CSR and employee outcomes: a systematic literature review

Yassin, Yasser; Beckmann, Markus Article — Published Version CSR and employee outcomes: a systematic literature review Management Review Quarterly Provided in Cooperation with: Springer Nature Suggested Citation: Yassin, Yasser; Beckmann, Markus (2024) : CSR and employee outcomes: a systematic literature review, Management Review Quarterly, ISSN 2198-1639, Springer International Publishing, Cham, Vol. 75, Iss. 1, pp. 595-641, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-023-00389-7 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/323478 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. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Vol.:(0123456789) Management Review Quarterly (2025) 75:595–641 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-023-00389-7 CSR andemployee outcomes: asystematic literature review YasserYassin1 · MarkusBeckmann1 Received: 26 January 2023 / Accepted: 28 November 2023 / Published online: 30 January 2024 © The Author(s) 2024 Abstract The purpose of this research is to consolidate and extend the current literature on employee outcomes of CSR (referred to as micro-level outcomes). The authors use a systematic review of the literature as a method to summarize and synthesise the different effects of CSR activities on employees based on 270 journal articles. The contribution of this paper is that it provides a comprehensive list of employee outcomes classified into different categories and a conceptual framework that maps desirable and undesirable outcomes of CSR activities on employees. The results show that various dimensions of CSR have different effects on employee outcomes. In addition, we explain mediators of CSR-employee outcomes relationships and moderators that could strengthen or weaken this relationship. The review reveals important gaps and offers a research agenda for the future. We have found only a few studies dealing with the negative impacts of CSR on employees as well as only a few studies that explain how different dimensions of CSR affect employees differently. The study has also practical implications for companies, as understanding different effects of CSR on employees helps organizations to design and implement CSR strategies and policies that foster employees’ positive attitudes and behaviours as well as prevent or reduce the negative effects, and hence create a business value and sustainable growth for the company. Keywords Corporate social responsibility· Micro-level· Employee outcomes· Employee attitudes· Employee behaviours· Employee well-being· Systematic review صخلمل: .نيفظوملا ىلع تاكرشلل ةيعامتجلاا ةيلوؤسملا رثأ لوح ةيلاحلا تايبدلاا عيسوتو عيمجت ىلإ ثحبلا اذه فدهي ةفلتخملا تاريثأتلا عيمجت و صيخلتل ةليسوك ةقباسلا تاساردلل ةيجهنملا ةعجارملا بولسأ نوثحابلا مدختسا دقو ثحبلا اذه ةمهاسم لثمتتو .ًايملع ًلااقم 270 ىلع ءانب نيفظوملا ىلع تاكرشلل ةيعامتجلاا ةيلوؤسملا ةطشنلأ مسري يميهافم راطإو ةفلتخم )ماسقأ( تائف يف ةفنصملا نيفظوملا ىوتسم ىلع تاريثأتلل ةلماش ةمئاق ريفوت يف * Yasser Yassin [email protected] 1 Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Chair ofCorporate Sustainability Management, Nuremberg, Germany 596 Y.Yassin, M.Beckmann جئاتنلا ترهظأ دقو .نيفظوملا ىلع تاكرشلل ةيعامتجلاا ةيلوؤسملا ةطشنلأ ةبوغرملا ريغو ةبوغرملا جئاتنلا ةساردلا تلوانت امك .نيفظوملا ىلع ةفلتخم تاريثأت اهل تاكرشلل ةيعامتجلاا ةيلوؤسملل ةفلتخملا داعبلاا نأ و فقاوم و ةهج نم تاكرشلل ةيعامتجلاا ةيلوؤسملا نيب ةقلاعلا ىلع رثؤت يتلا ةلدعملاو ةطيسولا تاريغتملا تاساردلل ةيثحب ةدنجأ تمدقو ةمهم تاوجف دوجو نع ةساردلا ترفسأ دقو .ىرخأ ةهج نم نيفظوملا تايكولس ىلع تاكرشلل ةيعامتجلاا ةيلوؤسملل ةيبلسلا راثلاا لوانتت يتلا تاساردلا نم ليلق ددع اندجو دقلف ، ةيلبقتسملا ةيعامتجلاا ةيلوؤسملل ةفلتخملا داعبلاا رثؤت فيك حضوت يتلا تاساردلا نم ليلق ددع كلذكو ، نيفظوملا مهف نأ ثيح ،تاكرشلل ةيلمعلا تاقيبطتلا اضيأ ةساردلا نمضتتو .فلتخم لكشب نيفظوملا ىلع تاكرشلل ذيفنتو ميمصت ىلع تامظنملا دعاسي نيفظوملا ىلع تاكرشلل ةيعامتجلاا ةيلوؤسملل ةفلتخملا تاريثأتلا عنم كلذكو نيفظوملل ةيباجيلاا تايكولسلاو فقاوملا ززعت يتلا ةيعامتجلاا ةيلوؤسملا تاسايس و تايجيتارتسإ ةكرشلل مادتسم ومن قيقحتو ةفاضم ةميق قلخ يلاتلابو ،ةيبلسلا تايكولسلاو فقاوملا ليلقت وأ. 1 Introduction Although there is an extensive discussion in the literature about the impact of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), most of these studies are interested in its impact at the organizational level. Few studies analyse its effect on individuals and, in particular, on employees. Only in the last decade, since 2010, some researchers began to focus on studying the relationship between CSR and employees of a company (e.g., Glavas 2016; Lee and Chen 2018; John etal. 2017; Du etal. 2015). A strong link was found between CSR and employees for two reasons: On the one hand, employees are one of the most important stakeholders that the organization should be responsible for (Farooq etal. 2014a, b; Siltaoja etal. 2015). They are affected by a company’s policies and activities including CSR, whether internal or external CSR, and form different perceptions about these activities. On the other hand, employees are seen as a driver that is relevant for the business benefit of CSR (Gao and He 2017; De Roeck and Farooq 2018). Employees react, according to their perceptions about CSR, through different attitudes and behaviours such as participating in, and even leading CSR programs, work satisfaction, organizational commitment, and in-role and extrarole performance which, in turn, affect the economic performance of the company (Gao etal. 2018). So, companies should consider that employees have different views, needs, expectations, and motivations when designing and implementing CSR programs to improve the well-being of employees and achieve a competitive advantage (De Roeck and Maon 2018; Evans and Davis 2014; Park etal. 2018). Most of the studies linking CSR to employee outcomes, which include employee attitudes and behaviours that could result from CSR actions and policies, investigate isolated outcomes such as employee satisfaction, organizational citizenship behaviour, or organizational commitment. In addition, they focus mainly on the desirable outcomes of CSR on employees and not potentially the undesirable ones. What is missing is a comprehensive picture that maps the full spectrum of employee outcomes, whether desirable (i.e., being good for employees and/or the organization/society) or undesirable (i.e., being detrimental for employees and/or the organization/society). Moreover, simply asking if CSR creates certain employee outcomes underestimated the role of contextual factors such as individual differences (e.g., collectivism, empathy, demographic factors) 597 CSR andemployee outcomes: asystematic literature review and organizational factors (e.g., organizational support, overall justice, ethical leadership, etc.). In fact, whether CSR has desirable or undesirable outcomes critically depends on the conditions under which it unfolds. While scholars have investigated many of these influencing factors, there is, so far, no comprehensive overview of mediators and moderators that explain and could affect positively or negatively the relationship CSR can have on employees. Thus, advancing our understanding of employee outcomes of CSR can help companies to design and implement CSR strategies and programs that consider employee needs and expectations, which, in turn, foster supportive employee attitudes and behaviours that increase business returns. To address this research gap, we conduct a systematic literature review (SLR) of 270 papers to give a full overview and to develop a conceptual framework of the relationship between CSR and employees, including current employees, job seekers and prospective employees. We systematically review articles that include not only the positive impacts of CSR on employees, but also the negative ones or the socalled “dark side of CSR” by Maon etal. (2019). In addition, some researchers differentiate between different dimensions of CSR, such as internal and external CSR, or Carroll’s four dimensions of economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary CSR. Hence, we specifically clarify the different effects of various dimensions of CSR on employees. Furthermore, we incorporate the mechanisms (i.e., mediators) that mediate these relationships and boundary conditions (i.e., moderators) that could strengthen or weaken these relationships. As the field of CSR and employee outcomes is widely dispersedand spans different types of outcomes, the purpose of this study is to summarize and structure extant employee outcome research, including contextual, hindering, and catalysing factors and to outline a research agenda for CSR-employee outcome research as a multi-effect, multi-dimension phenomenon. To achieve this purpose, the following questions will be answered in the subsequent sections: • What kind of employee outcomes can CSR generate? • How can these outcomes be categorized? • What are the mechanisms (mediators) that explain the relationship between CSR and employee outcomes? • What are the boundary conditions (moderators) that could affect the relationship? • What are the effects of different kinds of CSR on employee outcomes? The organization of our paper proceeds in five steps: First, we provide a brief overview of the CSR concept and explain its different dimensions. Second, we introduce the research methodology of the SLR and provide a descriptive and thematic content analysis of the selected literature to give a general overview of the data. Third, based on the findings, we explain the different employee outcomes that could be generated by different kinds of CSR and clarify the mediators and moderators that could affect the relationship. Fourth, we classify employee outcomes into different categories/groups and develop a framework that links all employee outcomes 598 Y.Yassin, M.Beckmann to CSR. Finally, we summarize our theoretical contribution and discuss practical implications, gaps, and a research agenda for the future. 2 Brief overview ofCSR andemployee outcomes In this section, we define CSR, clarify its different dimensions, and explain what we mean by employee outcomes of CSR. Then, we will give a brief overview of the previous systematic literature reviews on the topic. There is no consensus or widely accepted definition of CSR. The arguably most popular definition in the literature is that of Carroll (1991). He stated that “social responsibility of business encompasses the economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary (philanthropic) expectations that society has of organizations at a given point in time” (Carroll and Buchholtz 2009, p. 40). Another popular definition of CSR is the one articulated by The Commission of the European Communities (CEC), which defines CSR as “a concept whereby companies integrate social and environmental concerns in their business operations and in their interactions with their stakeholders on a voluntary basis” (CEC 2001, p. 4). On the other hand, many of the researchers in micro-CSR research, which is concerned with the study of the effects of CSR on individuals, adopt the definition of CSR as “context-specific organizational actions and policies that take into account stakeholders’ expectations and the triple bottom line of economic, social, and environmental performance” (Aguinis 2011, p. 858). Our focus in this paper is reviewing the literature on one part of the micro-CSR, namely with a focus on employees, and we, therefore, exclude other individuals such as investors, consumers, executives, and managers. Researchers have classified CSR into multiple dimensions due to their different perspectives of what defines CSR. The most frequent classification of CSR used in the literature distinguishes between internal and external CSR (e.g., Hur etal. 2019; Edwards and Kudret 2017; Aggarwal and Singh 2022). Internal CSR (ICSR) refers to the activities, actions, and policies of the organization that are directed to the internal stakeholders of the organization, such as employees, while external CSR (ECSR) refers to activities, actions, and policies directed toward other stakeholders such as customers, governments, communities, and the environment (Zhao etal. 2020; Story and Castanheira 2019; Ouakouak etal. 2019). Some researchers differentiate between the four dimensions of CSR of Carroll, which are economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary (e.g., Maignan and Ferrell 2001; Lin etal. 2012; Kim etal. 2018; Mohammed etal. 2022). Other researchers group CSR dimensions according to stakeholder groups such as community, employees, consumers, and environment CSR (e.g., Farooq etal. 2014a, b; Park etal. 2018), whereas few researchers such as Bohlmann etal. (2018) distinguish between social, economic, and environmental CSR. Although there is no consensus about CSR definition in the literature, Dahlsrud (2008) reviewed and analysed 37 different definitions and developed the following five CSR dimensions: 599 CSR andemployee outcomes: asystematic literature review • The stakeholder dimension, which refers to the organization’s responsibility to all stakeholders such as customers, employees, shareholders, investors, government, community, and the environment. • The economic dimension, which refers to the organization’s obligation to generate profits to the shareholders and investors. • The discretionary dimension or the voluntary activities of the organization that extends beyond the law. • The social dimension, which includes the responsibility of the organization to have a positive impact on society. • The environment dimension, which includes the organization’s responsibility to protect and preserve the natural environment and promote green behaviours. Most studies that investigate the CSR-employee-outcomes relationship have focused either on CSR’s overall effects on employee outcomes, or on the effect of only one dimension of CSR on employees. There are few studies that differentiate between the effects of different dimensions of CSR on employee outcomes. Therefore, in our analysis, we follow the Dahlsrud’s (2008) five CSR dimensions, as they cover almost all aspects of CSR mentioned in the definitions of CSR in previous studies and investigate whether each CSR dimension affects employee outcomes differently or not. Regarding employee outcomes’ definition, we go beyond the traditional focus on financial compensation to include all the employees’ attitudes and behaviours that could result from the organization’s actions and policies. These outcomes could be desirable or undesirable. Desirable employee outcomes include two subcategories, namely the desirable employee outcomes that have a positive relationship with CSR as well as the undesirable employee effects that have a negative relationship with CSR and are thus reduced. Similarly, undesirable outcomes or the so called “dark side of CSR” include two subcategories of detrimental employee outcomes of CSR, namely undesirable employee outcomes that have a positive relationship with CSR and desirable employee outcomes that decrease with CSR due to a negative relationship with it. Concerning prior reviews that investigate the relationship between CSR and employee outcomes, Gond etal. (2017), in their systematic review of CSR at the individual level, consolidate and extend prior reviews of Aguinis and Glavas (2012), Rupp and Mallory (2015), Glavas (2016). They also clarify drivers, processes, and reactions of individuals to CSR and explain the mechanisms and boundary conditions that affect the relationship. Although this review is valuable and insightful in summarizing and analysing the effects of CSR at the individual level, we found various reasons for an up-to-date systematic review: First, they examined the CSR’s overall effects on employees without differentiating between the different effects of different dimensions of CSR; second, they did not include undesirable employee outcomes of CSR; and third, they reviewed articles published until 2016, and we found a massive increase in the micro-CSR literature in the past six years, as 187 articles out of 270 (69%) examined in our review were published in the six years since their review. 600 Y.Yassin, M.Beckmann We also found three additional reviews that are published recently which are Wang etal. (2020), Zhao etal. (2020), and Macassa etal. (2021). All of them were not inclusive because they, first, include only empirical studies; second, they did not include undesirable employee outcomes nor the complete list of positive outcomes, mediators, and moderators. Onkila and Sarna (2022), in their recent systematic review of employee relations with CSR, have contributed important insights to our understanding, as the authors classified the literature into three categories (organizational implementation of CSR, benefits to organizations, and differences in employees’ perceptions of CSR). In addition, they identified mediating categories between the main categories. However, this review is not up to date, as it includes articles published only until 2018, and more than half of the articles reviewed in our literature were published in the four years since their publication (142 out of 270). In addition, this review is more concerned with the importance of organizationallevel policies, practices, and leader behaviour, as well as the benefits of CSR to employees from the organization perspective than the employee one, such as organizational reputation, external image, and strong relationships with employees. To summarize: we have identified several gaps and limitations that warrant an up-to-date systematic review. The points we have highlighted include: – Differentiation of CSR dimensions: The previous reviews we mentioned did not differentiate between the various dimensions of CSR and their distinct effects on employees. We were looking for a review that delves into how different aspects of CSR might impact employees differently. – Undesirable employee outcomes: The reviews we discussed have primarily focused on desirable employee outcomes resulting from CSR initiatives. Maon etal. (2019), for example, in their systematic review stated that future research should investigate undesirable employee outcomes of CSR and explain mediators and moderators that could have effect on the relationship. Therefore, we were interested in a review that includes both the desirable and undesirable outcomes of CSR on employees. – Recent literature: The existing reviews have a time gap in terms of the articles they include, with many of the recent articles not being considered. Our interest lies in an up-to-date review that takes into account the significant increase in literature over the past few years. – Inclusiveness of studies: Some of the reviews, e.g., Zhao etal. (2020), only included empirical studies, potentially excluding valuable insights from other types of research. – Mediators and moderators: Zhao etal. (2020), in their systematic review called for more research on new employee outcomes, mediators and moderators. Likewise, Gond etal. (2017) suggested that future research should investigate how mediators interact and consider new individual differences. Our review comprehensively identified and presented employee outcomes of CSR as well as the mediators and moderators of the relationship. – Employee perspective: While some reviews focused on the organizational perspective and benefits of CSR, we were interested in a review that empha- 601 CSR andemployee outcomes: asystematic literature review sizes the impact of CSR on employees themselves. Previous systematic reviews, such as Wang etal. (2020), and Onkila and Sarna (2022), suggested that future research should approach employee-CSR research more as individual-level phenomenon. Given these considerations, conducting an up-to-date systematic review that addresses these gaps and limitations in the existing literature could indeed contribute significantly to the understanding of the relationship between CSR and employee outcomes. Such a review could help researchers, practitioners, and organizations gain a more nuanced and comprehensive understanding of the topic. 3 Methodology We conducted a systematic literature review (SLR) to identify, analyze, and synthesize the knowledge on employee outcomes of CSR. We followed the structured multistage process of Denyer and Tranfield (2009) and Shabir and Rosmini (2016), which consists of a planning phase, a scoping study, the selection of search parameters, the selection of publications as well as the data analysis and the synthesis of the publications (Denyer and Tranfield 2009; Garkisch etal. 2017; Pilbeam etal. 2012, p. 360; Shabir and Rosmini 2016). Regarding the choice of database, we decided to limit our search to a database with a precise fit with our topic. We thus departed from previous systematic reviews that used Scopus or Web of Science. Given their multidisciplinary nature, these databases are advantageous for SLRs that combine research insights from highly disparate research disciplines. Given our specific research interest in CSR and employee outcomes, however, we deliberately decided to use the Business Source Complete (EBSCOhost) database. As the leading database in the field of business, this database not only covers the journals relevant to CSR research but also includes Table 1 Topic-related and Sector-related search terms Topicrelated search terms Sector-related search terms TI (Corporate Social Responsibility OR CSR OR Corporate Social Initiative* OR Corporate Responsib* OR Social Responsib* OR Corporate Citizenship OR Triple Bottom Line) AB (staff response* OR staff attitude* OR staff effect* OR individual performance OR individual reaction OR individual effect OR individual well-being OR individual wel#being OR employ* consequence* OR personnel development OR employ* outcome* OR employ* performance OR employ* attitude* OR employ* behavio#r* OR employ* well-being OR employ* wel#being OR internal stakeholder* OR employ* response* OR individual outcome* OR employ* reaction* OR employ* effect* OR Human Resource* OR Human Capital OR labo#r market*) 602 Y.Yassin, M.Beckmann psychology and human resource research relevant to our interest in employee outcomes. While excluding other databases is a certain limitation of our research, we opted for EBSCOhost as a database with an appropriate balance between multidisciplinary scope and thematic focus. Nevertheless, we compared the EBSCOhost findings with other databases and found that the search results in different databases produced fairly similar results. Therefore, we decided to focus on the EBSCOhost database to identify the relevant articles over a long-time span (22years) and use many keywords related to CSR and employees (see Table1) to obtain and cover the relevant conceptual and empirical articles. However, in cases where it was not possible to access the full text, we used other databases, including ABI (ProQuest), Google Scholar, Science Direct, and Emerald, to retrieve the full text of the previouslyidentified articles. The search covered studies published from2001 to 2022 in English language and yielded 798 peer-reviewed journal publications in academic journals. We conducted a quantitative and qualitative analysis of the identified publications. 3.1 Keywords andsearch strings We organized our search terms into Topic-related terms (CSR) and Sector-related terms (covering the employee outcome part), as shown in Table1. For both a list was discussed with other researchers, and feedback was incorporated. The search in Topic-related terms was limited to “title only” because we found thousands of articles before this limitation. In contrast, the search in Sector-related terms was extended to include abstracts and more search terms in order to cover all the employee outcomes related to CSR. 3.2 Inclusion andexclusion criteria We applied inclusion and exclusion criteria for the systematic selection of publications (Denyer and Tranfield 2009; Shabir and Rosmini 2016). As the focus of our study lies on the available scientific knowledge, we decided to narrow down our search using the following criteria (Maier etal. 2016; Seuring and Müller 2008): • Focus on CSR and Employee Outcomes: We were interested specifically in studies that explored the relationship between Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and its impact on employee outcomes. We included studies that directly addressed this relationship. However, we excluded studies that examined the factors that lead to CSR initiatives (antecedents of CSR) as well as studies that looked at the broader organizational outcomes of CSR. • Impact on Current and Prospective Employees: Our intention was to gather research that pertains to the influence of CSR on both current and potential employees. Studies that explored the impact of CSR on middle or top managers were excluded. 609 CSR andemployee outcomes: asystematic literature review Table 3 Descriptive summary of thematic findings Outcome Number of articles Key theories Mediators Moderators Organizational pride 4 Implicit theory, appraisal theory, affect social exchange theory perceived work motivation Patterns Organizational identification (OI) 40 Social identity & social exchange theories Perceived external prestige, organizational pride, organizational trust, overall justice Collectivism, other-regarding value orientation, empathy, CSR importance, organizational support, first-party justice, overall justice, ethical leadership, high-commitment working systems, & corporate ability Organizational commitment (OC) 63 Social identity theory Employee engagement, O justice, work meaningfulness, organizational support, OI, external prestige, CSR involvement, organizational pride and trust Gender, education, tenure, age differences, cultural differences, CSR typologies Organizational attractiveness & job pursuit intentions 17 Signalling theory, social identity theory Corporate image, reputation, organizational pride & OI Person-organization fit, CSR education, other-regarding value orientation, age, area of knowledge Employee engagement 26 Social identity & social exchange theories External image, OI, organizational trust, job satisfaction, procedural and distributive justice, work meaningfulness, Employer brand Top management support, gender, collectivism, CSR importance, employees’ moral identity beliefs, employee age Job satisfaction (JS) 38 Stakeholder, social identity & social exchange theories Corporate image, OI, organizational pride, organizational embeddedness, fulfilment of job needs, work meaningfulness CSR proximity, internal CSR perception, employee age, CSR typologies Employee well-being 13 Social identity & social exchange theories Organizational trust, work meaningfulness, gratitude, compassion at work, OI, OC, JS CSR importance, CEO’s humble leadership 610 Y.Yassin, M.Beckmann Table 3 (continued) Outcome Number of articles Key theories Mediators Moderators In-role performance 29 Social identity & social exchange theories OI, OC, JS, quality of working life, employee engagement, OCB, prosocial motivation Leadership styles, employees’ work motivation patterns, managers’ involvement in CSR activities, organizational reputation, employment type Organizational citizenship behaviours (OCB) 51 Social identity, social learning, social exchange theories OI, OC, JS, organizational trust, task significance, gratitude, compassion at work, prosocial motivation, ethical leadership, CSR reputation First-party justice, moral identity, task significance, CSR importance, cultural differences, other-regarding value orientation, CSR typologies, contextual factors Pro-environmental behaviours 20 Social identity theory OI, OC, employee well-being, environmental orientation fit, moral reflectiveness, co-worker pro-environmental advocacy, environmental commitment Corporate entrepreneurship, ethical leadership, green HRM, attachment styles of employees, employees’ CSR motive attributions, empathy, environmental consciousness, environmentally specific servant leadership, tenure Pro-social behaviours 8 Social identity, social learning, & self-determination theories OI, organizational pride & trust, satisfaction of employees’ psychological needs for competence and relatedness, employees’ attitudes toward donations Ethical leadership perception, organizational tenure Other positive employee outcomes 19 Social identity theory Organizational identification, employee intrapreneurial behaviour, work engagement and psychological safety Human capital, relational capital 611 CSR andemployee outcomes: asystematic literature review Table 3 (continued) Outcome Number of articles Key theories Mediators Moderators Reduction of undesirable effects 45 Stakeholder, social identity & social exchange theories JS, OC, OI, organizational trust, company’s reputation, work meaningfulness & engagement, higher-order quality of work life, perceived ethical leadership, work engagement Corporate ethical values, Satisfaction with pay, satisfaction with the job, age, contextual factors and employees’ demographic features, CSR typologies Undesirable effects 11 Social identity theory OI, person-organization fit, work meaningfulness Task significance, employees’ public value awareness, moral identity, satisfaction with pay and the job 612 Y.Yassin, M.Beckmann 5.1 Descriptive summary ofthematic analysis Before explaining the desirable and undesirable employee outcomes of CSR in more details, the following Table (Table 3) serves to descriptively summarize our thematic results. It shows how many times each outcome is mentioned in our sample and links each outcome with the key theories, mediators, and moderators that explain the relationship between CSR and each employee outcome. 5.2 Desirable employee outcomes ofCSR CSR outcomes that ultimately result in desirable effects for employees encompass not only the desirable employee outcomes that are positively related with CSR but also the undesirable employee outcomes that have a negative relationship with CSR, as engaging in CSR activities help companies to reduce such undesirable impacts on employees. Most of the literature about employee outcomes of CSR was related to desirable outcomes (259 articles out of 270 studies). These employee outcomes could be directed at the individual, organization, and/or the society and environment. 5.2.1 Organizational pride Organizational pride refers to “the extent to which individuals experience a sense of pleasure and self-respect arising from their organizational membership” (Jones 2010, p. 859). It is a positive feelings and emotions related to belonging to an organization. Most of the studies reviewed investigate only the mediating effect of organizational pride on the relationship between CSR and employee outcomes such as employee performance (Donia etal. 2019; Edwards and Kudret 2017), job satisfaction (Dumitrescu and Simionescu 2015), organizational commitment (Zhou etal. 2018), employee voluntary pro-environmental behaviour (Raza et al. 2021), and employees’ desire to have a significant impact through work (John etal. 2017). On the other hand, we found only four studies from our sample dealing with organizational pride as a positive employee outcome, and not only a mediator, which leads to other positive outcomes in a causal relationship (Cheruiyot and Maru 2014); Zhou etal. 2018; Ng etal. 2019; Asante Boadi etal. 2019). 5.2.2 Organizational identification (OI) Organizational identification (OI) is the most frequently mentioned attitude in our sample, as a mediator and outcome. Since in addition to being mentioned frequently as a mediator in many articles, it is mentioned 40 times as a positive outcome. OI is defined as the “perception of oneness with or belongingness to an organization, where the individual defines him or herself in term of the organization(s) of which he or she is a member” (Mael and Ashforth 1992). Ahmed and Khan (2019), in their 613 CSR andemployee outcomes: asystematic literature review survey of 277 employees in companies in Pakistan, state that OI has two dimensions: affective and evaluative OI. Affective OI is linked to employee’s emotional attachment to the organization, while evaluative OI is related to the employee’s positive assessment of the organization’s CSR (Ahmed and Khan 2019). Based on social identity and social exchange theories, CSR enhances the relationship between the organization and the employee through enhancing OI and organizational trust (De Roeck and Maon 2018). Cheema etal. (2020a, b), through their survey of 374 employees assert that employees identify with a socially responsible organization when they perceive that it has a positive image among stakeholders. They feel pride of being part of it, which in turn, increases their self-esteem and self-worth (Wang etal. 2020; Mascarenhas etal. 2020; Rodrigo etal. 2019). Some researchers state that there is a positive direct relationship between CSR and OI (e.g. Evans and Davis 2014; He etal. 2019; Shen and Benson 2016), while others argue that this relationship is not direct and is mediated by other factors such as perceived external prestige and organizational pride (e.g. De Roeck etal. 2016), organizational trust (e.g. de Roeck and Delobbe 2012; Ghosh 2018), or overall justice (e.g. de Roeck etal. 2014). Few researchers distinguish between the different effects of different dimensions of CSR on OI. For example, Ahmed and Khan (2019) state that ICSR has a stronger link with affective OI, while ECSR is related more with evaluative OI. Also, Kim etal. (2020), based on a survey from employees of a hotel company in the USA, state that only ethical and philanthropic CSR had significant direct effects on employee OI, while Zhao etal. (2019) argue that economic and philanthropic CSR increase pride and external image of the organization, which leads to higher OI. Based on data collected from 378 employees working in South Asian local and multinational companies, Farooq etal. (2014a, b) conclude that employee CSR has the strongest effect on OI, followed by community CSR, and then consumer CSR. On the other hand, environmental CSR has no significant effect on OI according to Farooq etal. (2014a, b). In addition, our review revealed that individual differences and organizational factors could strengthen or weaken this relationship. Individual differences that proved to affect this relationship include collectivism (Farooq etal. 2014a, b), other-regarding value orientation (Evans etal. 2011a, b), empathy (Tian and Robertson 2019), CSR importance (Korschun etal. 2014). Organizational factors include organizational support (Shen and Benson 2016), first-party justice (Ghosh 2018), overall justice (De Roeck etal. 2016), ethical leadership (De Roeck and Farooq 2018), highcommitment working systems (Lin and Liu 2019), corporate ability (Brammer etal. 2015), and CSR communication (Wang and Pala 2020). 5.2.3 Organizational commitment (OC) Organizational commitment (OC) is the most frequently mentioned outcome of CSR in the literature (63 out of 270 studies reviewed). Meyer and Herscovitch (2001, p. 301) define OC as “a force that binds an individual to a course of action that is relevant to a particular target” (Lu etal. 2020). It has three dimensions: affective organizational commitment (AOC), normative commitment, and continuance commitment 614 Y.Yassin, M.Beckmann (Rodrigo etal. 2019). AOC refers to “an emotional attachment to, identification with, and involvement in the organization” (Allen and Meyer 1990, p. 1), while normative commitment is related to the ethical and moral obligation of employees to remain in the organization (Rodrigo etal. 2019). Finally, continuance commitment is related to the employees’ perceived benefits and costs that result from remaining in the company (Ahmad etal. 2020). Most of the studies investigating the CSR effects on commitment have focused mainly on AOC (e.g., Mory etal. 2016; Mueller etal. 2012; Zhu etal. 2014). Although organizational commitment, especially AOC, seems similar to OI, they are different constructs. OI, which implies the feeling of oneness with the organization, is not necessarily followed by other actions or behaviors. On the other hand, AOC involves intention to act as well as potential reactions to the organization’s CSR (Rodrigo etal. 2019). According to social identity theory, OI is an antecedent to AOC. When employees feel pride of being part of a socially responsible organization, they identify with it and achieve self-concept and self-esteem, which in turn, increase their affective organizational commitment. Few studies investigate the effect of CSR on normative commitment. For example, Mory etal. (2016), in their study of the effect of ICSR on organizational commitment, found that AOC plays a mediating role in the relationship between CSR and normative commitment. Farooq etal. (2014a, b) state that only the discretionary dimension of CSR is related to OC, while Farooq et al. (2014a, b) argue that employee CSR has the strongest effect on OI, trust, and affective OC, followed by community CSR. Our review also revealed that only one study clarifies the additional variance on employee commitment that is explained by CSR (54.1% of the total variation is explained by CSR) (Mensah etal. 2017). Overall, researchers examined the indirect relationship between CSR and OC through some mediators such as CSR involvement (Carlini and Grace 2021), job satisfaction (Chatzopoulou etal. 2021; Loor-Zambrano etal. 2020), employees’ psychological capital (Papacharalampous and Papadimitriou 2021), employee engagement (Gupta 2017; Gupta and Sayeed 2016), work meaningfulness and perceived organizational support (Glavas and Kelley 2014), organizational identification and organizational trust (De Roeck and Maon 2018; Farooq etal. 2014a, b; Malik 2015; Suh 2016), perceived external prestige (Bravo etal. 2017), organizational CSR climate and employees’ CSR-induced attributions (Lin etal. 2022), and organizational pride (Supanti etal. 2015; Tahlil Azim 2016; Zhou etal. 2018). Regarding moderators, individual differences (e.g., gender, education, tenure, age differences, and cultural differences) found to have a moderating effect on the relationship between CSR and OC (Brammer etal. 2007; Bravo etal. 2017; Hofman and Newman 2014; Mensah etal. 2017; Mueller etal. 2012). In addition, George etal. (2020), in their attempts to identify the relationship between perceived CSR and employees’ affective commitment, state that CSR importance moderates the relationship between CSR and affective commitment through organizational trust. 615 CSR andemployee outcomes: asystematic literature review 5.2.4 Organizational attractiveness andjob pursuit intentions Organizational attractiveness (OA) refers to the benefits that potential applicants or current employees perceive in working for a specific company (Jiang and Iles 2011). Signalling theory and social identity theory are the most frequent mechanisms that explain the relationship between CSR and organizational attractiveness (12 out of 17 studies). According to signalling theory, CSR has a positive effect on attracting job applicants and talented people to apply for organizations (Pfister 2020). Organizations reduce the information asymmetry in the market through sending signals to prospective employees about their positive working conditions and other responsibilities related to society and environment and hence, attract them to apply for such organizations (Farooq etal. 2014a, b; Lin etal. 2012). Similarly, social identity theory suggests that CSR enhances corporate image and reputation, which in turn increases the expected pride, identification, and consequently organizational attractiveness of potential employees (Bohlmann etal. 2018; Klimkiewicz and Oltra 2017). Some studies examined whether different aspects/ dimensions of CSR have independent association with job applicants’ attraction to organizations e.g. (Pfister 2020; Bohlmann etal. 2018; Lin etal. 2012). According to signaling theory and expectancy theory, Lin etal., (2012) assert that there is a positive effect of the economic and legal dimension of CSR on organizational attractiveness and career success expectations, while the ethical and philanthropic dimension of CSR do not have an effect on career success expectations. Also, Lis (2012), who used a policy-capturing design to explore how job applicants’ attraction to organizations is affected by different CSR dimensions. He examined different aspects of CSR (i.e., product, diversity, environment, employee relations) and found that the strongest effect on organizational attractiveness was related to diversity and employee relations aspects of CSR as compared to the other two dimensions. Moreover, based on the categorization of CSR dimensions as social, economic, and environmental, Bohlmann etal. (2018), based on an experimental vignette methodology, revealed that the positive effect of the social dimension of CSR was the strongest on organizational attractiveness as compared to other dimensions. Likewise, Pfister (2020) confirms that the social dimension of CSR has the strongest effect on organizational attractiveness, followed by the ethical dimension, and then the environmental dimension. In addition, according to the person-organization fit perspective, applicants prefer to apply for organizations that reflect their values and preferences (Kim and Park 2011; Zhang and Gowan 2012). For example, strong formalists are affected more with ethical and legal aspects of CSR, whereas high Machiavellians are less attracted to organizations with high ethical and legal performance (Zhang and Gowan 2012). Other individual factors that were found to moderate this relationship include: CSR education and other-regarding value orientation (Evans and Davis 2011; Evans etal. 2011a, b), age, and area of knowledge (Barrena-Martínez etal. 2015). 616 Y.Yassin, M.Beckmann 5.2.5 Employee engagement Employee engagement refers to “a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption” (Schaufeli etal. 2002, p. 74). It is also defined as “the harnessing of organization members’ selves to their work roles; in engagement, people employ and express themselves physically, cognitively, and emotionally during role performances” (Kahn 1990, p. 694). Simpson etal. (2020) differentiate between CSR engagement and organizational engagement. CSR engagement is the employee willingness to know about and participate in CSR activities, while organizational engagement refers to the complete involvement of employees to the organization and dedication to achieve its goals, values, and beliefs (Simpson etal. 2020). Based on social identity and social exchange theories, there is a positive relationship between CSR and employee engagement (Glavas and Piderit 2014; Tahlil Azim 2016; Afsar et al. 2020a, b). According to social identity theory, CSR enhances the external image of the organization and OI, which in turn increases employee engagement (Ali etal. 2020; van Dick etal. 2019). Furthermore, according to social exchange theory, organizational trust mediates the CSR-employee engagement relationship (Memon etal. 2020). Other mediators include job satisfaction, procedural justice, and distributive justice (Lu etal. 2020), work meaningfulness (Afsar etal. 2020a, b), and employer brand (Hosseini etal. 2022). Moreover, Smith and Langford (2011) show empirically that CSR has an additional impact on employee engagement beyond the impact of traditional HR practices. Regarding moderators, top management support is proved to strengthen this relationship (Opoku-Dakwa etal. 2018; Santhosh and Baral 2015). In addition, Farrukh etal. (2020), in their investigation of the effect of gender on the CSR-engagement relationship, have argued that women are affected more by CSR than men. Other moderators include collectivism (Lu etal. 2020), CSR importance (van Dick etal. 2019), and employees’ moral identity beliefs (Afsar etal. 2020a, b). Regarding the impact of different kinds of CSR, Gupta and Sharma (2016), who conducted a comprehensive literature review to examine the impact of CSR on engagement and performance, state that internal CSR has stronger effects on employee engagement than external CSR. Also, according to Smith and Langford (2011), ethical CSR had a stronger relationship with employee engagement than did legal CSR. Saad etal. (2021) argue that CSR toward society and CSR toward employees have a strong effect on employee engagement, While CSR toward customers have no effect on employee engagement. 5.3 Job satisfaction Job satisfaction is the “pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job or job experiences” (Locke 1976, p. 1304). Vlachos etal. 2014; Khaskheli etal. (2020) distinguish between intrinsic job satisfaction (i.e., satisfaction with the job itself) and extrinsic job satisfaction (i.e., satisfaction with the job’s external factors such as pay, working environment, and co-workers). 617 CSR andemployee outcomes: asystematic literature review Most of the studies used social identity, stakeholder, and social exchange theories to explain the effect of CSR on job satisfaction (e.g., De Roeck and Maon 2018; Low etal. 2017). As Story and Castanheira (2019); Mascarenhas etal. (2020) state, CSR, internal or external, enhances corporate image and OI, which leads to job satisfaction. In addition, Khaskheli etal. (2020), based on a survey conducted from employees of Pakistan organizations, reveal that employees’ CSR perception has a positive and significant effect on intrinsic job satisfaction but a negative effect on extrinsic job satisfaction. Also, Sanusi and Johl (2020), who proposed a framework to evaluate the influence of ICSR perception on employee intention to job continuity, state that the positive internal CSR perception of employees increases their job satisfaction, which in turn, increase employees’ intention to job continuity. Overall, researchers investigating the relationship between CSR and job satisfaction include some mediators such as organizational pride & organizational embeddedness (Ghosh and Gurunathan 2014; Ng etal. 2019), fulfilment of job needs (Du et al. 2015; Lee and Chen 2018), organizational identification & organizational trust (De Roeck and Maon 2018; Ko etal. 2019; Lin and Liu 2019), company’s reputation (Baric 2017; Dögl and Holtbrügge 2014; Voegtlin and Greenwood 2016), organizational justice (Chen and Khuangga 2021), and work meaningfulness (Glavas and Kelley 2014; Raub and Blunschi 2014). Furthermore, CSR proximity, which refers to “the extent to which employees know about and/or are actively involved in their organizations’ CSR”, moderates the effect of CSR on job satisfaction (Du etal. 2015). Employee age has a moderating effect in this relationship (Nyuur etal. 2022). 5.3.1 Employee well‑being Employee well-being includes physical, emotional, psychological, and social aspects (Krainz 2015; Promislo etal. 2012). The relationship between CSR and employee well-being could be direct or indirect through mediators such as organizational trust (Yu and Choi 2014) or work meaningfulness (Gazzola 2014). Guzzo etal. (2020), who aimed to understand how CSR leads to improving employees’ well-being and OCB, distinguish between hedonic well-being, which is related to life satisfaction, and eudaimonic well-being, which is related to personal growth. They found a positive direct relationship between employees’ CSR perception and eudaimonic well-being, while the effect on hedonic well-being was indirect and fully mediated by gratitude and compassion at work (Guzzo etal. 2020). In addition, Svergun and Fairlie (2020), based on a survey of 703 employees, argue that employees’ CSR perception have a negative relationship with stress symptoms, and buffer the positive relationship between stress symptoms, on one hand, and negative employee outcomes of depression symptoms and turnover intention, on the other hand. They also found that job satisfaction and organizational commitment partially mediate the relationship (Svergun and Fairlie 2020). Promislo etal. (2012) examined the effect of ethics and social responsibility on personal well-being, which includes: life satisfaction, vitality, job stress, and sleep problems. They found that a company’s perceived role of ethics and social responsibility had a strong positive impact on life satisfaction and vitality but had no effect 618 Y.Yassin, M.Beckmann on job stress and sleep problems. Zaighum etal. (2021) and Espasandín-Bustelo etal. (2021) state that internal CSR has a positive effect on employee’s satisfaction and happiness. In addition, Kim etal. (2018) concluded that the economic and philanthropic dimensions of CSR enhance the employees’ quality of working life, job satisfaction, and overall quality of life, while ethical and legal dimensions of CSR do not have a relationship with quality of working life (Kim etal. 2018). On the other hand, Kim etal. (2020) argue that economic CSR has a direct positive relationship with quality of working life, while ethical and philanthropic CSR has indirect positive relationship with quality of working life, through OI. 5.3.2 In‑role performance In-role performance (also named employee job/task performance or employee productivity) refers to “the behaviour directed towards formal tasks, duties, and responsibilities that are written in their job description” (Story and Neves 2015). Chaudhary (2020), who aimed to studythe impact of employees’ perception of CSR on their in-role and extra-role behaviours, state that all dimensions of CSR have a strong and positive effect on in-role performance. In contrast, Edwards and Kudret (2017), based on a case study in a multinational company, found that all CSR dimensions have an impact on in-role performance except CSR to shareholders. According to social identity theory, employees perceived external CSR is positively related to job performance through the mediation of OI (He etal. 2019; Shen and Benson 2016; Story and Castanheira 2019). On the other hand, social exchange theory explains the relationship between internal CSR and employee performance (Story and Castanheira 2019). In addition, although Almeida and Coelho (2019) as well as Edwards and Kudret (2017) found that organizational commitment mediates the relationship between CSR perception and in-role performance, Story and Castanheira (2019), based on a sample of 190 supervisor-subordinate dyads, did not support this argument and state that affective commitment did not mediate this relationship. They argue that job satisfaction partially mediates the ECSR-employee performance relationship, and fully mediate the ICSR-employee performance relationship (Story and Castanheira 2019). Other mediators include employee engagement and well-being (Ali etal. 2020; Kim and Kim 2020), quality of working life (Asante Boadi etal. 2020), job crafting (Hur etal. 2021), OCB (He etal. 2019), and prosocial motivation (Shin and Hur 2020). Regarding moderators, perceived organizational support strengthen the relationship between CSR and job performance (Hur etal. 2021). Asante Boadi etal. (2019) investigate the moderating effect of employees’ work motivation patterns (i.e., autonomous motivation and controlled motivation) and found that autonomously motivated employees have a stronger positive moderated impact on the relationship between employees CSR perception and their performance. In addition, Vlachos, Panagopoulos, and Rapp (2014) state that leadership styles and managers’ involvement in CSR activities moderate the impact of CSR on employee performance. Employment type also has a moderating effect of CSR on job performance (Yu etal. 2022). 625 CSR andemployee outcomes: asystematic literature review negative impact on employee productivity. At low levels of external CSR, the impact on employee productivity is negative. At the same time, the same negative relationship between external CSR and employee productivity occurs because of the additional costs and burdens that the company incurs as a result of the high levels of CSR activities, which affects their financial performance, and hence, their employee productivity negatively. Only at a moderate level of external CSR, Deng etal. (2020) found a positive impact on employee productivity. Moreover, they tested the moderating effect of internal CSR on the relationship and found that high levels of ICSR increase employee productivity (Deng etal. 2020). Brieger etal. (2020) investigate the relationship between CSR and employee work addiction, which refers to the employees’ tendency to work excessively hard, which result in negative consequences in their personal lives, well-being, and families. They found that although organizational CSR has a negative direct relationship with employee work addiction, it has also a positive indirect effect on employees’ work addiction through the mediation of OI and work meaningfulness. CSR increases employees’ identification with the organization and their perception of work meaningfulness, which in turn increases their tendency to work hard at the expense of their well-being and personal lives. In addition, employees’ public value awareness was investigated as a moderator in the relationship, and the results proved that the indirect effect of CSR on employee work addiction is stronger when employees’ public value awareness is high (Brieger etal. 2020). List and Momeni (2021) conduct a natural field experiment with over 1500 employees on the relationship between CSR and employee misbehaviour. They found that CSR can increases the tendency and intensity of employee’s misbehaviour due to the effect of moral licensing. CSR enhances employees’ self-image because of the ethical and pro-social acts of employees it brings. Consequently, CSR can increase employees’ shirking on their primary job duties because of the moral licensing effect of CSR (List and Momeni 2021). Regarding moderators, Donia and Tetrault Sirsly (2016) investigate the moderating effects of employees’ moral identity and self-orientation on the relationship between perceived symbolic CSR attributions and employee attitudes and behaviors. They found that symbolic CSR attributions positively affects employees’ counter productive work behaviors such as employee deviance and negatively affects employees’ positive attitudes and behaviors such as OI, organizational commitment, and OCBs. Moreover, the relationships are stronger when employee moral identity is high and when self-orientation is low (Donia and Tetrault Sirsly 2016). Donia etal. (2019) reveal that CSR importance has a moderating effect on the negative relationship between symbolic CSR attributions and individual performance (through the mediation of person-organization fit), such that the relationship will be stronger when CSR importance is high. In addition, Vlachos etal. (2014) have examined the moderating effects of two types of employees’ satisfaction (i.e., satisfaction with pay and satisfaction with the job itself) on the relationship between CSR and employees’ intentions to stay and positive recommendations. They found that these two types of job satisfaction interact with CSR differently and could weaken (attenuate) the positive effect of CSR on employee intention to stay and positive recommendations 626 Y.Yassin, M.Beckmann when satisfaction with pay is low and also when satisfaction with the job itself is high (Vlachos etal. 2014). 6 Discussion andconceptual framework 6.1 Theoretical contribution Our systematic review contributes to the literature in different ways. It gives a comprehensive overview of desirable and undesirable employee outcomes of CSR classified into four groups: organization, individual, society, and environment-oriented outcomes. In addition, it clarifies the relationship between employee outcomes as well as the mechanisms and boundary conditions that influence the relationship between CSR and employee outcomes. Moreover, we explain the different effects of different CSR dimensions on employee outcomes, as we found that the different dimensions of CSR do not have the same effect on employee attitudes and behaviours. We build a conceptual model (see Fig.3) that summarizes and reflects the literature. First, CSR has different meanings, definitions, and dimensions. We clarify the most popular definitions in CSR and micro-CSR literature. In addition, we found that 60% of the studies reviewed in our sample examine the overall effect of CSR on employees without differentiating between the effects of different dimensions of CSR on employee outcomes. The rest of the studies in our sample (109 studies) investigate the effect of one or more dimensions of CSR on employees. In our framework, we include the two most mentioned categorizations in our literature sample. The classification of internal versus external CSR is the most frequent classification of CSR mentioned in our sample with 26 studies examining the effect of internal CSR, 5 studies investigating the effect of external CSR, and 24 studies investigating the effects of both kinds of CSR. The second most frequent classification of CSR CSRdimensions Moderators Mediators Employee outcomes Organization-oriented Positive:Attractiveness,commitment,OCB-O,identification, productivity,trust,motivation, engagement,innovation Negative:deviance-O,turnoverintentions, organizational cynicism External prestige Organizational pride Organizational trust Overalljustice Organizational identification Work meaningfulness Organizational support Corporateimage&reputation Individualdifferences collectivism,other-regardingvalue orientation, empathy, CSRimportance, nationalculture,moral identity,task significance Internal CSR(relatedto employees) External CSR(relatedtoother stakeholders:community, consumers, shareholders, government,&environment) Carroll’sdimensionsof Economic,legal,ethical, discretionaryCSR society-oriented prosocialbehaviours(e.g.,donationintentions,desireto haveasignificant impact through work,volunteering, donations Environment-oriented workingsustainably,avoidingharm, conserving,influencing others, andtakinginitiative(Ones &Dilchert, 2012) Individual-oriented Positive:Job satisfaction,well-being, OCB-I, meaningfulness,skillsimprovement,knowledgesharing behaviours,innovativebehaviour Negative:Deviance-I,depression, stress emotional exhaustion,alienationfromwork Demographicfactors age,gender,education, tenure Organizational factors Organizational support, justice, ethical leadership,corporate ability,corporate entrepreneurship Environmentalfactors environmentalconsciousness, green HRM, environmentally specific servant leadership Person-organization fit Compassion at work Ethicalleadership Organizational embeddedness Fulfilment of jobneeds Prosocialmotivation Task significance Fig. 3 Conceptual framework of employee outcomes of CSR 627 CSR andemployee outcomes: asystematic literature review is Carroll’s (1991) dimensions of economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary CSR, as we found 26 studies that distinguish between the different effects of these four dimensions of CSR on employees. Second, regarding employee outcomes, we use the distinction by De Roeck and Maon (2018) who classify employee outcomes of CSR into three groups: organization, individual, and society-oriented employee outcomes. In addition, we add a fourth group which is directed to the natural environment. Organization-oriented outcomes refer to the employees’ attitudes and behaviours that have a direct impact on organizational performance, such as organizational commitment, OI, turnover intentions, and OCB directed at the organization. In contrast, individual-oriented outcomes are related to employees’ attitudes and behaviours that affect their personal well-being, such as job satisfaction. We found that most of the studies reviewed were related to these two groups (242 out of 270 studies). On the other hand, societyoriented outcomes include the employee attitudes and behaviours that are related to the well-being of the whole community and the lives of others, such as donations to charities and volunteering in social programs. We found only 8 studies that investigate employee outcomes of CSR that are directed at society. Finally, the fourth group, environment-oriented employee outcomes, encompasses the employee attitudes and behaviours directed at the natural environment. Ones and Dilchert (2012) classify them into 5 main groups: working sustainably, avoiding harm, conserving, influencing others, and taking initiative. We found only 20 in this group, almost all of them published in the past few years. In addition, we identify the desirable and undesirable outcomes in each group and found very few studies that examine undesirable impacts of CSR on employees (11 out of 270) and all of them are directed to the individual and the organization. There is no study that addresses undesirable employee outcomes that are related to society and the environment. Interestingly, the distinction between mediators, moderators, and outcomes is not clear. In fact, many outcomes are mediators for other outcomes, which can be explained by the fact that we have a multi-step process or causal relationships between outcomes with some theories explaining part of the process and other theories explaining the other part(s) of the process. For example, some researchers use social identity theory to explain the effect of CSR on employee behaviours through a multi-step process, as CSR enhances employee emotions such as organizational pride, which, in turn, increases the positive attitudes of employees such as organizational identification and organizational commitment in a sequential manner. These positive attitudes are translated into positive employee behaviours such as in-role and extra-role performance and pro-environmental behaviours. Other researchers use the social exchange path to clarify the relationship between CSR and employee attitudes and behaviours through the mediation of organizational justice and organizational trust, respectively. Hence, we conclude that most of the literature reviewed in our sample reveals that the relationship between CSR and employee outcomes is complex and follows a sequential model of mediations rather than a parallel mediation model. Third, regarding mediators, many authors use social identity and social exchange theory to explain the mediating roles of organizational pride and organizational trust as a mechanism that explain the effect of CSR on employee outcomes (159 times). 628 Y.Yassin, M.Beckmann Interestingly, almost all studies treat organizational pride and trust as mediators that explain the relationship and not as positive outcomes themselves. We found only 4 studies that consider organizational pride as a positive outcome and no study that examines organizational trust as a positive outcome. This is considered a gap in the literature and hence, we call for explicit research that treats these two factors as outcomes of their own, and not only as mediators. In addition, we found that some mediators are used as moderators by others such as person-organization fit, organizational support, overall justice, and ethical leadership. Therefore, more research is needed that distinguishes between their roles in the relationship between CSR and employee outcomes. The last column in our conceptual model (Fig.3) is related to the moderators that could strengthen or weaken the relationship. We classify moderators into four groups. The first group includes individual differences such as person-organization fit, collectivism, other-regarding value orientation, empathy, CSR importance, national culture, moral identity, and task significance, while the second group includes demographic factors such as age, gender, education, and tenure. In contrast, organizational factors include organizational support, first-party justice, overall justice, high-commitment working systems, ethical leadership, corporate ability, and corporate entrepreneurship. The last group is the environmental factors, which include factors such as environmental consciousness, green HRM, environmentally specific servant leadership. Figure3 shows the conceptual framework of our review and summarizes CSR dimensions, mediators, moderators, and employee outcomes. This review seems timely, as the last comprehensive review of Gond etal. (2017) reviewed the literature on micro foundation of CSR until 2016. We found a massive increase in the micro-CSR literature in the past six years, as 187 articles out of 270 (70%) examined in our review were published in the last six years. In addition, to our knowledge, this is the first review that explains and synthesizes the society-oriented and environment-oriented employee outcomes of CSR. Moreover, unlike previous reviews, we synthesized the literature about undesirable employee outcomes of CSR and classified them to individual or organization-oriented outcomes. 6.2 Practical implications This systematic literature review delves into the relationship between Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and employee outcomes, offering practical insights for companies seeking to understand and leverage these dynamics. Firstly, there is a need for continuous monitoring and measurement of employees’ perceptions of CSR. Managers should actively engage with these perceptions to respond promptly and cultivate a positive image of the company’s CSR initiatives. This proactive approach contributes to strengthening relationships with employees, attracting and retaining high-quality staff, and fostering positive attitudes and behaviours. Additionally, addressing negative perceptions is crucial. Companies should be careful about potential negative attitudes and behaviours resulting from a poor perception of CSR, such as cynicism and counterproductive work behaviours. 629 CSR andemployee outcomes: asystematic literature review Moreover, cultivating favourable CSR perceptions involves also embedding CSR into core business operations, ensuring congruence between actions and stakeholder expectations. Actively involving employees in CSR activities, from planning to implementation, contributes to building a positive employer-employee relationship. Detecting and rectifying these issues can lead to a competitive advantage and sustainable organizational growth. The review highlights also the importance of understanding the differential effects of various CSR dimensions on employee outcomes. This knowledge empowers managers to design and implement specific types of CSR initiatives that meaningfully enhance positive employee outcomes. A proper balance between CSR for internal and external stakeholders is deemed crucial to avoid feelings of unfairness, breach of trust, and cynicism among employees. Managers should prioritize employees’ well-being alongside external CSR efforts to maintain internal harmony. The implications extend to human resources management, challenging the notion that economic rewards are the sole motivators for employees. Investing in CSR initiatives is portrayed as a tool in human resources management, serving to motivate employees and attract and retain talented individuals. Moreover, recognizing the conditions under which CSR positively influences employees allows companies to tailor relevant human resource management policies. For instance, CSR can be strategically used to retain talented managers and appeal to younger employees. Finally, transparent CSR communication is essential. Organizations should articulate their CSR communications clearly, providing information about CSR objectives, relevance, and overall impact on the company, society, and employees. Transparent communication helps diminish employee skepticism, fostering a positive perception of CSR authenticity and cultivating a healthy and productive employeremployee relationship. 6.3 Limitations andfuture research directions The review has limitations. The search was limited to specific databases, and different databases could have generated different results. In addition, we restricted our search to only titles that included CSR-related terms. In future studies, a more expansive approach could be adopted, considering the keywords as well. Moreover, we decided to limit the search to peer-reviewed journal articles, while there could be interesting book chapters and working papers on the topic. Additionally, the focus of our literature was on the employee outcomes of CSR and mechanisms that explain these outcomes. Future research could include the drivers (antecedents) of CSR at the individual level in order to clarify the forces that trigger CSR engagement. Most of the existing research primarily focuses on employee outcomes related to individual and organizational aspects. Only 28 out of 270 studies explore the impact of corporate social responsibility (CSR) on outcomes directed towards society or the environment, such as pro-environmental behaviour. Future investigations should emphasize the influence of CSR on employees’ attitudes and behaviours contributing to community well-being and environmental preservation. 630 Y.Yassin, M.Beckmann Moreover, a noticeable gap exists in understanding employees’ perceptions of their company’s motivation for engaging in CSR, with only 8 out of 270 studies addressing this aspect. This gap may contribute to the scarcity of studies revealing negative impacts of CSR on employees, particularly when employees perceive CSR activities as self-serving (symbolic CSR), resulting in adverse effects on organizational relationships, work-related attitudes, and behaviours. Additionally, there is a dearth of studies investigating undesirable impacts of CSR on employees, especially those related to society and the environment. Future research should delve into the undesirable outcomes of CSR initiatives, shedding light on potential adverse effects on employees and broader communities. Further investigation is warranted to examine the role of contextual factors, such as geographical region, national culture, industry sector, and economic status, in determining employees’ CSR outcomes. Additionally, there is a need to explore novel employee behavioural outcomes like creativity, innovative work behaviour, and employee advocacy behaviour, as well as adverse outcomes like organizational cynicism, employee deviance, counterproductive work behaviour, and perceived organizational corruption. These emerging themes require attention in future research to advance the existing knowledge base. Future research should also consider societal factors in CSR-Employee outcomes relationship that may strengthen or weaken the relationship between CSR and employee outcomes. This includes investigating the influence of social needs, networks, role models, family support, and the societal and economic circumstances of employees’ families. 7 Conclusion The primary objective of this paper was to explore the correlation between various dimensions of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and diverse employee outcomes. The methodology was a systematic review, which involved a thorough examination of existing literature pertaining to CSR and its impact on employee outcomes, leading to the development of a comprehensive conceptual framework. This framework not only delineates the desirable and undesirable outcomes of CSR activities on employees but also incorporates the underlying mechanisms (mediators) and contextual factors (moderators) influencing this relationship. The analysis of the literature underscored that each dimension of CSR exerts distinct effects on employees’ attitudes and behaviors. Notably, the majority of studies predominantly focused on outcomes at the individual or organizational levels. The research reveals that out of 270 studies, only 28 investigate the impact of corporate social responsibility (CSR) on societal and environmental outcomes, such as pro-environmental behaviour. Additionally, the understanding of employees’ perceptions of their company’s CSR motives is limited, with just 8 studies exploring this, potentially explaining why few studies report CSR’s negative impacts on employees. These perceived negative impacts, especially when CSR is seen as symbolic or selfserving, can adversely affect organizational relationships and employee behaviour. Furthermore, there remains a scarcity of research on the potentially harmful effects 631 CSR andemployee outcomes: asystematic literature review of CSR on employees, particularly in societal and environmental contexts. We call on future research to address these gaps. In addition to its theoretical contributions, the review has practical implications. Recognizing the diverse effects of CSR on employees proves valuable for companies, enabling managers to discern the relative significance of these effects and, consequently, formulate and implement CSR strategies and policies that generate business value. A key recommendation is for managers to actively monitor and assess employees’ perceptions of CSR, allowing for prompt responsiveness and the cultivation of a positive perception regarding the company’s CSR initiatives. This proactive approach not only enhances the company’s relationship with employees but can also facilitate the attraction and retention of highly qualified staff, thereby fostering increased productivity, commitment, and other positive attitudes and behaviors. Moreover, by addressing negative perceptions stemming from CSR, such as cynicism, emotional exhaustion, and counterproductive work behaviors, companies can preemptively detect and rectify potential issues. This, in turn, culminates in a competitive advantage and sustainable growth for the organization. Funding Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. Data availability The authors confirm that all data generated or analysed during this systematic review are included in this article. Declarations Conflict of interest The authors declare that no funds, grants, or other support were received during the preparation of this manuscript. In addition, they have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose. The authors confirm that all data generated or analysed during this systematic review are included in this article. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by/4.0/. References Afridi SA, Afsar B, Shahjehan A, Rehman ZU, Haider M, Ullah M (2020) Perceived corporate social responsibility and innovative work behavior: The role of employee volunteerism and authenticity. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 27(4):1865–1877. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ csr. 1932 Afsar B, Al-Ghazali BM, Rehman ZU, Umrani WA (2020a) The moderating effects of employee corporate social responsibility motive attributions (substantive and symbolic) between corporate social responsibility perceptions and voluntary pro-environmental behavior. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 27(2):769–785. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ csr. 1843 632 Y.Yassin, M.Beckmann Afsar B, Al-Ghazali B, Umrani W (2020b) Corporate social responsibility, work meaningfulness, and employee engagement: The joint moderating effects of incremental moral belief and moral identity centrality. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 27(3):1264–1278. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ csr. 1882 Afsar B, Cheema S, Javed F (2018) Activating employee’s pro-environmental behaviors: The role of CSR, organizational identification, and environmentally specific servant leadership. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 25(5):904–911. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ csr. 1506 Afsar B, Umrani WA (2020) Corporate social responsibility and pro-environmental behavior at workplace: the role of moral reflectiveness, coworker advocacy, and environmental commitment. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 27(1):109–125. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ csr. 1777 Aggarwal P, Singh RK (2022) Synthesizing the affinity between employees’ internal-external CSR perceptions and work outcomes: a meta-analytic investigation. Bus Ethics Environ Responsib 31(4):1053–1101 Aguinis H, Glavas A (2012) What we know and don’t know about corporate social responsibility: a review and research agenda. J Manag 38(4):932–968. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 01492 06311 436079 Aguinis H, Glavas A (2019) On corporate social responsibility, sensemaking, and the search for meaningfulness through work. J Manag 45(3):1057–1086. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 01492 06317 691575 Ahmad R, Ahmad S, Islam T, Kaleem A (2020) The nexus of corporate social responsibility (CSR), affective commitment and organisational citizenship behaviour in academia: a model of trust. Empl Relat 42(1):232–247. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ ER0420180105 Ahmed Z, Khan H (2019) Impact of perceived corporate social responsibility on organizational citizenship behavior: Mediating role of organizational identification. Pakistan J Comm Soc Sci 13(4):892–914 Ali HY, Asrar-ul-Haq M, Amin S, Noor S, Haris-ul-Mahasbi M, Aslam MK (2020) Corporate social responsibility and employee performance: The mediating role of employee engagement in the manufacturing sector of Pakistan. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 27(6):2908–2919. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ csr. 2011 da Almeida M, G. M. C., & Coelho, A. F. M. (2019) The antecedents of corporate reputation and image and their impacts on employee commitment and performance: the moderating role of CSR. Corp Reput Rev 22(1):10–25. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1057/ s412990180053-8 Allen NJ, Meyer JP (1990) The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. J Occup Psychol 63(1):1–18 Álvarez-Pérez MD, Carballo-Penela A, Rivera-Torres P (2020) Work-life balance and corporate social responsibility: The evaluation of gender differences on the relationship between family-friendly psychological climate and altruistic behaviors at work. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 27(6):2777–2792. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ csr. 2001 Asante Boadi E, He Z, Boadi EK, Bosompem J, Avornyo P (2019) Consequences of corporate social responsibility on employees: the moderating role of work motivation patterns. Pers Rev 49(1):231– 249. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ PR0820180288 Asante Boadi E, He Z, Bosompem J, Opata CN, Boadi EK (2020) Employees’ perception of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and its effects on internal outcomes. Ser Indus J 40(9–10):611–632 Babu N, De Roeck K, Raineri N (2020) Hypocritical organizations: implications for employee social responsibility. J Bus Res 114(August):376–384. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jbusr es. 2019. 07. 034 Baric A (2017) Corporate social responsibility and stakeholders: Review of the last decade (2006–2015). Bus Syst Res 8(1):133–146. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1515/ bsrj20170011 Barrena-Martínez J, López-Fernández M, Márquez-Moreno C, Romero-Fernández PM (2015) Corporate social responsibility in the process of attracting college graduates. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 22(6):408–423. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ csr. 1355 Bohlmann C, Krumbholz L, Zacher H (2018) The triple bottom line and organizational attractiveness ratings: the role of pro-environmental attitude. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 25(5):912– 919. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ csr. 1507 Brammer S, He H, Mellahi K (2015) Corporate social responsibility, employee organizational identification, and creative effort: the moderating impact of corporate ability. Group Org Manag 40(3):323–352. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 10596 01114 562246 Brammer S, Millington A, Rayton B (2007) The contribution of corporate social responsibility to organizational commitment. Int J Hum Resour Manag 18(10):1701–1719. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 09585 19070 15708 66 633 CSR andemployee outcomes: asystematic literature review Bravo R, Buil I, de Chernatony L, Martínez E (2017) Brand Identity Management and Corporate Social Responsibility: an analysis from employees’ perspective in the banking sector. J Bus Econ Manag 18(2):241–257. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3846/ 16111 699. 2016. 12097 85 Brieger SA, Anderer S, Fröhlich A, Bäro A, Meynhardt T (2020) Too much of a good thing? On the relationship between CSR and employee work addiction. J Bus Ethics 166(2):311–329. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1055101904141-8 Buchholtz AK, Carroll AB (2009) Business & society: ethics & stakeholder management, 7th edn. SouthWestern Cengage Learning, Mason Camilleri MA (2016) Reconceiving corporate social responsibility for business and educational outcomes. Cogent Bus Manag 3(1):1–14. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 23311 975. 2016. 11420 44 Carroll AB (1991) The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Bus Horiz 34(4):39–48. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ 00076813(91) 90005-g. hdl: 11323/ 2358. ISSN0 0076813 Carlini J, Grace D (2021) The corporate social responsibility (CSR) internal branding model: aligning employees’ CSR awareness, knowledge, and experience to deliver positive employee performance outcomes. J Mark Manag 37(7–8):732–760. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 02672 57x. 2020. 18601 13 Chaudhary R (2020) Corporate social responsibility and employee performance: a study among Indian Business Executives. Int J Hum Resour Manag 31(21):2761–2784. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 09585 192. 2018. 14691 59 Chatzopoulou E, Manolopoulos D, Agapitou V (2021) Corporate social responsibility and employee outcomes: interrelations of external and internal orientations with job satisfaction and organizational commitment. J Bus Ethics. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1055102104872-7 Cheema S, Afsar B, Al-Ghazali BM, Maqsoom A (2020a) How employee’s perceived corporate social responsibility affects employee’s pro-environmental behaviour? The influence of organizational identification, corporate entrepreneurship, and environmental consciousness. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 27(2):616–629. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ csr. 1826 Cheema S, Afsar B, Javed F (2020b) Employees’ corporate social responsibility perceptions and organizational citizenship behaviors for the environment: the mediating roles of organizational identification and environmental orientation fit. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 27(1):9– 21. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ csr. 1769 Cheruiyot TK, Maru LC (2014) Corporate human rights social responsibility and employee job outcomes in Kenya. Int J Law Manag 56(2):152–168. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ IJLMA0120130002 Chen LF, Khuangga DL (2021) Configurational paths of employee reactions to corporate social responsibility: an organizational justice perspective. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 28(1):389–403 CEC (2001) Green paper promoting a European framework for corporate social responsibility. Commission of the European Communities, Brussels Chomvilailuk R, Butcher K (2022) How hedonic and perceived community benefits from employee CSR involvement drive CSR advocacy behavior to co-workers. Bus Ethics Environ Responsib 31(1):224–238 Dahlsrud A (2008) How corporate social responsibility is defined: an analysis of 37 definitions. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 15(1):1–13. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ csr. 132 Daily BF, Bishop JW, Govindarajulu N (2009) A conceptual model for organizational citizenship behavior directed toward the environment. Bus Soc 48:243–256 de Roeck K, Delobbe N (2012) Do environmental CSR initiatives serve organizations’ legitimacy in the oil industry? Exploring employees’ reactions through organizational identification theory. J Bus Ethics 110(4):397–412. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s105510121489-x De Roeck K, El Akremi A, Swaen V (2016) Consistency matters! How and when does corporate social responsibility affect employees’ organizational identification? J Manage Stud 53(7):1141–1168. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ joms. 12216 De Roeck K, Farooq O (2018) Corporate social responsibility and ethical leadership: investigating their interactive effect on employees’ socially responsible behaviors. J Bus Ethics 151(4):923–939. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s105510173656-6 De Roeck K, Maon F (2018) Building the theoretical puzzle of employees’ reactions to corporate social responsibility: an integrative conceptual framework and research agenda. J Bus Ethics 149(3):609– 625. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s105510163081-2 634 Y.Yassin, M.Beckmann de Roeck K, Marique G, Stinglhamber F, Swaen V (2014) Understanding employees’ responses to corporate social responsibility: mediating roles of overall justice and organisational identification. Int J Hum Resour Manag 25(1):91–112. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 09585 192. 2013. 781528 Deng X, Long X, Schuler DA, Luo H, Zhao X (2020) External corporate social responsibility and labor productivity: a S-curve relationship and the moderating role of internal CSR and government subsidy. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 27(1):393–408. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ csr. 1877 Dögl C, Holtbrügge D (2014) Corporate environmental responsibility, employer reputation and employee commitment: an empirical study in developed and emerging economies. Int J Hum Resour Manag 25(12):1739–1762. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 09585 192. 2013. 859164 Donia MBL, Ronen S, Tetrault Sirsly CA, Bonaccio S (2019) CSR by any other name? The differential impact of substantive and symbolic CSR attributions on employee outcomes. J Bus Ethics 157(2):503–523. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s105510173673-5 Donia MBL, Tetrault Sirsly CA (2016) Determinants and consequences of employee attributions of corporate social responsibility as substantive or symbolic. Eur Manag J 34(3):232–242. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. emj. 2016. 02. 004 Denyer D, Tranfield D (2009) Producing a systematic review. In: Buchanan DA, Bryman A (eds) The Sage handbook of organizational research methods. Sage Publications Ltd, pp 671–689 Dumitrescu D, Simionescu L (2015) Empricial Research Regarding the influence of corporate social responsibility (csr) activites on companies employees and financial performance. Econ Comput Econ Cyber Stud Res 49(3) Du S, Bhattacharya CB, Sen S (2015) Corporate social responsibility, multi-faceted job-products, and employee outcomes. J Bus Ethics 131(2):319–335. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s105510142286-5 Dung LT (2021) The mediating role of employee intrapreneurial behavior in Nexus between constructs of internal corporate social responsibility practices and organizational outcomes. J Asia-Pac Bus 22(2):134–154 Edwards MR, Kudret S (2017) Multi-foci CSR perceptions, procedural justice and in-role employee performance: the mediating role of commitment and pride. Hum Resour Manag J 27(1):169–188. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ 17488583. 12140 Espasandín-Bustelo F, Ganaza-Vargas J, Diaz-Carrion R (2021) Employee happiness and corporate social responsibility: the role of organizational culture. Employee Relat: Int J 43(3):609–629. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ er0720200343 Evans WR, Davis W (2014) Corporate citizenship and the employee: an organizational identification perspective. Hum Perform 27(2):129–146. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 08959 285. 2014. 882926 Evans WR, Davis WD (2011) An examination of perceived corporate citizenship, job applicant attraction, and CSR work role definition. Bus Soc 50(3):456–480. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00076 50308 323517 Evans WR, Davis WD, Frink DD (2011a) An examination of employee reactions to perceived corporate citizenship. J Appl Soc Psychol 41(4):938–964. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 15591816. 2011. 00742.x Evans WR, Goodman JM, Davis WD (2011b) The impact of perceived corporate citizenship on organizational cynicism, OCB, and employee deviance. Hum Perform 24(1):79–97. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 08959 285. 2010. 530632 Fairlie P, Svergun O (2015) The interrelated roles of CSR and stress in predicting employee outcomes. International Conference on Occupational Stress and Health, Atlanta, USA, (May) Farooq M, Farooq O, Jasimuddin SM (2014a) Employees response to corporate social responsibility: exploring the role of employees” collectivist orientation. Eur Manag J 32(6):916–927. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. emj. 2014. 03. 002 Farooq O, Payaud M, Merunka D, Valette-Florence P (2014b) The impact of corporate social responsibility on organizational commitment: exploring multiple mediation mechanisms. J Bus Ethics 125(4):563–580. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s105510131928-3 Farrukh M, Sajid M, Lee JWC, Shahzad IA (2020) The perception of corporate social responsibility and employee engagement: Examining the underlying mechanism. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 27(2):760–768. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ csr. 1842 Gao Y, He W (2017) Corporate social responsibility and employee organizational citizenship behavior: the pivotal roles of ethical leadership and organizational justice. Manag Decis 55(2):294–309. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ MD0520160284 Gao Y, Zhang D, Huo Y (2018) Corporate social responsibility and work engagement: testing a moderated mediation model. J Bus Psychol 33(5):661–673. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s108690179517-6 641 CSR andemployee outcomes: asystematic literature review Wisse B, van Eijbergen R, Rietzschel EF, Scheibe S (2018) Catering to the needs of an aging workforce: the role of employee age in the relationship between corporate social responsibility and employee satisfaction. J Bus Ethics 147(4):875–888. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s105510152983-8 Wong A, Kim S, Hwang Y (2021) Effects of perceived corporate social responsibility (CSR) performance on hotel employees’ behavior. Int J Hospital Tour Administ. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 15256 480. 2021. 19353 90 Yang F, Gao L (2021) Corporate environmental responsibility and employees’ pro-environmental behaviors at work: insights from organizational identification and workplace spirituality perspective. J Environ Plan Manag. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 09640 568. 2021. 19896 73 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. J Clean Prod 320:128751. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jclep ro. 2021. 128751 Yu Y, Choi Y (2014) Corporate social responsibility and firm performance through the mediating effect of organizational trust in Chinese firms. Chin Manag Stud 8(4):577–592. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ CMS1020130196 Yu J, Lho LH, Han H (2022) Corporate social responsibility (environment, product, diversity, employee, and community) and the hotel employees’ job performance: Exploring the role of the employment types. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 29(5):1825–1838 Zaighum SAK, Ahmad G, Kaur P (2021) Workers’ perceptions of CSR practices: analysis of a textile Organization in Pakistan.Glob Bus Manag Res13(2) Zhang L, Gowan MA (2012) Corporate social responsibility, applicants’ individual traits, and organizational attraction: a person-organization fit perspective. J Bus Psychol 27(3):345–362. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s108690119250-5 Zhao X, Wu C, Chen CC, Zhou Z (2020) The influence of corporate social responsibility on incumbent employees: a meta-analytic investigation of the mediating and moderating mechanisms. J Manag. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 01492 06320 946108 Zhou Z, Luo BN, Tang TLP (2018) Corporate social responsibility excites ‘exponential’ positive employee engagement: the Matthew effect in CSR and sustainable policy. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 25(4):339–354. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ csr. 1464 Zhu Q, Hang Y, Liu J, Lai K, Hung. (2014) How is employee perception of organizational efforts in corporate social responsibility related to their satisfaction and loyalty towards developing harmonious society in Chinese enterprises? Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 21(1):28–40. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ csr. 1302 Zhao L, Lee J, Moon S (2019) Employee response to CSR in China: the moderating effect of collectivism. Person Rev 48(3):839–863. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ PR0520170146 Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.