Dr. Deepali Soni
Assistant Professor
Amity Business School
Amity University, Madhya Pradesh
Email Id: contactsoni2014@gmail.com
Dr. Pooja Mehta
Assistant Professor
I K Gujral Punjab Technical University,
Kapurthala, Punjab
Email Id: pooja24k@gmail.com
Abstract
Organizations are increasingly adopting socially responsible business practices in response to increasing competition and rising commercial pressure from multiple stakeholder groups.However, a more comprehensive understanding of how employees perceive their organization’s CSR practices is still lacking. To broaden this understanding, the current research examined the impact of demographic variables on employees’ perception of corporate social responsibility (CSR) especially in the diverse country like India. Demographic variables such as age, gender, marital status, organizational tenure, education and income level have been taken into consideration. The study was administered on 485 employees from leading commercial banks in India. Survey was conducted to collect the data from respondents. Data was analyzed using mean score, ANOVA and post-hoc analysis. Results indicate that perception of employees towards CSR varies across different demographic variables under study. Implications were discussed and future research directions were recommended.
Keywords: Corporate Social Responsibility, Demographic Variables, Stakeholder Theory, Ethical Decision Making Theory.
Organizations are increasingly adopting socially responsible business practices in response to increasing competition and rising commercial pressure from multiple stakeholder groups. CSR refers to organization’s “actions and policies that take into account stakeholders’ expectations and the triple bottom line of economic, social, and environmental performance” (Aguinis and Glavas, 2012). Truscott et al., (2009) stated that financial institution is the most proactive institution in investing in CSR. The Indian banking sector has also adequately incorporatedCSR practices in the business operations. The corresponding CSR progress addressed financial inclusion problem by providing financial services to the unbanked or untapped banking areas of the country (Narwal, 2007; Bihari and Pradhan, 2011). Additionally, CSR in banking sector emphasizes the socio-economic development of the country by focusing on the activities, namely, poverty eradication, health and medical care, rural development, self-employment and financial literacy training, infrastructure development, education and environmental protection (Dhingra and Mittal, 2014; Hadfield and Hill, 2014).
CSR helps the organization in building corporate brand and customer loyalty (Worcester, 2009; Hildebrand et al., 2011; Balmer et al., 2017; Pratihari and Uzma, 2018), gaining competitive advantage (Porter and Kramer, 2006; Bhattacharya et al., 2008), and enhancing corporate reputation (Melo and Garrido-Morgado, 2012; Khojastehpour and Johns, 2014; Aksak et al., 2016). The extant literature indicates that majority of the studies concerning CSR primarily focused on external stakeholders such as customers (Sen and Bhattacharya, 2001) and investors (Graves and Waddock, 1994), thereby ignoring the internal stakeholders e.g., employees.Employees are one of the company's important stakeholders who provide support for achieving organizational goals. There are a few studies which examine the impact of employees’ perception of CSR on their attitude and behaviors. For instance, CSR has been shown to relate positively to organizational commitment (Turker, 2009b; Peterson, 2004; Brammer et al., 2007), job satisfaction (Glavas and Kelly, 2014; Roeck et al., 2014; Valentine and Fleischman, 2008), organizational citizenship behaviours (Jones, 2010), employee performance (Jones, 2010), retention (Jones, 2010), turnover intentions (Riordan et al., 1997), job pursuit intentions (Gully et al., 2013) and job performance (Aguilera et al., 2007; Carmeli et al., 2007).
Moreover, these studies have been carried out in developed countries such as the USA, the UK and Europe, with negligible evidence from emerging economies like India, especially banking sector. Hence, the present study attempts to bridge the above identified gaps by examining the employees’ perception towards CSR in Indian banking sector. Indian banks have also been a significant contributor to India's financial sector. It is evident that Indian workforce portrays diverse demographic characteristics in terms of gender, age, education, languages, ethnicity & culture. India has now become one of the world's fastest growing economies. Therefore, it is even more important to examine the effect of demographics on employees’ perception of CSR in the Indian context (Shukla et al., 2015).
The study may be of great value to organizations globally where employees are diverse in their background, gender, race, religion and geographical area. The behavioral patterns of diverse workforce are instrumental in understanding their perception. In this connotation, Dhir & Shukla (2015) and Sharma et al. (2017) suggested that demographics help in understanding the behavioral pattern of employees. Hence, the present study would therefore help banking organization to understand the behavioral pattern of their employees in relation to its perception regarding CSR practices.
2.1 Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)
Corporate social responsibility has strategic importance to business firms. It depicts companies’ activities and status in relation to society and its stakeholders(Luo and Bhattacharya, 2006). Past studies examined the extent to which CSR has been adopted by companies (Joyner and Payne, 2002; Lin, 2009) and measured the relationship between CSR and company’s reputation (Backhaus et al., 2002). However, there has been limited focus on employees’ perception towards CSR practices of their companies.
The term corporate social responsibility (CSR) was originated in the 1950s to describe how a company's performance should align with societal expectations (Bowen, 1953). Traditional beliefs of CSR hold that an organisation is considered to fulfil its social obligation, if it is able to provide low-cost goods and services to the society while maximising its profitability. According to socio-economic view of CSR, organizations are like citizens and their functionality have an impact on society, economy and the environment. Thus, it is assumed that the broader goal of corporate social responsibility is to maintain company's productivity for people both within and outside the company while improving the living standard of society.
Carroll (1979) defined CSR as the social expectations of an organization during a certain period, including economic responsibility, legal responsibility, ethical responsibility, and philanthropic responsibility. Subsequently, Woodward-Clyde (1999) defined CSR as “a contract between society and business wherein a community grants company a license to operate, and in return, the business meets certain obligations and behaves in an acceptable manner.” Similarly, World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) (2000) defined CSR as “the continuing commitment by business to behave ethically and contribute to economic development while improving the quality of life of the workforce and their families as well as the local community and society at large”. Subsequent to this, Commission of the European Communities (2001) addressed CSR as “a concept whereby companies integrate social and environmental concerns in their business operation and in their interaction with their stakeholders on a voluntary basis.” Lea (2002) also supported this notion and defined CSR as “the integration of social and environmental concerns in business operations, including dealings with stakeholders”. Further, Hopkins (2003) explained CSR as “treating the stakeholders of the firm ethically or in a responsible manner.” From the above discussion, it is evident that the majority of the conceptualizations of CSR address economic, ethical, legal, philanthropic and environmental dimensions. Hence, the current study adopts Carroll’s framework of CSR and undertakes to measure five dimensions of CSR viz.‘economic responsibility’, ‘ethical responsibility’, ‘legal responsibility’, ‘environmental responsibility’ and ‘philanthropic responsibility’.
2.2Relationship Between Corporate Social Responsibility and Demographic Variables
The theoretical linkage between employees’CSR perception and demographicsis supported by stakeholder theory and ethical decision- making theory. Firstly,the stakeholder theory is primarily regarded as a central paradigm for CSR (Carroll, 1991; Andre, 2013). This theory posits that the company’s long-term value lies mainly in the capabilities, knowledge and commitment of employees and their relationship with other stakeholders such as customers, investors etc. (Carroll, 1991; Lee et al., 2013).Thus, organization’s ability to develop strong affiliation with its stakeholders can significantly determine its survival and performance (Roeck et al., 2014; Korschun, 2015). Since employees are one of the most important stakeholders for any business organization (Greenwood, 2007; Lee et al., 2013), its ability to meet the social obligations can improve employees’ perception towards CSR(Mitchell et al., 1997; Greening & Turban, 2000; Mohr and Webb, 2005).
The second theory that can explain the linkage between demographics and CSR perception is ethical decision-making theory developed by Rest (1986). The theory explained that an individual’s perception of social responsibility is influenced by individual and organizational characteristics. According to the theory, individual perception of moral intensity varies across personal characteristics. Hence, demographic characteristics of an individual are likely to play a significant role in shaping their perceptions and behaviour concerning corporate social responsibility (CSR) (Cheah et al., 2011).Harrison (1995) has also argued that demographic information is useful in shaping individual behaviour towards CSR. Similarly, McLachlan and Gardner (2004) found statistically significant differences in the perception of moral intensity among different stakeholders.
Past studies demonstrated the effect of demographics on employees’ perception towards CSR practices. For instance, Gunawan and Putra(2014) stated that demographic factors such as age, gender, education and work experience have a significant impact on employees’ perception towards CSR. Akintayo (2003) and Ali et al. (2010) revealed that there is a positive correlation between age and stakeholders’ perception towards CSR.The study highlighted the importance of exploring demographics characteristics to understand the stakeholders’ perception. Furthermore, Akintayo and Abu (2006) stated that educational qualification has a significant impact on employees’ perception such that graduated employees exhibited positive perception towards CSR initiatives of the organization than the non-graduated ones. It has also been observed that organizational tenure significantly affects employees’ perception towards CSR (Akintayo, 2003; Gunawan & Putra,2014). Hur et al. (2015) investigated the gender differences in corporate social responsibility (CSR) perceptions of stakeholders. The research revealed that as compared to men, women stakeholders portrayed positive perception towards CSR. Bakan and Buyukbese(2013) statistically supported the positive relationship between employees’ income level and their perception. Authors found that employees with high income levels have reported more positive perception. Additionally, Low(2020) also supported the significant difference in employees’perception towards social responsibility across their marital status.
Following the above discussion, it is clear that demographic characteristics such as gender, age, marital status, income, qualification and length of service or tenure in the organization tend to have significant impact on the perception of employees towards corporate social responsibility practices. Hence, the study proposes following hypotheses:
H1: Gender significantly influences employees’ perception towards CSR.
H2: Age significantly influences employees’ perception towards CSR.
H3: Educational qualification significantly influences employees’ perception towards CSR.
H4: Marital status significantly influences employees’ perception towards CSR.
H5: Income significantly influences employees’ perception towards CSR.
H6: Length of service significantly influences employees’ perception towards CSR.
The current study adopted a cross-sectional design and collected data from 485 employees working in select top ten Indian banks operating in Delhi viz. HDFC Bank, ICICI Bank, Axis Bank, State bank of India, Punjab national Bank, Canara Bank, Kotak Mahindra Bank, Yes Bank, IndusInd Bank, and Bank of Baroda. The data was collected through self-administered questionnaire.Out of the 485 respondents, 44per cent were male and 56per cent were female. A majority of respondents i.e., 53per centbelonged to the age group of 21–30 years, 33per centbelonged to the age group of 31–40 years,11per centbelonged to the age group of 41-50years and the remaining 3per centwere above 50 years of age. In addition to this, 56per cent of respondents were married. A majority of respondents i.e., 57per cent held a post graduate degree followed by 25.9 per cent of graduates and 16.9 percent respondents who had a qualification higher than post graduate. Regarding work experience, 59per centof respondents had below 5 years’ work experience, 21per centhad 5–10 years’ work experience, 2per cent had 11–15 years’ work experience, and the remaining 19per centhad more than 15 years’ work experience.
3.2 Measurement Instrument
For the purpose of final survey, a questionnaire consisted of two sections was used. The first section of the questionnaire included items related to demographic information of the respondents like, gender, age, educational qualification, marital status, organizational tenure and income. The second section of the questionnaire included the scale to measure employees’ perception towards CSR practices of banks. Employees’ perception towards CSR practices was measured using nineteen items covering five dimensions viz. “economic responsibility”, “ethical responsibility”, “legal responsibility”, “philanthropic responsibility” and “environmental responsibility”. Perception towards ‘economic responsibility’ was measured using a four items scale adapted from Lee et al. (2013). Perception towards ‘legal responsibility’ was also measured using a four items scale of Lee et al. (2013). Also, perception towards ‘philanthropic responsibility’ was measured using a four-item scale adapted from Lee et al. (2013). ‘Environmental responsibility’ was measured using the scale consisting three items developed by Hanzaee&Rahpeima (2013), and to measure ‘ethical responsibility’ the scale containing four items developed by Lin (2010) was adapted. The responses to these items were evaluated on a five-point Likert scale. The value of composite reliability for the responses came out to be greater than 0.70 which is above the prescribed value for consideration (Bagozzi &Yi, 1988). Furthermore, the value of AVE is also accepted as it is above 0.50 (Hair et al., 2014). Thus, reliability and validity of the scale wasestablished.
To examine the impact of demographics characteristics on employees’ perception towards corporate social responsibility practices of banks, six demographic variables viz. gender, age, qualification, marital status, length of service and income were selected. Gender was measured using three categories namely, ‘male’, ‘female’ and ‘others’. Age of the respondents was measured using four categories viz. 21-30 years, 31-40 years, 41-50 years and above 50 years. Further, the variable ‘qualification’ included three categories namely, ‘graduate’, ‘post graduate’ and ‘above post graduate’. Marital status had two categories namely, ‘single’ and ‘married’. Length of service was measured using four categories namely, below 5 years, 5-10 years, 11-15 years and more than 15 years, and finally income was measured using four categories viz. less than 20000’, ‘20000-35000’, ‘35000-50000’ and ‘50000 & above.
For the purpose of examining the relationship, demographical variables were considered as independent variables and employees’ perception towards CSR practices was considered as dependent variable. As all the demographic variables are categorical in nature and the employees’ perception towards CSR practices is a scale variable, ANOVA was applied to examine the difference in the employees’ perception towards CSR practices across the demographic variables. Further, Post-hoc test using Least Square Difference (LSD) was also applied after conducting ANOVA, wherever the difference in the employees’ perception regarding CSR across the demographics was found significant. Table 1 given below shows the overall mean score of employees’ perception towards CSR practicesacross the demographic variables viz. gender, marital status, educational qualification, age, tenure and income per month.
|
Table 1: Mean score of employees’ perception towards Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) across the Demographic Variables |
|||
|
Demographic variables |
CSR |
||
|
Mean |
SD |
||
|
Gender |
Male |
4.45 |
.375 |
|
Female |
4.60 |
.362 |
|
|
Age |
21-30 years |
4.48 |
.354 |
|
31-40 years |
4.57 |
.402 |
|
|
41-50 years |
4.57 |
.387 |
|
|
Above 50 years |
4.83 |
.103 |
|
|
Qualification |
Graduate |
4.60 |
.000 |
|
Post-graduate |
4.45 |
.437 |
|
|
Above post graduate |
4.57 |
.338 |
|
|
Marital Status |
Single |
4.51 |
.370 |
|
Married |
4.55 |
.376 |
|
|
Length of service |
Below 5 years |
4.49 |
.386 |
|
5-10 years |
4.54 |
.346 |
|
|
11-15 years |
4.42 |
.343 |
|
|
more than 15 years |
4.69 |
.328 |
|
|
Income |
less than 20000 |
4.63 |
.310 |
|
20000-35000 |
4.46 |
.322 |
|
|
35000-50000 |
4.44 |
.393 |
|
|
50000 & above |
4.70 |
.376 |
|
After estimating the mean score of employees’ perception towardsCSR activities across all the demographic variables, ANOVA was applied for making comparison of overall mean score of employees’ perception towards CSR practices across each demographic variable's respective groups. Results of ANOVA are described in the table 2 below.
|
Table 2 ANOVA of Employees’ perception towards Corporate Social Responsibility across Demographic Variables |
||||||
|
Demographic Variable |
Variation |
Sum of Squares |
Df |
Mean Score |
F-value |
p-value |
|
Gender |
Between groups |
2.449 |
1 |
2.449 |
18.135 |
.000 |
|
Within groups |
65.227 |
483 |
.135 |
|||
|
Total |
67.676 |
484 |
|
|||
|
Age |
Between groups |
2.649 |
3 |
.883 |
6.531 |
.000 |
|
Within groups |
65.027 |
481 |
.135 |
|||
|
Total |
67.676 |
484 |
|
|||
|
Qualification |
Between groups |
1.594 |
2 |
.797 |
5.813 |
.003 |
|
Within groups |
66.082 |
482 |
.137 |
|||
|
Total |
67.676 |
484 |
|
|||
|
Marital Status |
Between groups |
.281 |
1 |
.281 |
2.017 |
.156 |
|
Within groups |
67.394 |
483 |
.140 |
|||
|
Total |
67.676 |
484 |
|
|||
|
Length of service |
Between groups |
2.810 |
3 |
.937 |
6.947 |
.000 |
|
Within groups |
64.865 |
481 |
.135 |
|||
|
Total |
67.676 |
484 |
|
|||
|
Income |
Between groups |
5.968 |
3 |
1.989 |
15.506 |
.000 |
|
Within groups |
61.708 |
481 |
.128 |
|||
|
Total |
67.676 |
484 |
|
|||
It is observed from the table 2 that gender, age, qualification, length of service and income were found to be significant in explaining differences in employees’ perception towards CSR practices of banks, whereas marital status was found to be insignificant in explaining the variation in employees’ perception towards CSR practices of banks. Afterwards, LSD was applied to examine which groups of demographic variables contributed significantly in the explaining the variation in employees; perception towards CSR practices. The procedure was repeated for gender, age, qualification, length of service and income separately. Results of LSD are described in table 3 below.
|
Table 3: Post-Hoc Tests for Multiple Comparisons applying Least Square Difference (LSD) |
|||||
|
Age(I) |
Age(J) |
Mean Difference(I-J) |
Standard Error |
Sig. |
|
|
Age |
21-30 years |
31-40 years |
-.083 |
.037 |
.025 |
|
41-50 years |
-.089 |
.057 |
.118 |
||
|
Above 50 years |
-.346 |
-.085 |
.000 |
||
|
31-40 years |
21-30 years |
.083 |
.037 |
.025 |
|
|
41-50 years |
-.006 |
.060 |
.925 |
||
|
Above 50 years |
-.263 |
.087 |
.003 |
||
|
41-50 years |
21-30 years |
.089 |
.057 |
.118 |
|
|
31-40 years |
.006 |
.060 |
.925 |
||
|
Above 50 years |
-.258 |
.097 |
.008 |
||
|
Above 50 years |
21-30 years |
.346 |
.085 |
.000 |
|
|
31-40 years |
.263 |
.087 |
.003 |
||
|
41- 50 years |
.258 |
.097 |
.008 |
||
|
|
Qualification(I) |
Qualification(J) |
|
|
|
|
Qualification |
Graduate |
Post Graduate |
.150 |
.127 |
.239 |
|
|
|
Above Post Graduate |
.028 |
.125 |
.824 |
|
|
Post Graduate |
Graduate |
-.150 |
.127 |
.239 |
|
|
|
Above Post Graduate |
.122 |
.036 |
.001 |
|
|
Above Post Graduate |
Graduate |
-.028 |
.125 |
.824 |
|
|
|
Post Graduate |
.122 |
.036 |
.001 |
|
|
Length of Service(I) |
Length of Service(J) |
|
|
|
|
Length of service |
Below 5 years
|
5-10 years |
-.046 |
.043 |
.279 |
|
11-15 years |
.064 |
.118 |
.590 |
||
|
more than 15 years |
-.199 |
.045 |
.000 |
||
|
5-10 years |
Below 5 years |
.046 |
.043 |
.279 |
|
|
11-15 years |
.110 |
.122 |
.367 |
||
|
more than 15 years |
-.153 |
.054 |
.004 |
||
|
11-15 years |
Below 5 years |
-.064 |
.118 |
.590 |
|
|
5-10 years |
-.110 |
.122 |
.367 |
||
|
more than 15 years |
-.263 |
.122 |
.032 |
||
|
More than 15 years |
Below 5 years |
.199 |
.045 |
.000 |
|
|
5-10 years |
.153 |
.054 |
.004 |
||
|
11-15 years |
.263 |
.122 |
.032 |
||
|
Income |
less than 20000 |
20000-35000 |
.163 |
.078 |
.036 |
|
35000-50000 |
.182 |
.079 |
.022 |
||
|
50000 & above |
-.072 |
.079 |
.364 |
||
|
20000-35000 |
less than 20000 |
-.163 |
.078 |
.036 |
|
|
35000-50000 |
.019 |
.040 |
.642 |
||
|
50000 & above |
-.235 |
.040 |
.000 |
||
|
35000-50000 |
less than 20000 |
-.182 |
.079 |
.022 |
|
|
20000-35000 |
-.019 |
.040 |
.642 |
||
|
50000 & above |
-.254 |
.043 |
.000 |
||
|
50000 and above |
less than 20000 |
.072 |
.079 |
.364 |
|
|
20000-35000 |
.235 |
.040 |
.000 |
||
|
35000-50000 |
.254 |
.043 |
.000 |
||
The linkage between employees’ perception towards CSR practices with each demographic variable has beendiscussed below:
Relationship between Gender and Employees’ Perception towards CSR Practices of Bank:The mean score of employees’ perception towards corporate social responsibility was compared between two categories of gender viz. male and female using ANOVA. The result of ANOVA from the table 2 depicted that F-value was 18.135 and p-value was .000 (p<.05). This implied the existence of significant difference in perception of male and female employees towards CSR practices of banks. Hence, the hypothesis H1 was accepted.
Further, on comparing means from the table 1, it was observed that the mean score of employees’ perception towards CSR practices for the female employees (4.60) was greater than male employees (4.45). Therefore, the findings reflected more positive view of female employees’ perception towards CSR practices than male employees.
Relationship between Age and Employees’ Perception towards CSR Practices of Bank:The mean values of employees’ perception towards CSR practices were compared across the four age groups viz. “21-30 years, 31-40 years, 41-50 years, above 50 years” using ANOVA. The result of ANOVA from the table 2 depicted that F-value was 6.531 and p-value was .000 (p<.05). The ANOVA results confirmed thesignificant difference in the perception of employees towards CSR practices across all the age-groups. Hence, the hypothesis H2 was accepted.
Further, on comparing the means of each category of age group using LSD method (table 3), the level of employees’ perception towards CSR practices from the age group ‘21-30 years’ was found to be significantly different from those of ‘above 50 years’ (p=.000; p<.05) and ‘31-40 years’ (p=.02; p<.05). As it can be seen from the table 1,the mean value of the age group ‘above 50 years’ (4.83) was greater than the mean value of the age group ‘21-30 years’ (4.48) and ‘31-40 years’ (4.57). This comparison shows that employees belonging to the ‘Above 50 years’ age group had a more positive view about CSR practices than those belong to the age group ‘below 50 years’, ‘21-30 years’, and ‘31-40 years’.
Relationship between Qualification and Employees’ Perception towards CSR Practices of Bank:The mean score of employees’ perception towards corporate social responsibility was compared across the three qualification groups viz. ‘graduate’, ‘Postgraduate’ and ‘above postgraduate’ using ANOVA. The results of ANOVA from the table 2 depicted a significant difference in the perception of employees towards CSR practices based on the level of qualification (F=5.813; P=.003). Hence, the hypothesis H3 was accepted.
Further, on comparing the mean value of each category of qualification using LSD method (table 3), it is clear that employees’ perception towards CSR significantly differ across the qualification group. As it can be seen from the table 3, p-value for the ‘above post-graduate’ came out to be 0.001 (p<.05). Further, results from table 1 reveal that the mean score of employees’ perception towards CSR for the ‘above postgraduate’ (4.53) was greater than that of ‘postgraduate group’ (4.45). This comparison indicated that employees who possess the qualification higher than postgraduate have a more positive view towards CSR practices than the employees who are postgraduate.
Relationship between Marital Status and Employees’ Perception towards CSR Practices of Bank:The mean score of employees’ perception towards CSR practices was compared between single and married employees using ANOVA. It is evident from the table 2 that no significant difference exists in the employees’ perception towards CSR practices for single and married employees (F=2.017, p=0.156). Hence, the hypothesis H4 was rejected.
Relationship between Length of Service and Employees’ Perception towards CSR Practices of Bank:The mean score of employees’ perception towards CSR practices was compared across the four groups of length of service viz. ‘below 5 years’, ‘5-10 years’, ‘11-15 years’, and ‘more than 15 years’ using ANOVA. The result of ANOVA from the table 2 depicted that there was significant difference in the employees’ perception towardsCSR practices across all the four groups having different of length of service (F= 6.947; p=.000). Hence, the hypothesis H5 was accepted.
Further, on comparing the means of each category of the four groups using LSD method (see table 3), the perception towards CSR practices of employees having length of service ‘more than 15 years’ was found to be significantly different from employees who belong to the group ‘below 5 years’ (p=0.00), ‘5-10 years’ (p=.004) and ‘11-15 years’ (p=.032). As can be seen in the table 1, the mean value of perception towards CSR practices of those who have spent ‘more than 15 years’ (4.69) was greater than that of employees who have spent ‘less than 5 years’ (4.49), ‘5-10 years’ (4.54) and ‘11-15 years’ (4.42) respectively. Therefore, the results suggested that employees who have spent more than 15 years in their respective banks hold more positive perception towards CSR practices than employees who have shorter length of service.
Relationship between Income and Employees’ Perception towards CSR Practices of Bank:The mean score ofemployees’ perception towards CSR practices was compared across the four groups of income per month viz. ‘less than 20000’, ‘20000-35000’, ‘35000-50000’ and ‘more than 50000’ using ANOVA. The results of ANOVA from the table 2 depicted that there was significant difference in employees’ perception towards CSR practices across all the four income groups (F= 15.506; P=.000). Hence, the hypothesis H6 was accepted.
Further, on making multiple comparisons using LSD method (table 3), perception towards CSR practices of employees who belong to the income group ‘less than 20000’ was found to be significantly different from those who belong to income group ‘20000-35000’ (p=.036) and ‘35000-50000’ (p=0.022). As it can be seen in the table 2, the mean value of employees’ perception towards CSR practices for the income group ‘less than 20000’ (4.63) was greater than the that of the income group ‘20000-35000’ (4.46) and ‘35000-50000’ (4.44). This comparison indicated that employees belong to the income group ‘less than 20000’ holds more positive perception towards CSR practices of banks than those who belong to higher income groups.
Similarly, it was also observed that the employees’ perception towards CSR practices of the income group ‘20000-35000’ was different than that of the income group ‘50000 and above’. As it can be seen from the table 1, the mean score of the employees’ perception towards CSR practices of the income group ‘more than 50000’ (4.70) was greater than that of the income group ‘20000-35000’ (4.46). The results suggested that employees who belong to the income group ‘more than 50000’ hold more positive perception towards CSR practices than employees who belong to income group ‘20000-35000’. Likewise, employees’ perception towards CSR practices of the income group ‘35000-50000’ was different from that of income group ‘50000 and above’. As it can be seen from the table 1, the mean score of the employees’ perception towards CSR practices of the income group ‘more than 50000’ (4.70) was greater than that of the income group ‘35000-50000’ (4.44). The results suggested that employees who belong to the income group more than 50000 hold more positive perception towards CSR practices than employees who belong to income group 35000-50000.
Results from the current study revealed that employees’ perception towards CSR practices varies with respect to five demographic variables namely age, gender, tenure, education and income. However, marital status turned out to be insignificant in determining the difference in the employees’ perception towards CSR.The study identified that employees’perception towards CSR varies across different age groups such that employees who are older exhibited more positive perception towards CSR practices followed by their banks than younger ones. It may be because older people are relatively more sensitive towards societal issues than the younger ones.The results are also in line with the research conducted by Akintayo (2003) and Ali et al. (2010).
The current study also reflected more positive view of female employees about CSR practices than male employees. The reason behind this may be that women are more likely to concentrate on interdependence in relation to close relationships with specific individuals or organisations (Glass et al., 2015). This socializing nature of women encourages them for building relationships and executing CSR practices to improve the living conditions of the society. This finding is also supported by Hur et al. (2015). The author investigated gender differences in employees’ perception towards corporate social responsibility (CSR) practices and found that women stakeholders have more positive perception towards CSR than men.
It was also evident that highly qualified employees more positive view towards CSR practices than less qualified employees. It may be because higher education gives more insight to put more importance on the CSR activities. This is similar to the research conducted by Akintayo and Abu (2006). Author stated that educational qualification has a significant impact on employees’ perception such that highly educated employees have a positive perception towards CSR initiatives of the organization than the less educated ones.
The results also suggested that employees who have spent more than 15 years in their respective banks holds more positive perception towards CSR practices than employees who have short length of service. This may be because the fact that the longer stay in the same organization instills the sense of belongingness in the employees and they perceive every action of their organization as recognizable and praiseworthy. The findings corroborated with Akintayo (2003) and Gunawan & Putra (2014) who observed that length of service significantly affect employees’ perception towards CSR.
Present study also found that employees whohave income of more than Rs. 50000 hold more positive perception towards CSR practices than employees who have lesser income. The results are aligned with the study conducted by Bakan and Buyukbese(2013). Author statistically supported the positive relationship between employees’ income level and their perception towards CSR practices.
The present study aims to analyze the relationship between demographic variables and employees’ perception towards CSR practices in the Indian banking sector. Since the study of demographics helps in predicting the behavioural pattern of an individual, the results enable banking organizations to devise the CSR program accordingly. The study provides new directions for researchers by opening up a debate on the impact of demographics on the employees’ perception towards CSR. The study empirically validated the interrelationship between demographics and employees’ perception towards CSR. Hence, it provides useful implications for HR practitioners and policy makers to devise effective CSR program.Results of the study advocate formulating different strategies to enhance the perception of its diverse employees towards CSR practices. Managers should reconcile policies, strategies, and organizational processesof the organization by taking into account age, gender, tenure, education and income of employeesto improve their perception towards CSR practices.
The current study highlighted the broader perspective by linking demographics to the employees’ perception towards CSR. However, there are some limitations of the study, which open up the new avenues for the future research. Firstly, the study evaluated differences in employees’ perception towards CSR practices with respect to their demographic characteristics and did not take into account the role of other contextual factors like personality traits. Secondly, the study was conducted in the Indian banking sector. Future studies can be conducted in other sectors of Indian economy. Moreover, the results obtained in the Indian context cannot be as such generalized for other countries. Hence, future studies may be undertaken to validate the relationship in other countries. In addition to it, a cross-cultural comparison of India and other countries can also be conducted. Lastly, the study adopted cross-sectional research design which does not provide insights about the improvement in employees’ perception towards CSR over a period of time. Longitudinal analysis may be conducted in future to widen the scope of the study and generalize thefindings.
References
Aguilera, R. V., Rupp, D. E., Williams, C. A., & Ganapathi, J. (2007). Putting the S back in corporate social responsibility: A multilevel theory of social change in organizations. Academy of management review, 32(3), 836-863.
Aguinis, H. and Glavas, A. (2012), “What We know and don’t know about corporate social responsibility”, Journal of Management, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 932-968.
Aksak, E.O., Ferguson, M.A. and Duman, S.A. (2016). Corporate social responsibility and CSR fit as predictors of corporate reputation: a global perspective. Public Relations Review,42(1),79-81.
Ali, I., Rehman, K. U., Ali, S. I., Yousaf, J., & Zia, M. (2010). Corporate social responsibility influences, employee commitment and organizational performance. African journal of Business management, 4(13), 2796.
André, K. (2013). The ethics of care as a determinant for stakeholder inclusion and CSR perception in business education. Society and Business Review, 8(1), 32-44.
Backhaus, K. B., Stone, B. A., & Heiner, K. (2002). Exploringthe relationship between corporate social performance and employer attractiveness. Business & Society, 41(3), 292-318.
Bakan, I., &Buyukbese, A. T. (2013). The relationship between employees' income level and employee job satisfaction: An empirical study. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 4(7).
Bhattacharya, C. B., Sen, S., &Korschun, D. (2008). Using corporate social responsibility to win the war for talent. MIT Sloan management review, 49(2).
Bowen, Z. (1953). Bowen. HR,(1953), Social Responsibilities of the Businessman: New York: Harper & Row.
Brammer, S., Millington, A., & Rayton, B. (2007). The contribution of corporate social responsibility to organizational commitment. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18(10), 1701-1719.
Carmeli, A., Gilat, G., & Waldman, D. A. (2007). The role of perceived organizational performance in organizational identification, adjustment and job performance. Journal of management studies, 44(6), 972-992.
Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. Academy of management review, 4(4), 497-505.
Carroll, A. B. (2016). Carroll’s pyramid of CSR: taking another look. International journal of corporate social responsibility, 1(1), 1-8.
Chahoud, T., Emmerling, J., Kolb, D., Kubina, I., Repinski, G., &Schläger, C. (2007). Corporate social and environmental responsibility in India-assessing the UN global compact's role,26,127.
Cheah, I., &Phau, I. (2011). Attitudes towards environmentally friendly products: The influence of ecoliteracy, interpersonal influence and value orientation. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 29(5), 452-472.
Commission of the European Communities. Directorate-General for Regional Policy, European Commission. Directorate-General for Press, & Communication. (2001). Working for the Regions. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities
Davis, K. (1973). The case for and against business assumption of social responsibilities. Academy of Management journal, 16(2), 312-322.
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. The international journal of human resource management, 25(1), 91-112.
Dhingra, D., & Mittal, R. (2014). CSR practices in Indian banking sector. Global Journal of Finance and Management, 6(9), 853-862.
El Akremi, A., Gond, J. P., Swaen, V., De Roeck, K., &Igalens, J. (2018). How do employees perceive corporate responsibility? Development and validation of a multidimensional corporate stakeholder responsibility scale. Journal of management, 44(2), 619-657.
Funk, C., Peterson, P., Landsfeld, M., Pedreros, D., Verdin, J., Shukla, S., ... & Michaelsen, J. (2015). The climate hazards infrared precipitation with stations—a new environmental record for monitoring extremes. Scientific data, 2(1), 1-21.
Glavas, C., Pike, S., & Mathews, S. (2014). Internet‐enabled tourism entrepreneurs. International entrepreneurial values elicited through repertory test and laddering analysis. International Journal of Tourism Research, 16(1), 44-55.
Graves, S. B., & Waddock, S. A. (1994). Institutional owners and corporate social performance. Academy of Management journal, 37(4), 1034-1046.
Greening, D. W., & Turban, D. B. (2000). Corporate social performance as a competitive advantage in attracting a quality workforce. Business & society, 39(3), 254-280.
Greenwood, M. (2007). Stakeholder engagement: Beyond the myth of corporate responsibility. Journal of Business ethics, 74, 315-327.
Gully, S. M., Phillips, J. M., Castellano, W. G., Han, K., & Kim, A. (2013). A mediated moderation model of recruiting socially and environmentally responsible job applicants. Personnel psychology, 66(4), 935-973.
Gunawan, J., & Putra, Z. D. P. (2014). Demographic factors, corporate social responsibility, employee engagement and corporate reputation: a perspective from hotel industries in Indonesia. Chin Business Rev, 13(8), 509-520.
Hadfield-Hill, S. (2014). CSR in India: Reflections from the Banking Sector. Social Responsibility Journal, 10, 21-37.
https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-11-2012-0145
Harrison, A., & Sepúlveda, C. (2011). Learning from developing country experience: Growth and economic thought before and after the 2008–2009 crisis. Comparative Economic Studies, 53, 431-453.
Hildebrand, D., Sen, D. and Bhattacharya, C.B. (2011), “Corporate social responsibility: A corporate marketing perspective”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 45 No. 9/10, pp. 1353-1364.
Hopkins, M. (2003). The business case for CSR: where are we?. International Journal of Business Performance Management, 5(2-3), 125-140.
Humphrey, J., & Messner, D. (2006). China and India as emerging global governance actors: Challenges for developing and developed countries.
Jones, G., & Kramar, R. (2010). CSR and the building of leadership capability. Journal of Global Responsibility, 1(2), 250-259.
Joyner, B. E., & Payne, D. (2002). Evolution and implementation: A study of values, business ethics and corporate social responsibility. journal of Business Ethics, 41, 297-311.
Karim, K., Suh, S., & Tang, J. (2016). Do ethical firms create value?. Social Responsibility Journal, 12(1), 54-68.
Khojastehpour, M. and Johns, R. (2014), “The effect of environmental CSR issues on corporate/Brand reputation and corporate profitability”, European Business Review,26(4), 330-339.
Korschun, D. (2015). Boundary-spanning employees and relationships with external stakeholders: A social identity approach. Academy of Management Review, 40(4), 611-629.
Lee, E. M., Park, S. Y., & Lee, H. J. (2013). Employee perception of CSR activities: Its antecedents and consequences. Journal of business research, 66(10), 1716-1724.
Lin, C. H., Yang, H. L., & Liou, D. Y. (2009). The impact of corporate social responsibility on financial performance: Evidence from business in Taiwan. Technology in society, 31(1), 56-63.
Luo X, Bhattacharya CB. 2006. Corporate social responsibility, customer satisfaction, and market value. Journal of Marketing 70: 1–18. DOI: 10.1509/jmkg.70.4.1.
Maignan, I., & Ralston, D. A. (2002). Corporate social responsibility in Europe and the US: Insights from businesses’ self-presentations. Journal of International Business Studies, 33, 497-514.
McLachlan, J., & Gardner, J. (2004). A comparison of socially responsible and conventional investors. Journal of Business Ethics, 52, 11-25.
Melo, T. and Garrido-Morgado, A. (2012), “Corporate reputation: a combination of social responsibility and industry”, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 19(1), 11-31.
Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of management review, 22(4), 853-886.
Mohr, L. A., & Webb, D. J. (2005). The effects of corporate social responsibility and price on consumer responses. Journal of consumer affairs, 39(1), 121-147.
Narwal, Mahabir (2007). CSR Initiatives of Indian Banking Industry. Social Responsibility Journal, 3(4), 49–60. doi:10.1108/17471110710840233
Peterson, D. K. (2004). The relationship between perceptions of corporate citizenship and organizational commitment. Business & society, 43(3), 296-319.
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2006). The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard business review, 84(12), 78-92.
Pratihari, S. K., & Uzma, S. H. (2018). Corporate social identity: an analysis of the Indian banking sector. International Journal of Bank Marketing.
Ramayah, T., Falahat, M., & Soto‐Acosta, P. (2022). Effects of corporate social responsibility on employee commitment and corporate reputation: Evidence from a transitional economy. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 29(6), 2006-2015.
Riordan, C. M., Gatewood, R. D., & Bill, J. B. (1997). Corporate image: Employee reactions and implications for managing corporate social performance. Journal of Business ethics, 16(4), 401-412.
Sen, S., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2001). Does doing good always lead to doing better? Consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility. Journal of marketing Research, 38(2), 225-243.
Sharma, V., Poulose, J., Mohanta, S., & Antony, L. E. (2018). Influence of the dimensions of CSR activities on consumer purchase intention. Innovative Marketing, 14(1), 23.
Suresh Chandra Bihari & Sudeepta Pradhan (2011) CSR and Performance: The Story of Banks in India, Journal of Transnational Management, 16:1, 20-35, DOI: 10.1080/15475778.2011.549807
Truscott, T. T., & Techet, A. H. (2009). Water entry of spinning spheres. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 625, 135-165.
Turker, D. (2009). Measuring corporate social responsibility: A scale development study. Journal of business ethics, 85, 411-427.
Valentine, S., & Fleischman, G. (2008). Ethics programs, perceived corporate social responsibility and job satisfaction. Journal of business ethics, 77, 159-172.
Williamson, D., Lynch-Wood, G., & Ramsay, J. (2006). Drivers of environmental behaviour in manufacturing SMEs and the implications for CSR. Journal of business ethics, 67, 317-330.
Worcester, R. (2009). Reflections on corporate reputations. Management Decision, 47, 573-589.
