Page 1 of 10
Archives of Business Research – Vol. 9, No. 9
Publication Date: September 25, 2021
DOI:10.14738/abr.99.10905. Lin, J., & Huang, C. (2021). The Effects on Corporate Social Responsibility by Shares and Teamwork Culture. Archives of Business
Research, 9(9). 171-180.
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
The Effects on Corporate Social Responsibility by Shares and
Teamwork Culture
Jer-Yan Lin
Ph.D. Program of Business, Feng Chia University, Taiwan
Chi-Fen Huang
Ph.D. Program of Business, Feng Chia University, Taiwan
ABSTRACT
Corporate social responsibility has become an international trend in order to
maximize profits and attract the attention of scholars and practitioners. Therefore
Engaging in corporate social responsibility may affect the company's profits and
cause increased costs. The social responsibility plan should determine the most
necessary strategic concerns and the creating important value. Therefore Social
responsibility is the key to an enterprise's pursuit of excellence. Creating social
well-being and enhancing its competitive advantage may be an important factor for
the company's future success. Promoting corporate social responsibility with
shares and establishing a sustainable team-oriented culture can enhance corporate
competitive advantages, create social well-being, and create value to stimulate
Innovative. The empirical results showed that shares and team-oriented culture
have significantly positive impact on corporate social responsibility that is further
positively significant to enhance employee innovation behavior. Further finding
supports that environmental altruism moderates the relationship between
corporate social responsibility and shares.
Keywords: Shares, team-oriented culture, corporate social responsibility, innovative,
altruistic
INTRODUCTION
The main goal of an enterprise is to maximize profits. Therefore, the interests of employees and
the rights of customers are not seriously considered. Then, unlike the situation of pursuing huge
profits in the past, when manufacturers conduct business activities, in addition to considering
their own operating profits, they will also begin to consider the rights and interests of
customers, the public, and so on. Social responsibility is the key to an enterprise's pursuit of
excellence.
Organizational culture has been viewed as a set of values, assumptions, understandings, and
norms that is shared between organizational members. organizational culture may be the
important key that managers can use to reflect the organization direct, value and behavior that
shape the entire organizational behavior and what makes organizations shape their own
norms, beliefs and ways of behaving that make each organization distinct from another
(Bagraim, 2001; Sarhan et. al. 2020).
Page 2 of 10
172
Archives of Business Research (ABR) Vol. 9, Issue 9, September-2021
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
Shared value is not limited to social responsibility, public welfare and philanthropy, it is a new
way for companies to achieve economic success. The combination of corporate social
responsibility and business strategy will become a company's new competitiveness, and shared
value and corporate social responsibility will become what companies must pay attention to
when facing the trend of globalization. Redefine the purpose of the enterprise as the creation
of shared value, not just the pursuit of profit (Porter & Kramer, 2006).
Innovation is an important tool for companies to maintain their competitive advantages, as well
as an important key to long-term survival and enhancement of competitiveness. Most
companies regard creativity and innovation as their future development vision. (Tran, 2006;
Lin, 2006; Chang & Lee, 2007; Gordon et al., 2008). The profit creation of enterprises provides
the needs of society, while society provides space and resources for enterprises to create
wealth. Relative expectations and ideas can develop and bring competitiveness through
innovation. Companies need to continue to innovate to meet future challenges and adapt to the
trend of the times.
In the past, companies pursued maximization of profits, and shareholder profits were the most
important position. Government agencies, investors, employees, and the general public have
gradually increased their requirements for corporate social responsibility, and it has become
one of the important sources of corporate management and competition pressure. Therefore,
companies can improve the corporate system through corporate governance mechanisms and
checks and balances. Enhance corporate competitiveness, create shareholder rights, and better
fulfill corporate social responsibility. Corporate culture and shared value strategies are the key
to guiding companies to fulfill their social responsibilities (Martin & Martins, 2003). Although
many companies have gradually incorporated the sustainable management concept of strategic
corporate social responsibility into the core of their value as a part of corporate culture, each
company has different cultural attributes, there are still many uncertainties in the process of
practice?
Altruistic values have been conceptualized as part of a personal value structure or overall
guiding principle to contribute to the wellbeing of others or of society as a whole. The altruism
explains helping behaviour towards other humans, and altruistic behaviour towards a target
tends to result from social and personal norms, awareness of consequences, and ascription of
responsibility (Hartmann et. al., 2017). Altruism involves acting to increase the welfare of
others incurring personal costs but lacking personal gains. The altruistic values of employees
in different companies are different, do they affect their participation in the implementation of
corporate social responsibility activities?
The purpose of this study aimed to explore how the shared value strategy and team-oriented
culture have an impact on corporate social responsibility activities, and enhance the impact of
employee innovative behaviors. Furthermore, this study explores the moderating effect by
altruistic value to corporate social responsibility with team-oriented culture and shares.
Page 3 of 10
173
Lin, J., & Huang, C. (2021). The Effects on Corporate Social Responsibility by Shares and Teamwork Culture. Archives of Business Research, 9(9). 171-
180.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/abr.99.10905
LITERATURE REVIEW
Relationship between creating shared and corporate social responsibility
Shared value is a differentiated strategy that can provide competitive opportunities. The
company has the responsibility to contribute to the society and the environment. All the
company's investments should return value to the company in order to achieve the goal of
sharing the well-being of the company and society. (Schmitt & Renken, 2012).
Companies must link performance with social progress, regard shared value as a source of
growth, and create profits for themselves through social needs, enhance competitiveness, and
improve the economic and social environment of the region so that both themselves and society
can gain Profit. (Zairi & Peters, 2002; Porter & Kramer, 2011).
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) needs to find a value strategy shared by the company and
the society. The company’s strategic activity is to promote some projects, which can bring
obvious substantive benefits to the society and the company. This influential plan is not only in
line with the company's strategic direction, but also keeps pace with the company's activities
(Kuehn & Mclntire, 2014).
The organizational shared understanding as well as a guidance of behavior which can drive
organizational actions and strategies among their employees. Culture can reflect the work
functioning in the company in which the values, beliefs and standards transmitted to their
environment settings among organization members (Nair and Sommerville, 2017; Fan et.al.,
2021). Therefore, this study aims to use the empirical results as a reference to conduct research,
and propose the following hypotheses:
H1: Shared value has a positive impact on corporate social responsibility.
Relationship between team-oriented culture and corporate social responsibility
A company’s organizational culture may affect how employees behave and the culture is widely
followed by company members in the personal interactions, behavioral norms, and work
atmosphere within the organization (Martins & Terblanche, 2003). Corporate culture is the
shared understanding including beliefs, values, norms and standards of behavior of most
employees that are work for managers to manage business and employees on perception of
effective performance (Fan et.al., 2021).
Organizational culture is a key factor to organizational commitment, and hence the influential
activity to corporate social responsibility practice. Organizational culture can impact the
operation and process to customers, employees, and shareholders (Wallach, 1983; Gallagher,
et al., 2008). There are three factors of organizational cultures including bureaucratic,
supportive and innovative (Wallach, 1983). These includes seven direction of an organization
culture which are innovation and risk taking, attention to detail, outcome orientation, people
orientation, team orientation, aggressiveness and stability stated in Robbins & Robbins (2008).
In order for the organizational culture to be used smoothly, it must be established and
maintained. Reinforce and introduce to employees through the socialization process, Through
the use of social activities, employees can understand organizational behavior, goals, values and
standards, and work-related information. Based on Sarhan et al. (2020), a supportive culture
shows teamwork environment with people-oriented, encouraging and trusting in which the
Page 4 of 10
174
Archives of Business Research (ABR) Vol. 9, Issue 9, September-2021
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
environment is warm, and commonly friendly, fair and cooperative. This culture of teamwork
oriented profile, like to a big family, has properties as open, harmonious, trusting, encourage,
sociable, relationships-oriented, mentoring, and collaborative. In this regard, we adopt the
measure of organizational culture as the teamwork-oriented perception shared by members of
an organization that was applied by Fan et.al. (2021) and the supportive dimmension of
Wallach (1983).
A deep culture is the goal that the members of the organization understand and believe in. The
practice and behavior of the organization should be carried out with the same goal as the
culture (Maseko, 2017). The objectives of the main dimensions are mainly the essence of
organizational culture including attention to details, result orientation, person orientation,
team orientation. The extent to which work activities are organized in team, aggressiveness,
stability. Organizational culture is elusive and intangible. It has a very strong influence on
employees and needs to develop in the main direction. Corporate culture should be
differentiated according to the corresponding intensity.
Different cultural attributes help understand the affiliation and characteristics of enterprises.
Some excellent enterprises have specific cultural characteristics, taking social responsibility
into account. So that they treat their employees and customers more friendly. and propose the
following hypotheses:
H2: Corporate team-oriented culture has a positive impact on corporate social responsibility
Relationship between CSR and the impact of innovative
Corporate culture is very important, and employees are closely connected through culture. The
company attaches great importance to a culture of innovation and adventure, and encourages
employees to think, deepen their knowledge and skills, and explore unlimited potential and
abilities. (Peprah & Ganu 2018). Values affect individual attitudes and behaviors. It is the
behavioral awareness of leaders in business decision-making, and is also a pre-factor for the
company to fulfill corporate social responsibility. It is directly related to the direction of
corporate social responsibility and development (Maignan, et al., 1999).
Employee creativity and innovative behavior are the foundation for organizations to improve
creativity and innovation performance. The generation and realization of employees’
innovative ideas is already a key performance that cannot be ignored in the organization.
Corporate social responsibility is for sustainable development, and the means for sustainable
development must be through continuous innovation and research and development of
products. (Vilanova et al., 2009). Further pointed out that innovation is an important key factor
to create and maintain organizational competitiveness. In recent years, due to the rapid
changes in the overall industrial environment, to sustainably operate and enhance
competitiveness, while taking into account social interests, when promoting CSR decisions,
companies will consider how to create social value while pursuing economic value. The
company will set up a CSR initiative team, through the knowledge sharing of members, to
encourage employees' creative thinking, promote CSR innovation strategies, and generate
innovation benefits. (Hammond et al., 2011).
Page 5 of 10
175
Lin, J., & Huang, C. (2021). The Effects on Corporate Social Responsibility by Shares and Teamwork Culture. Archives of Business Research, 9(9). 171-
180.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/abr.99.10905
Pointed out that the main goal of corporate social responsibility is to enable enterprises to
assume corporate social responsibility. The goals and values of business activities in the social
environment are consistent, and values are an important factor of corporate culture. Company
culture can increase the value of organizational innovation and influence organizational
processes and results (Rangan & Karim, 2015). Padgett and Galan (2010) believe that
innovation and CSR can improve social well-being and meet the expectations of shareholders,
both can have a positive impact on the company, and propose the following hypotheses:
H3: Corporate social responsibility is positively related to enhancing employee innovation
behavior.
The relationship between CSR and team-oriented culture and shared value is
moderating affected by altruistic value
A culture indicates a central value that is both intensely held and widely shared, and therefore
have better influence on employee behavior (Sarhan et. al. 2020). A strong culture is related to
high agreement among employees’ shared values, and behavioral consistency, and then it
enhances the organizational commitment of social responsibility.
Organizational culture stimulates shared understanding as well as a guidance of behavior
which can drive organizational actions and strategies among their employees. Culture can
reflect the work functioning in the company in which the values, beliefs and standards
transmitted to their environment settings among organization members (Nair & Sommerville,
2017; Fan et.al., 2021). Organizational culture represents the ways of process, and the values
shared among the members of an organization. The shared behavior of members can influence
organizational culture through common beliefs (Wu et al., 2006).
Organizational culture can be affected by personality of the organization members as it
determines an employee’s behavior (Hellriegel et al., 2004). Corporate culture is an important
element of the organization as that it integrates from one organization to another due to their
standard process and shared values (Martin & Martins, 2003). Therefore, altruistic personality
perception of organizational members may adjust the effects of teamwork culture and shared
values to the strategies in corporate social responsibility. Based on the argument, we propose
the moderating effects hypotheses:
H4a: The relationship between corporate social responsibility and team-oriented culture is
moderating affected by altruistic value.
H4b: The relationship between corporate social responsibility and share value is moderating
affected by altruistic value.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Research framework
In this paper, as a research object, we explore the antecedence factors, shared value and team- oriented culture, of corporate social responsibility, and then the effect to enhance employee
innovation. The moderating effects by altruistic value to the antecedence factors and corporate
social responsibility are further discussed. The conceptual framework which integrates the
hypothesized relationships is presented in Figure 1.
Page 6 of 10
176
Archives of Business Research (ABR) Vol. 9, Issue 9, September-2021
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
Figure 1 Conceptual Framework
Sample and measures
In this article, through reviewing related research and design, we will understand the project
on the dimensions of shares, team-oriented culture, corporate social responsibility, innovative,
and altruistic value. The perceived corporate social responsibility with 7 items adapted scale of
Turker (2009). The measure of shares in the study is referring by the modified 4 items in this
dimension (Zairi & Peters, 2002; Porter & Kramer, 2011). We measured team-oriented culture
framework with 6 items (Cameron & Quinn, 2006) in which this measure was also applied by
Fan et al. (2021). Innovative measure with 5 items referred to Janssen (2000) which was
adapted by Lin et al. (2004). Altruistic value with 3 items proposed by Sneglar (2006) and
applied in Hartmann et. al. (2017).
The 262 effective questionnaires were adopted in this study, questionnaire survey employees
of firms listed in the 2015 and 2016 Corporate Social Responsibility Award List compiled by
Common Wealth Magazine. In this study, the questionnaire included 25 items, which were
measured and analyzed on a 6-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly
agree).
In this study, Descriptive statistics, factor analysis, and reliability analysis were conducted
through SPSS 21.0 and PLS were used to analyze the data, is used to verify the reliability,
consistency, and validity of the hypotheses. Partial Least Square (PLS) approach is a powerful
analytical method. This research analyzes effective responses to test and propose hypotheses.
SPSS 21.0 and PLS for sample statistics and description, reliability and validity analysis, and
confirmatory factor analysis (Ghozali, 2006; Sarstedt et al., 2017).
FINDING AND DISCUSSION
Reliability and factor analysis
This study intends to initially observe the validity of the questionnaire through descriptive
statistical analysis, as shown in Table 1. Cronbach's alpha values of the scales are all greater
than 0.7, indicating high scale reliability and internal consistence. The exploratory factor
analysis is applied to verify the validity, adopting principal component extraction, and Varimax
rotation.
H1
H2
H3
Shares
Team-oriented Cult
ure
CSR Innovative
altruisti
c Value
H4
Page 7 of 10
177
Lin, J., & Huang, C. (2021). The Effects on Corporate Social Responsibility by Shares and Teamwork Culture. Archives of Business Research, 9(9). 171-
180.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/abr.99.10905
Table 1 Descriptive Statistics (N=262)
variable Cronbach’s a
Item
s
means Std. deviation skewness kurtosis
Shares 0.927 4 4.772 0.884 -0.873 1.329
Team-Oriented
Culture 0.931 6 4.384 0.859 -0.316 0.294
Corporate Social
Responsibility 0.914 7 4.640 0.821 -0.673 1.172
Innovative 0.893 5 4.499 0.755 -0.799 1.521
Altruistic value 0.940 3 4.592 0.801 -0.354 -0.616
The adequacy of each construct is checked by the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure and the
corresponding Bartlett test. The maximum KMO is team-oriented culture (0.878) and the
minimum to altruistic value (0.761), as well as the significant results of Bartlett test. The
extracted variance (%) are all above 0.5. Therefore, these results are presented in Table 2 which
is suitable by exploratory factor analysis.
Table 2 Exploratory Factor Analysis (N=262)
Variable KMO Bartlett P
value
eigenvalu
e
Variance
%
Shares 0.815 848.51 0.000 3.284 82.10
Team-Oriented Culture 0.878 1259.02 0.000 4.460 74.33
Corporate Social Responsibility 0.871 1399.23 0.000 4.640 66.28
Innovative 0.831 725.61 0.000 3.416 68.32
Altruistic value 0.761 705.83 0.000 2.677 89.23
Validation and confirmatory factor analysis
In the process of showing validity by confirmatory factor analysis, the commonly used
indicators are explained in detail. In table 3, the goodness-of-fit measures to shares, culture,
CSR, and innovative are listed. NFI are 0.95,0.94,0.91, and 0.95 respectively, and all NFI values
are greater than 0.9, and NNFI are still reasonable fit index. CFI are 0.96, 0.94, 0.92, 0.95 in
which they are larger than 0.9. GFI are greater than or close to 0.85 and they are reasonable fit
index. The goodness-of-fit measures of altruistic value by confirmatory factor analysis is perfect
fit. Therefore, the above results show that most of the fit index meets the standard. Thus, the
method is appropriate in this case.
Table 3 Confirmatory Factor Analysis
variable Chi- Square NFI NNFI CFI GFI RMR
Shares 41.16 0.95 0.87 0.96 0.93 0.029
Team-Oriented Culture 123.92 0.94 0.90 0.94 0.86 0.047
Corporate Social Responsibility 184.87 0.91 0.87 0.92 0.83 0.077
Innovative 56.82 0.95 0.90 0.95 0.92 0.043
The effects in conceptual model
We propose the results in table 4 on the correlated effects on shares and team-oriented culture
to corporate social responsibility, and the relationship on CSR and innovation. Shares has a
Page 8 of 10
178
Archives of Business Research (ABR) Vol. 9, Issue 9, September-2021
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
significant and positive impact on corporate social responsibility (β=0.478, p <.05). Team- oriented culture also has a significant positive impact on corporate social responsibility
(β=0.377, p <.05). Corporate social responsibility has a significant and positive relationship
with Innovative (β=0.634, p <.05). All results indicate support for the first three hypotheses.
We also study the moderating result by altruistic to CSR on the interaction of shares and
organizational culture, as suggested in Homburg et al. (2013). Altruistic value has weak
significant moderating effect by the interaction to the relationship between team-oriented
culture and CSR (β=0.083, p <.10). However, altruistic value fails to support moderating effect
to the relationship between shares and corporate social responsibility.
Table 4 Results of Conceptual Model
Direct Path Hypothesis Estimates Results
Shares→ CSR H1 0.478*** Support
Team-Oriented Culture→ CSR H2 0.377*** Support
CSR→ Innovative H3 0.634*** Support
Moderating by interaction
Altruistic ́shares→ CSR H4a 0.108* Support
Altruistic ́Team-Oriented Culture→ CSR H4b 0.065 Not Support
*p<.10. **p<.05. ***p<.01. Notes: Completely standardized coefficients are shown
CONCLUSION AND FURTHER RESEARCH
The proposed conceptual model approach the consequences, shares and team-oriented
supportive culture, of perceived corporate social responsibility and further to measure the
teamwork innovation. Shares or corporate cultural attributes have a direct effect on the
company’s implementation of corporate social responsibility, and the results of the overall
dimension are significantly related, and are supported by altruistic value adjustment effects.
The result of this research show that shares has a significant positive correlation to corporate
social responsibility. There is a significant positive correlation between the importance of
employees to corporate social responsibility in the strategy of value activities and corporate
social responsibility-oriented companies.
The results suggest that teamwork organizational culture and shared value are positively
related to corporate social responsibility. Companies that focus on corporate social
responsibility should cooperate with competitors to participate in value chain activities. The
organization maintains a positively altruistic personal attitude towards investing in corporate
social responsibility, and there is a high link between the organization and corporate social
responsibility.
Innovative behavior can promote employees to participate in social responsibility activities and
create more new ideas. In terms of team innovation, companies or employees with innovative
ideas are praised and rewarded, and employees’ innovative have developed feasible and
practical cases and implemented them effectively at work. In terms of organizational
Page 9 of 10
179
Lin, J., & Huang, C. (2021). The Effects on Corporate Social Responsibility by Shares and Teamwork Culture. Archives of Business Research, 9(9). 171-
180.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/abr.99.10905
innovation, the company will actively adopt new policies to improve performance, supervisors
will use new leadership methods and also understand employee goals, and will adjust the work
of colleagues on time to successfully achieve the goals. The findings based on this study is still
limited under the teamwork supportive culture. Thus the future study in other profiles of
organizational culture or types of innovation needs to be considered.
References
[1]. Azmi and Heryanto (2019). Effect of Organizational Culture and Leadership on Employee Performance at the
Regional Office the Ministry of Religion of West Sumatra Province with Work Motivation as an Intervening Variable.
Archives of Business Research, 7(1), 348-371.
[2]. Bagraim, J.J. (2001). Organisational psychology and workplace control: the instrumentality of corporate culture.
South African J. of Psychology, 31(3), 43-49.
[3]. Cameron, K.S., & Quinn, R.E. (2006). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture based on the competing
values framework. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
[4]. Chang, S.C., and Lee, M.S. (2007). The effects of organizational culture and knowledge management mechanisms
on organizational innovation: An empirical study in Taiwan. The Business Review, Cambridge, 7(1), 295-301.
[5]. Fan, Y.J., Liu, S.F., Luh, D.B. and Teng, P.S. (2021). Corporate sustainability: Impact factors on organizational
innovation in the industrial area. Sustainability, 13(4), https://doi.org/10.3390/su13041979.
[6]. Ghozali, Imam (2006). Structural Equation Modeling Metode Alternatif dengan Partial Least Squares (PLS).
Semarang: Badan Penerbit Universitas Diponegoro.
[7]. Gordon, S., Tarafdar, M., Cook, R., Masksimoski, R., and Rogowitz, B. (2008). Improving the front end of innovation
with information technology. Research Technology Management, 51(3), 50-58.
[8]. Gallagher, S., Brown, C. and Brown, L. (2008). A strong market culture drives organizational performance and
success. Employment Relations, 35(1), 25–31.
[9]. Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M., and Sarstedt, M. (2013). Partial least squares structural equation modeling: Rigorous
applications, better results and higher acceptance. Long Range Planning, 46(1-2), 1-12.
[10]. Hammond, M.M., Neff, N.L., Farr, J.L., Schwall, A.R., and Zhao, X. (2011). Predictors of individual-level innovation
at work: A meta-analysis. Psychology of Aesthetics Creativity and the Arts, 5(1), 90-105.
[11]. Hartmann et. al. (2017). Warm glow vs. altruistic values: How important is intrinsic emotional reward in
proenvironmental behavior? J. of Environmental Psychology, 52, 43-55.
[12]. Hellriegel D., Jackson S.E., Slocum J., Staude G., Amos T., Klopper H.B., Louw I., and Oosthuizen T., (2004).
Management, 2nd Ed. Cape Town: Oxford University Press, Southern Africa.
[13]. Homburg, C., Stierl, M., and Bornemann, T. (2013). Corporate social responsibility in business-to-business markets:
How organizational customers account for supplier corporate social responsibility engagement, 77(11), 54-72.
[14]. Janssen, O. (2000). Job demands, perceptions of effort-reward fairness and innovative work behavior. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73, 287-302.
[15]. King, N, and Anderson, N. (2002). Managing innovation and change: A critical guide for organization. London:
Thomson.
[16]. Kuehn, K., and Mclntire, L. (2014). Sustainability a CFO Can Love. Harvard Business Review, April, 66-74.
[17]. Lin, Y.P., Huang, J.Y. and Tung, Y.C. (2004). How organizational learning and organizational innovations mediate
market orientation and organizational performance: An empirical study of the information technology industry in
scientific industry. Management Review, 23, 101–134.
[18]. Maignan, I., Ferrell, O.C., and Hult, G.T.M. (1999). Corporate citizenship: Cultural antecedents and business
benefits. J. of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27, 455-469.
Page 10 of 10
180
Archives of Business Research (ABR) Vol. 9, Issue 9, September-2021
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
[19]. Maseko, T.S.B. (2017). Strong vs. weak organizational culture: Assessing the impact on employee motivation.
Arabian J. of Business and Management Review, 7(1), 1-5.
[20]. Martins N. and Martins E. (2003). Organisational culture. In: SP Robbins, A Odendaal, G Roodt (Eds.): Organisational
Behaviour: Global and Southern African Perspectives. Cape Town: Pearson Education, South Africa.
[21]. Martins, E.C. and Terblanche, F. (2003). Building organizational culture that stimulates creativity and innovation.
European J. of Innovation Management, 6, 64–74.
[22]. Nair, S. and Sommerville, S. (2017). Impact of organizational culture on the Indian IT workforce’s job satisfaction
and stress: Qualitative report from SMEs operating in Trivandrum. Inter. J. of Academic Research in Business and
Social Sciences, 7(2), 237-246.
[23]. Padgett, R.C. and Galan, J.I. (2010). The effect of R and D intensity on corporate social responsibility. J. of Business
Ethics, 93(3), 407-418.
[24]. Peprah, W.K. and Ganu, J. (2018). The Convergence of Organizational Culture, Structure and Human Capital
Performance: A Conceptual Analysis. Archives of Business Research, 6(5), 212-221.
[25]. Porter, M.E., and Kramer, M.R. (2006). Strategy and society: The link between competitive advantage and
corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, December, 78-92.
[26]. Porter, M.E., and Kramer, M.R. (2011). Creating shared value. Harvard Business Review January-February, 62-77.
[27]. Rangan, K. Chase, L. and Karim, S. (2015). The truth about CSR. Harvard Business Review January-February, 40-49.
[28]. Robbins, S.P., and Robbins, S.P. (2008). Organisational Behaviour. Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson Education
Australia.
[29]. Sarhan, N., Harp A., Shrafat, F. and Alhusban, M. (2020). The effect of organizational culture on the organizational
commitment: Evidence from hotel industry. Management Science Letters, 10, 183-196.
[30]. Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C.M., and Hair, J.F. (2017). Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling. In C. Homburg,
M. Klarmann, & A. Vomberg (Eds.), Handbook of Market Research. Heidelberg: Springer.
[31]. Schmitt, J., and Renken, U. (2012). How to earn money by doing good: Shared value in the apparel industry, J. of
Corporate Citizenship, 45, 79-103.
[32]. Sneglar, R.S. (2006). Egoistic, altruistic, and biospheric environmental concerns: Measurement and structure. J. of
Environmental Psychology, 26(2), 87-99.
[33]. Tran, T.T. (2006). A conceptual model of learning culture and innovation schema. Competition Forum, 4(1), 116-
124.
[34]. Turker, Duygu (2009). Measuring Corporate Social Responsibility: A Scale Development Study. J. of Business Ethics,
85, 411- 427
[35]. Vilanova, M., Lozano, M. and Arenas, D. (2009). Exploring the nature of the relationship between CSR and
competitiveness. J. of Business Ethics, 87, 57-69.
[36]. Wallach, E.J. (1983). Individuals and organizations: The cultural match. Training and Development J., 37(2), 29-36.
[37]. Wu, W.Y., Lin, C.C. and Fu, C.S. (2006). The influences of leadership style and organizational culture on
organizational commitment and performance- An empirical study of pharmaceutical companies with different
nationalities in Taiwan. J. of Business Administration., 71, 35–76.
[38]. Zairi, M., and Peters, J. (2002). The impact of social responsibility on business performance, Managerial Auditing
J., 17(4), 174-178.