Sustainability and beyond: decoding the influences of corporate social responsibility on employer brand attractiveness

Gintale, Greta; Correia, Ricardo; Venciute, Dominyka; Lapinskiene, Ruta Article Sustainability and beyond: decoding the influences of corporate social responsibility on employer brand attractiveness Cogent Business & Management Provided in Cooperation with: Taylor & Francis Group Suggested Citation: Gintale, Greta; Correia, Ricardo; Venciute, Dominyka; Lapinskiene, Ruta (2024) : Sustainability and beyond: decoding the influences of corporate social responsibility on employer brand attractiveness, Cogent Business & Management, ISSN 2331-1975, Taylor & Francis, Abingdon, Vol. 11, Iss. 1, pp. 1-15, https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2024.2429799 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/326699 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Cogent Business & Management ISSN: 2331-1975 (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/oabm20 Sustainability and beyond: decoding the influences of corporate social responsibility on employer brand attractiveness Greta Gintale, Ricardo Correia, Dominyka Venciute & Ruta Lapinskiene To cite this article: Greta Gintale, Ricardo Correia, Dominyka Venciute & Ruta Lapinskiene (2024) Sustainability and beyond: decoding the influences of corporate social responsibility on employer brand attractiveness, Cogent Business & Management, 11:1, 2429799, DOI: 10.1080/23311975.2024.2429799 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2024.2429799 © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group Published online: 21 Nov 2024. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 1910 View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=oabm20 Cogent Business & ManageMent 2024, VoL. 11, no. 1, 2429799 Sustainability and beyond: decoding the influences of corporate social responsibility on employer brand attractiveness Greta Gintalea, Ricardo Correiab,# , Dominyka Venciutea and Ruta Lapinskienea aisM university of Management and economics, Vilnius, Lithuania; bPolytechnic university of Bragança, Bragança, Portugal ABSTRACT This research explores the complex relationship between perceived corporate social responsibility (CSR), sustainability self-identity and generational differences, focusing on their influence on employer brand attractiveness. Recognizing CSR’s critical role in talent acquisition, the study examines the impact of philanthropic, ethical and environmental CSR activities on employer brand perception. While environmental and philanthropic CSR significantly improve employer attractiveness, ethical CSR shows a less substantial impact. The research also introduces sustainability self-identity as a possible moderating factor, investigating whether individuals whose values align with CSR perceive employer brands differently. Contrary to what was expected., sustainability self-identity does not significantly moderate this relationship. Additionally, the study explores generational differences, revealing that interest in CSR is consistent across age groups, challenging stereotypes about generational preferences. Notably, Baby Boomers and Generation Z demonstrate similar engagement with CSR as Generation X and Millennials. The findings suggest that organizations should focus on environmental and philanthropic initiatives to strengthen their employer brand. Furthermore, the study highlights the broad appeal of CSR initiatives across generational lines, paving the way for future research on the interplay between CSR, employer attractiveness and individual and generational dynamics. 1. Introduction In the highly competitive arena of talent acquisition, companies encounter increasing challenges in attracting and retaining skilled professionals. Forecasts predict a significant decline in the working-age population by 2030, particularly among individuals aged 20–34, prompting organizations to employ diverse strategies to secure top talent (Manpower Group, 2023). In this competitive environment, a company’s social performance becomes a crucial asset in the talent competition (Duarte et al., 2014). While various initiatives have been undertaken, studies reveal that many companies engage in corporate social responsibility (CSR) superficially, often merely to align with prevailing societal concerns (Carlini etal., 2019). Attracting and retaining the right individuals is consistently a challenge for companies in today’s environment, resulting in a continuous pursuit of innovative tools and practices (Itam etal., 2020). In the effort to develop a compelling employer brand, HR and marketing professionals are instrumental in aligning the brand with the company’s culture. Equally important is understanding the factors that influence candidates’ choices in selecting an employer, including the impact of individual personality traits. Recent trends suggest that younger candidates, particularly those from Generation Z, prioritize values such as diversity, inclusion and human rights, providing companies with critical insights on how to shape their brand image (O’Boyle, 2021). As the digital generation, Generation Z is acutely aware of global issues like social justice and climate change, with their employer preferences strongly swayed by a company’s CSR reputation (Gandasari et al., 2024). A survey conducted by Gallup underscores the preferences of Millennials and © 2024 the author(s). Published by informa uK Limited, trading as taylor & Francis group CONTACT Ricardo Correia ricardocorr[email protected] Polytechnic university of Bragança, Bragança, Portugal #Ricardo Correia is also affiliated to uniag ‑ applied Management Research unit, Bragança, Portugal. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2024.2429799 this is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. the terms on which this article has been published allow the posting of the accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent. ARTICLE HISTORY Received 9 May 2024 Revised 23 August 2024 Accepted 10 November 2024 KEYWORDS CSR (corporate social responsibility); employer brand attractiveness; sustainability self-identity; generational differences; philanthropic CSR; ethical CSR; environmental CSR SUBJECTS Business, Management and Accounting; Gender Studies—Soc Sci; Sustainable Development; Work & Organizational Psychology ACCOuNTING, CORPORATE GOVERNANCE & BuSINESS ETHICS | RESEARCH ARTICLE 2 G. GINTALE ETAL. Generation Z, highlighting the significance of ethical leadership and a diverse, inclusive workplace, which reflects a broader need for social, environmental and governance sustainability efforts (Liu & Nemoto, 2021; O’Boyle, 2021; Venciute et al., 2024). Existing research consistently shows a positive correlation between perceived CSR and employer brand attractiveness (Duarte et al., 2014; Wu & Dineen, 2023). However, scholars increasingly explore diverse facets and influencing factors within this relationship, recognizing its susceptibility to mediation and moderation by various social, personal and organizational circumstances. One such factor, sustainability self-identity, has been studied extensively in the context of consumption and consumer behavior. However, its role in moderating the perceived CSR and employer brand attractiveness relationship remains largely unexplored, presenting an avenue for novel investigation. Similarly, the influence of age or generational factors on employer brand attractiveness in the context of perceived CSR activities is underexplored (Rank & Contreras, 2021). While some surveys have focused on Generation Y and Generation Z, the results remain inconclusive, necessitating further exploration. Our overarching research goal is to scrutinize the impact of perceived CSR activities on employer brand attractiveness, considering the potential moderating roles of age and sustainability self-identity (Venciute et al., 2024). While previous research has largely focused on the overall impact of CSR on brand perception, our study delves deeper into the nuanced factors that influence this relationship. The inclusion of sustainability self-identity as a moderating factor adds a personal dimension, recognizing that individual values and identity play a crucial role in shaping perceptions of CSR and employer brand attractiveness. This represents a novel contribution to the field, extending the discussion beyond organizational practices to individual characteristics. Moreover, the exploration of generational differences as moderators in the CSR–employer brand relationship provides a fresh perspective on how varying expectations and values across different age generations influence the impact of CSR initiatives. By combining these innovative elements, the study seeks to offer a holistic understanding of the multifaceted relationship between perceived CSR, sustainability self-identity, generational differences and employer brand attractiveness contributing with valuable insights for both academia and practitioners navigating the evolving landscape of talent attraction. 2. Literature review 2.1. CSR According to stakeholder theory, individuals or groups that can impact or be impacted by an organization are essential to its success and are thus considered stakeholders (Freeman, 2010). As stated by Parmar et al. (2010), the stakeholder theory offers a way to address three key business issues: understanding value creation and trade, linking ethics and capitalism, and guiding managers to address both and suggests focusing on the relationships between a business and stakeholders to tackle these problems, ultimately proposing a revised view how business should be managed. Stakeholder theory played an important role in defining a CSR concept, particularly, highlighting the social interest and ethics in business (Parmar et al., 2010). CSR is broadly defined as business responsibilities to specific group of stakeholders—society, which serves to manage its expectations and contribute to societal welfare by allocating a company’s resources (Brown & Forster, 2013) and builds the relationships, translating into a company’s long-term value (Lee et al., 2013). This multifaceted concept encompasses three pillars—environmental, social and economic—forming the foundation of a sustainable organization. The economic pillar ensures financial responsibility by promoting efficient resource utilization and economic growth. The social pillar addresses human-related aspects, focusing on improving gender equality, income distribution, reducing social inequalities, enhancing healthcare and providing quality education. The environmental pillar evaluates a company’s impact on natural resources, ecosystems and climate change, aiming to minimize environmental footprints and promote sustainable practices. These pillars collectively contribute to the long-term sustainability and resilience of organizations (Yadav et al., 2023). COGENT BuSINESS & MANAGEMENT 3 Over the past decade, CSR has emerged as a pivotal strategy for companies seeking various positive outcomes. Scholars suggest that CSR may have a positive impact on multiple elements of company’s competitive advantage (Eyasu & Arefayne, 2020) and various levels of organization performance, including its reputation, stakeholder relations, consumer loyalty and company/product choice, financial performance, enhanced employee engagement and attractiveness to potential employees (Bustamante et al., 2021). While companies adopt CSR activities to enhance public perception, research highlights potential pitfalls. If CSR activities are perceived as self-promotional, consumers may doubt their sincerity, leading to negative impacts on the company’s image (Puncheva-Michelotti et al., 2018). Effective CSR communication is crucial, with a need for messages aligned with individuals’ values and expectations (Bustamante et al., 2021; Christensen et al., 2020). This calls for an exploration into how perceived CSR might be influenced by personal predispositions, creating a direct connection with individuals’ beliefs and attitudes (Bustamante etal., 2021). 2.2. Employer brand attractiveness The definition of employer brand dates back to 1996 when Ambler and Barrow integrated marketing techniques into human resources management. Initially defined as the package of functional, economic and psychological benefits associated with employment, the employer brand functions as a promise to potential and existing employees, akin to a product or service brand (Backhaus, 2016). Employer brand attractiveness is defined as the ‘envisioned benefits that a potential employee sees in working for a specific organization’ (Berthon et al., 2005, p. 156). It comprises two dimensions: internal and external, with the latter focusing on potential candidates’ perceptions of an organization as a great place to work (Buitek etal., 2023). Achieving this external purpose involves understanding the company’s values and effectively communicating them to create expectations that should be met when a job seeker becomes an employee (Caputo etal., 2023). Whereas employer brand attractiveness refers to the perceived benefits of working for a specific employer (Eger etal., 2019; Mičík & Mičudová, 2018), key dimensions of employer brand attractiveness— social value, interest value, application value, economic value and development value—are widely used to measure this construct. The ‘EmpAt’ scale, developed by Berthon et al. (2005), includes 25 items that reflect these values, including application value, which encompasses the employer’s perception as a humanitarian organization that gives back to society. Extensive research affirms the positive relationship between CSR performance and employer brand attractiveness (Backhaus et al., 2002; Duarte et al., 2014; Lis, 2012; Story et al., 2016). Companies perceived as highly engaged in CSR activities are viewed as more attractive workplaces (Duarte etal., 2014), because perceiving organizations as socially responsible leads candidates to regard them as possessing a positive reputation (Verčič & Ćorić, 2018) and attractive employer brand (Gandasari et al., 2024). CSR is identified as a category within employer brand attributes, reflecting candidates’ scrutiny of a company’s involvement in social, environmental and community issues (Ronda et al., 2018). Despite debates about CSR in specific industries, such as the oil sector, positive attitudes are observed when these companies actively contribute to CSR initiatives (Hosseini et al., 2022). While the existing literature establishes the existence of the relationship between CSR and employer brand attractiveness (Duarte etal., 2014; Wu & Dineen, 2023), this study aims to revisit and delve deeper into this relationship by examining three distinct dimensions of CSR: philanthropic CSR, ethical CSR and environmental CSR, as proposed by Lee et al., (2013). Philanthropic CSR is rooted in historical corporate giving and recognized as one of the earliest forms of what we now term CSR (Lee et al., 2013) and is anticipated to positively influence employer brand attractiveness. Studies indicate that philanthropic activities enhance a company’s image and contribute to employee engagement and morale (Arco-Castro et al., 2020; Breeze & Wiepking, 2020). Philanthropic CSR activities signal commitment to social good, aligning with the values of individuals seeking meaningful work (Seara etal., 2023). Corporate philanthropy improves job satisfaction and retention by fostering a sense of pride and purpose among employees (Lee et al., 2014). Companies engaging in philanthropic CSR are perceived as more ethical and socially responsible, enhancing their appeal to both 4 G. GINTALE ETAL. current and prospective employees (Seara etal., 2023; Zhang etal., 2022). Given the above, we hypothesize that: H1: Perceived philanthropic CSR will positively impact employer brand attractiveness. Research indicates that a majority of respondents associate socially responsible companies with transparency, honesty and high business ethics (Bakanauskienė et al., 2017). Ethical CSR enhances corporate reputation and aligns company values with those of potential employees, thus boosting employer attractiveness (Klimkiewicz & Oltra, 2017). Ethical CSR practices, such as honest communication, legal compliance and promoting social good alongside economic objectives, attract job seekers who value strong moral principles (Bustamante et al., 2021; Seara et al., 2023). Ethical CSR enhances job seekers’ perceptions of an organization’s trustworthiness and reliability, making it a more attractive employer (Bustamante etal., 2021; Klimkiewicz & Oltra, 2017; Seara etal., 2023). Given these considerations, we hypothesize that: H2: Perceived ethical CSR will positively impact employer brand attractiveness. Previous studies suggest that environmental CSR positively impacts corporate reputation and profitability due to customers’ favorable perceptions of environmental initiatives (Khojastehpour & Johns, 2014). Environmental CSR also enhances employees’ environmental citizenship behavior, stimulating their passion and empathy for environmental issues (Yin et al., 2021). Furthermore, an organization’s environmental commitment increases its attractiveness to technologically talented workers (Martín-de Castro et al., 2023). Environmental CSR activities demonstrate a company’s dedication to sustainable practices, which align with the values of potential employees, particularly those who prioritize environmental responsibility (Puncheva-Michelotti et al., 2018). Given these effects, environmental CSR is anticipated to positively influence employer brand attractiveness. Thus, we hypothesize that: H3: Environmental CSR will have a positive impact on employer brand attractiveness. 2.3. Sustainability self-identity Social identity theory suggests that people categorize others into social groups and identify themselves as part of ingroups (us) and outgroups (them), leading to ingroup favoritism and increased self-esteem through association with a perceived superior group (Tajfel et al., 1979). As an organization is seen as a social group embodying the specific characteristics of its members and fulfilling individual motives (Ashforth & Mael, 1989), social identity theory explains why potential employees’ identification with an organization influences their perception of its attractiveness. Scholars suggest that an individual’s positioning within a specific social environment influences their attraction to a particular organization, resonating with such group (Theurer et al., 2018). Studies confirm that individual’s self-identity related aspects are moderating the relationship among companies’ activities and its attractiveness to potential employees (Liao & Cheng, 2020; Riaz & Saleem, 2024). However, the sustainability self-identity has not been explored as the candidates’ individual characteristic yet. Thus, the study ventures into the less-explored realm of candidates’ personality specifics and their potential influence on the choice of a future employer, particularly in the context of CSR. Notably, candidates interested in CSR and sustainability may expect their prospective employers to share these values, leading to the inclusion of sustainability self-identity as a potential moderating factor. Self-identity theory, rooted in how individuals symbolically express themselves through self-identification (Atatsi etal., 2021), is a recognized driver of behavior, occasionally surpassing one’s attitudes (Whitmarsh & O’Neill, 2010). Defined as a collection of identities within society (Terry et al., 1999), studies in employer branding suggest that a potential candidate’s self-identity aligning with a company’s identity increases the likelihood of choosing that organization (Xie et al., 2015). As in most of the literature self-identity is used to explain people’s behavior and intentions, it was found that green self-identity can be used as an explanation of consumers’ perception (Khare & Pandey, 2017). However, in most research, this construct has COGENT BuSINESS & MANAGEMENT 5 been used to study the consumption part instead of influence on the job market consequently, a hypothesis emerges, suggesting that candidates with a high sustainability self-identity are more inclined to work for a company engaged in CSR activities (van der Werff etal., 2021). H4: Sustainability self-identity moderates the relationship between perceived environmental CSR and employer brand attractiveness. 2.4. The role of generations Since CSR is multifaceted, it is not universally perceived in the same manner by all individuals (Klimkiewicz & Oltra, 2017). Generations, as a demographic reality, offer a convenient framework for understanding societal cohorts. Workplace behaviors and preferences are thought to differ across generations (Žarnauskaitė, 2017), because individuals within specific cohorts to share common life experiences, values, and historical events, which in turn shape their behaviors and social patterns in personal and professional contexts (Rank & Contreras, 2021). Since the current workforce includes four generations (Baby Boomers, Generation X, Generation Y and Generation Z), research, especially regarding the youngest generation, is scant (Rank & Contreras, 2021). There are studies indicating that Gen Z candidates exhibit a growing interest and a need to care for the environment, both personally and professionally (Macalik & Sulich, 2019; Ngoc Thang et al., 2023). Evidence exists that Millennials prioritize workplace CSR initiatives as well, indicating a preference for organizations that demonstrate social responsibility (Klimkiewicz & Oltra, 2017; Rank & Contreras, 2021). Other generational cohorts lack sufficient research to delineate differences in the importance of CSR activities when selecting a potential employer. Scholars recommend further exploration to discern generational variances in employer attractiveness and the potential role of perceived CSR (Rank & Contreras, 2021). In contrast, other studies suggest that demographic factors like age may not significantly impact candidates’ perception of CSR and the level of importance individuals place on CSR plays a more significant role in employer brand attractiveness (Hinson et al., 2018). Therefore, caution is advised in interpreting minor generational differences, as some research suggests significant distinctions among generations while others indicate they are more similar (Rank & Contreras, 2021). As hypotheses posit relationships between CSR dimensions and employer brand attractiveness, it is plausible that generational differences may moderate these relationships. Since the hypotheses for the relationship between every dimension of CSR and employer brand attractiveness were raised, generation could likely moderate all three relationship lines. As a result, the following hypotheses were formulated: H5: Generation moderates the relationship between perceived philanthropic CSR and employer brand attractiveness. H6: Generation moderates the relationship between perceived ethical CSR and employer brand attractiveness. H7: Generation moderates the relationship between perceived environmental CSR and employer brand attractiveness. A research model has been created based on a literature review and the hypotheses raised (Figure 1). 3. Methodology An online survey, administered via the Qualtrics platform, was carried out among the working-age population in Lithuania, which includes individuals from 18 to 65 years old (the official retirement age in Lithuania). The data collection process took place during the first three weeks of April 2023. The survey link was widely disseminated through personal social media channels and distributed to acquaintances, with a request to share it within their social circles. 6 G. GINTALE ETAL. Respondents were introduced with a research goal and their right to withdraw at any time. Also, their identity was not disclosed and their anonymity was ensured. Respondents were not manipulated in any way and everyone had to confirm their consent to participate in the research. After providing informed consent, participants were asked to identify a specific organization they might consider as a potential employer and write down its name. This step was crucial to ensure consistency when they later rated various statements. Participants then evaluated 23 statements related to two main constructs: perceived CSR and employer attractiveness. To ensure data quality, an attention check was included to screen out inattentive respondents. The collected data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics software, with the SPSS PROCESS macro (Model 1) employed to test the proposed hypotheses (Hayes, 2017). Initially, 357 responses were gathered; however, after excluding incomplete surveys, 201 valid responses were retained for analysis. It is worth noting that many participants dropped out at the stage where they were asked to enter the name of a potential employer. 3.1. Research instrument To measure perceived CSR a five-item Likert scale from the previous research (Lee etal., 2013) was used. The scale consists of three dimensions—ethical, philanthropic and environmental CSR activities that come up with 14 statements, for example, ‘Our company helps solve social problems’ (philanthropic CSR activities), ‘Our company has a comprehensive code of conduct’ (ethical CSR activities) and ‘Our company has an environmentally related mission’. All scored on a five-point Likert scale. To measure employer attractiveness a scale formed in previous research (Kissel & Büttgen, 2015) will be used. It consists of nine items, that are scored on a five-point Likert scale (1 = completely disagree to 5 = completely agree), for example, ‘This organization offers attractive jobs’. The scale consists of several different aspects of uniqueness, perceived quality, identification, sympathy, attachment and trust, but overall proven to measure employer attractiveness. To measure sustainability self-identity an adapted scale from previous research (Whitmarsh & O’Neill, 2010) was used. All the items are presented as a research instrument in Table 1. Also, it is important to address that in our study we asked the respondents to indicate their age in categories because this approach offers practical insights that go beyond simply looking at numerical age. Firstly, generational categories allow organizations to understand diverse work styles and communication preferences, facilitating the development of inclusive talent management strategies that appeal to current and potential employees. Secondly, by recognizing the distinct values and motivations of different generations, companies can craft employer branding initiatives that resonate more effectively, attracting and retaining talent across age groups. Finally, segmenting employees by generation enables organizations to design targeted engagement and development programs that address the unique needs and expectations of each generational cohort. By viewing generations as a specific criterion for age Figure 1. Research model. COGENT BuSINESS & MANAGEMENT 7 segmentation, organizations can become more flexible while remaining effective in addressing the unique needs of their employees. 3.2. Reliability In assessing the internal consistency of the scales employed in this study, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was employed. The philanthropic CSR, ethical CSR, environmental CSR and employer brand attractiveness scales demonstrated Cronbach’s alpha coefficient nearly or exceeding 0.7 (the ethical CSR coefficient is 0.696), the adapted scale of sustainability self-identity scale yielded a coefficient of 0.748. It suggests an acceptable level of reliability for the scales within the research context. It is worth acknowledging that the lower reliability of the scales could be attributed to the translation process from English (the original language of the questions) to Lithuanian, despite rigorous testing involving multiple individuals. The reliability scores for the scales used are detailed in Table 2 for reference. 3.3. Ethical considerations All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The paper is based on a Master thesis that the Committee does not review. All the ethical standards are ensured according to the ISM university of Management and Economics regulations and GDPR. Respondents were introduced with a research goal and their right to withdraw at any time. Also, their identity was not disclosed, and their anonymity was ensured. Respondents were not manipulated in any way. Written informed consent was obtained from participants involved in this work. 4. Results Among 201 participants, 56 (27.9%) identified themselves as men, 143 (71.1%) identified themselves as women and 2 (1%) did not want to disclose their gender. In terms of respondents’ education, the majority (88.6%) of respondents had higher education, 20 (10%) were high school graduates and 3 (1.5%) had vocational education. Regarding respondents’ income per month for one family member after taxes, 8 (4%) respondents indicated that their income is 500 EuR or less, 29 (14.4%) indicated that it is between 501 and 1000 EuR, 73 (36.3%) have between 1001 and 1500 EuR, 44 (21.9%) are left with 1501–2000 EuR and 47 (23.4%) earn 2001 EuR or more. As for the age, having in mind the specifics of the study, every respondent had to put themselves into one of four generations according to their birth year, therefore in the final sample there were 8 (4%) of Generation of Baby Boomers (born between 1945 and 1965), 50 (24.9%) of Generation X (1966–1980), 138 (68.7%) of Millennials (1981–2002) and 5 (2.5%) of Generation Z (born in 2003 or later). To be kept in mind that only people from the workforce (aged from 18 to 65) were interviewed, therefore Generation Z and Baby Boomers were relatively small groups. The overview of sample demographics is provided in Table 3. 4.1. Descriptive statistics The dependent variable (employer brand attractiveness), independent variables (philanthropic CSR, ethical CSR and Environmental CSR) and moderating variable of sustainability self-identity were measured using a five-point Likert scale. The lowest mean score was observed for Environmental CSR (3.6451), indicating that, on average, individuals leaned toward perceiving their potential employers as engaging in Environmental CSR activities. Conversely, the sustainability self-identity variable garnered the highest average score (3.8723), suggesting a general agreement among respondents in identifying themselves as pro-environmental. 14 G. GINTALE ETAL. Christensen, L. T., Morsing, M., & Thyssen, O. (2020). Timely hypocrisy? Hypocrisy temporalities in CSR communication. Journal of Business Research, 114, 327–335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.020 Duarte, A., Gomes, D., & das Neves, J. G. (2014). Tell me your socially responsible practices, I will tell you how attractive for recruitment you are! The impact of perceived CSR on organizational attractiveness. Tékhne, 12, 22–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tekhne.2015.01.004 Eger, L., Mičík, M., Gangur, M., & Řehoř, P. (2019). Employer branding: Exploring attractiveness dimensions in a multicultural context. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 25(3), 519–541. https://doi.org/10.3846/ tede.2019.9387 Eyasu, A. M., & Arefayne, D. (2020). The effect of corporate social responsibility on banks’ competitive advantage: Evidence from Ethiopian lion international bank SC. Cogent Business & Management, 7(1), 1830473. https://doi.org /10.1080/23311975.2020.1830473 Freeman, R. (2010). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Cambridge university press. Gandasari, D., Tjahjana, D., Dwidienawati, D., & Ichsan, M. (2024). How to attract talents? The role of CSR, employer brand, benefits and career development. Cogent Business & Management, 11(1), 2323774. https://doi.org/10.1080/2 3311975.2024.2323774 Hayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis, second edition: A regression-based approach. Guilford Publications. Hinson, R., Agbleze, S., & Kuada, J. E. (2018). Corporate social responsibility and employer attractiveness: Perspectives of prospective jobseekers in Ghana. African Journal of Business Ethics, 12(2), 1–17. Hosseini, S. A., Moghaddam, A., Damganian, H., & Shafiei Nikabadi, M. (2022). The effect of perceived corporate social responsibility and sustainable human resources on employee engagement with the moderating role of the employer brand. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 34(2), 101–121. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10672-021-09376-0 Itam, u., Misra, S., & Anjum, H. (2020). HRD indicators and branding practices: A viewpoint on the employer brand building process. European Journal of Training and Development, 44(6/7), 675–694. https://doi.org/10.1108/ EJTD-05-2019-0072 Khare, A., & Pandey, S. (2017). Role of green self-identity and peer influence in fostering trust towards organic food retailers. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 45(9), 969–990. https://doi.org/10.1108/ IJRDM-07-2016-0109 Khojastehpour, M., & Johns, R. (2014). The effect of environmental CSR issues on corporate/brand reputation and corporate profitability. European Business Review, 26(4), 330–339. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-03-2014-0029 Kissel, P., & Büttgen, M. (2015). using social media to communicate employer brand identity: The impact on corporate image and employer attractiveness. Journal of Brand Management, 22(9), 755–777. https://doi.org/10.1057/ bm.2015.42 Klimkiewicz, K., & Oltra, V. (2017). Does CSR enhance employer attractiveness? The role of millennial job seekers’ attitudes. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 24(5), 449–463. https://doi.org/10.1002/ csr.1419 Lee, E. M., Park, S.-Y., & Lee, H. J. (2013). Employee perception of CSR activities: Its antecedents and consequences. Journal of Business Research, 66(10), 1716–1724. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.11.008 Lee, Y.-K., Choi, J., Moon, B.-Y., & Babin, B. J. (2014). Codes of ethics, corporate philanthropy, and employee responses. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 39, 97–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2014.02.005 Liao, Z., & Cheng, J. (2020). Can a firm’s environmental innovation attract job seekers? Evidence from experiments. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(2), 542–551. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1818 Lis, B. (2012). The relevance of corporate social responsibility for a sustainable human resource management: An analysis of organizational attractiveness as a determinant in employees’ selection of a (potential) employer. Management Revue, 23(3), 279–295. https://doi.org/10.5771/0935-9915-2012-3-279 Liu, L., & Nemoto, N. (2021). Environmental, social and governance (ESG) evaluation and organizational attractiveness to prospective employees: Evidence from Japan. Journal of Accounting and Finance, 21(4), 14–29. Macalik, J., & Sulich, A. (2019). External employer branding of sustainable organizations. In International Scientific Conference Contemporary Issues in Business, Management and Economics Engineering. https://doi.org/10.3846/ cibmee.2019.054 Manpower Group. (2023). The new human age: 2023 workforce trends. Martín-de Castro, G., González-Masip, J. J., & Fernández-Menéndez, J. (2023). The role of corporate environmental commitment and STP on technological talent recruitment in service firms. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 21(2), 412–425. https://doi.org/10.1080/14778238.2020.1808542 Mičík, M., & Mičudová, K. (2018). Employer brand building: using social media and career websites to attract Generation Y. Economics & Sociology, 11(3), 171–189. https://doi.org/10.14254/2071-789X.2018/11-3/11 Ngoc Thang, N., Rowley, C., Mayrhofer, W., & Anh, N. T. P. (2023). Generation Z job seekers in Vietnam: CSR-based employer attractiveness and job pursuit intention. Asia Pacific Business Review, 29(3), 797–815. https://doi.org/10.1 080/13602381.2022.2058217 O’Boyle. (2021). 4 things Gen Z and Millennials expect from their workplace. https://www.gallup.com/workplace/336275/ things-gen-millennials-expect-workplace.aspx COGENT BuSINESS & MANAGEMENT 15 Parmar, B. L., Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., Purnell, L., & De Colle, S. (2010). Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 403–445. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2010.495581 Puncheva-Michelotti, P., Hudson, S., & Jin, G. (2018). Employer branding and CSR communication in online recruitment advertising. Business Horizons, 61(4), 643–651. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2018.04.003 Rank, S., & Contreras, F. (2021). Do millennials pay attention to corporate social responsibility in comparison to previous generations? Are they motivated to lead in times of transformation? A qualitative review of generations, CSR and work motivation. International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility, 6(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/ s40991-020-00058-y Riaz, S., & Saleem, K. (2024). Impact of corporate social responsibility on employees’ attractiveness in hospitality industry. Human Resources Management and Services, 6(1), 3422. https://doi.org/10.18282/hrms.v6i3.3422 Ronda, L., Valor, C., & Abril, C. (2018). Are they willing to work for you? An employee-centric view to employer brand attractiveness. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 27(5), 573–596. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-07-2017-1522 Seara, M., Proença, T., & Ferreira, M. R. (2023). Do corporate social responsibility practices have an impact on employer attractiveness—An approach to corporate volunteering programs. European Journal of Management and Business Economics, 31(3), 305–323. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJMBE-02-2022-0041 Story, J., Castanheira, F., & Hartig, S. (2016). Corporate social responsibility and organizational attractiveness: implications for talent management. Social Responsibility Journal, 12(3), 484–505. https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-07-2015-0095 Tajfel, H., Turner, J. C., Austin, W. G., & Worchel, S. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. Organizational Identity: A Reader, 56(65), 9780203505984–9780203505916. Terry, D. J., Hogg, M. A., & White, K. M. (1999). The theory of planned behaviour: Self-identity, social identity and group norms. The British Journal of Social Psychology, 38(3), 225–244. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466699164149 Theurer, C. P., Tumasjan, A., Welpe, I. M., & Lievens, F. (2018). Employer branding: A brand equity‐based literature review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 20(1), 155–179. https://doi.org/10.1111/ ijmr.12121 van der Werff, E., Steg, L., & Ruepert, A. (2021). My company is green, so am I: The relationship between perceived environmental responsibility of organisations and government, environmental self-identity, and pro-environmental behaviours. Energy Efficiency, 14(5), 50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12053-021-09958-9 Venciute, D., Gintale, G., Correia, R., Lapinskiene, R., & Skudiene, V. (2024). Sustainability, self-identity, and generations: The influence of CSR communication on employer brand attractiveness. In 28th International Conference on Corporate and Marketing Communications. https://doi.org/10.25365/phaidra.507 Verčič, A. T., & Ćorić, D. S. (2018). The relationship between reputation, employer branding and corporate social responsibility. Public Relations Review, 44(4), 444–452. Whitmarsh, L., & O’Neill, S. (2010). Green identity, green living? The role of pro-environmental self-identity in determining consistency across diverse pro-environmental behaviours. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(3), 305– 314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.01.003 Wu, L., & Dineen, B. R. (2023). Expanding branding: effects of multiple brand types on organizational attractiveness. Chinese Management Studies, 17(6), 1346–1367. https://doi.org/10.1108/CMS-07-2022-0246 Xie, C., Bagozzi, R. P., & Meland, K. V. (2015). The impact of reputation and identity congruence on employer brand attractiveness. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 33(2), 124–146. https://doi.org/10.1108/MIP-03-2014-0051 Yadav, R., Chaudhary, N. S., Kumar, D., & Saini, D. (2023). Mediating and moderating variables of employee relations and sustainable organizations: A systematic literature review and future research agenda. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 31(7), 3023–3050. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-12-2021-3091 Yin, C., Ma, H., Gong, Y., Chen, Q., & Zhang, Y. (2021). Environmental CSR and environmental citizenship behavior: The role of employees’ environmental passion and empathy. Journal of Cleaner Production, 320, 128751. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128751 Žarnauskaitė, M. (2017). Organizacijos kaip patrauklaus darbdavio įvaizdžio formavimas orientuojantis į Lietuvos Y kartai atstovaujančius specialistus. Informacijos Mokslai, 77(77), 106. https://doi.org/10.15388/Im.2017.77.10709 Zhang, Y., Wu, J., Li, G., Fu, J., Zhu, C., & Liu, J. (2022). Research on the impact of corporate philanthropy on employer brand. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, 635, 257–262.