
idea of CSR and an organization’s stakeholders. In a broader understanding, which can
be attributed to the famous definition of Freeman (1984), stakeholders are “those
groups or individuals who can affect or are affected by the achievement of the
organization’s objecives or are those actors with a direct or indirect interest in the
company”. Therefore, CSR to society and other stakeholder is a important factor in the
scale.
Moderated variable: Position
Previous studies show that managers’ and employees’ concern about CSR are not
totally the same. Managers believe that CSR activities will make benefit and reputation
for enterprises and they focus much on external CSR activities (Jeremy Galbreath,
2009).
Findings of Leonidas, Mary, Theofilos, Amalia (2012) indicate that most companies
have an internal management function that executed CSR programs which were mostly
oriented towards society, environment and employees. Moreover, managers believe
that CSR activities offer a number of benefits. Interestingly, managers who believe that
CSR activities should be communicated and evaluated externally by a national agency
tend to hold a strong positive attitude for the institutionalization of CSR.
Employees’ concern should be higher regarding internal CSR, whereas managers
should consider both dimensions as equally important (Brammer et al, 2005).
According to Tamm, Eamets, Motsmees (2010), managers’ and employees’ assessments
of external CSR are closer to each other than their assessments of internal CSR.