Introduction
The article “The Fit between Employees’ Perception and the Organization’s Behavior in Terms of Corporate Social Responsibility” by Sora Kang et al. first appeared in the 2018 edition of the Sustainability journal. The main purpose of this research and survey behind it was to examine how interrelation of employees’ business responsibility comprehension and the commercial organizations’ responsible behavior affect employees’ perception of the organization. The study covered Korea and China as examples of the different effects of the ethical part of responsibility on employees’ commitment.
Summary
The Effect of Company’s CSR on Employee Commitment
First of all, the study has shown that corporate social responsibility behaviour of an organization affect the loyalty of employees. This happens based on the convergence of “employee’s CSR needs and [company’s] CSR behavior” (Kang, Su, & Bang, 2018). The study covered a connection between the workers’ need, business’s activities, and employee’s loyalty to the company’s establishment of responsibility policy. As a result, the authors detected that the CSR behavior does not lead to the organizational members’ commitment, while its fits the employees’ need for CSR. In other words, the effect of CSR on each employee is substantial because when the employees do not feel the results of the needed CSR activities, they are likely to devaluate the organization’s responsibility.
The Role of CSR Dimensions in Affecting Employee Commitment
Secondly, the study has proven that particular dimensions of organizational CSR have the most powerful influence on employees’ loyal attitude to organization. These dimensions are economic, legal, and ethical. These responsibilities are the three lower stages of a CSR pyramid and fundamental for the organization’s responsible activity. These stages reflect the needs of many social groups, and showing the company’s responsibility in these fields can contribute to its members’ perception and commitment (Kang, Su, & Bang, 2018). The philanthropic dimension responsibility was revealed to have a weak influence because there is no obvious correlation of a business’s motivation to be philanthropically responsible with the state of not being responsible in economic relation. Therefore, the organization needs to focus on the basics before showing it has reached the highest level of responsibility.
The Difference between CSR Dimensions Effect in China and Korea
Thirdly, the research included comparing the outcomes of the survey in China and Korea. For these countries, there was a notable difference in the level of ethical responsibility. The organizational image for the workers in China and Korea was affected by the fact that workers’ expectations are linked with the actual company’s activity covering economic and law-related elements of responsibility. In contrast, discrepancy of CSR requirements on the one side from CSR activity on another side leads to a worse negative response to organizational loyalty in Korea than in China (Kang, Su, & Bang, 2018). In other words, a negative perception of an organization is more strongly formed among the Korean population than the Chinese. The mentioned above responsibilities excluding philanthropic are thought to be as obligatory in Korea, unlike in China.
Critique
Regarding the authors’ first point in their article, it has a human explanation. For instance, it is commonly known that it is easier for people to assess something they have faced in their life than a completely unfamiliar phenomenon. Thus, needing something that an organization’s social responsibility activities may result in drags the employee’s attention to organizational CSR behavior. Employees’ CSR perceptions affect the trust and general atmosphere in the organization (Boğan & Dedeoğlu, 2019). No doubt, experiencing no effect of organizational measures to solve particular social problems, the employee would think the CSR policy is not good enough, or the CSR system does not work.
Considering one more conclusion the authors have found, in my opinion, there is more to that point than has been reflected in the article. For instance, the research outcome does not show any considerable differences in the CSR dimensions’ assessment results. The hypothesis on a weaker influence of philanthropic dimension on employees’ commitment compared with economic, legal, and ethical dimensions is not supported by the research data. Thus, this hypothesis cannot be assumed as a true one, although evaluating philanthropic actions as a part of any institution’s responsibility is debatable in the first place.
The practical side of the study mainly concerns the differences the results face when applied to different contextual conditions. For instance, the authors compared the results of applying them to Chinese and Korean employees, which revealed inevitable differences in culture and social interactions of the countries. This point of the research is strong and can be explained by the social stakeholder theory and institutional theory and the results of the study.
Conclusion
This review evaluated the article “The Fit between Employees’ Perception and the Organization’s Behavior in Terms of Corporate Social Responsibility” by Sora Kang et al. An interrelation of the employees’ attitude to the organizational corporate social responsibility and their expectations it with the employee commitment level was proved. Additionally, the differences of this interrelation’s details and its application depending on the country were found in the example of China and Korea.
References
Boğan, E., & Dedeoğlu, B. B. (2019). The effects of hotel employees’ CSR perceptions on trust in organization: Moderating role of employees’ self-experienced CSR perceptions. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Insights, 2(4), 391-408. Web.
Kang, S., Su, J. H., & Bang, J. (2018). The Fit between Employees’ Perception and the Organization’s Behavior in Terms of Corporate Social Responsibility. Sustainability, 10(5), 1650. Web.