IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i3p1592-d492057.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Common Good Balance Sheet and Employees’ Perceptions, Attitudes and Behaviors

Author

Listed:
  • Jasmin Wiefek

    (Arbeitsbereich Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie, Freie Universität Berlin, Habelschwerdter Allee 45, 14195 Berlin, Germany)

  • Kathrin Heinitz

    (Arbeitsbereich Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie, Freie Universität Berlin, Habelschwerdter Allee 45, 14195 Berlin, Germany)

Abstract

The Common Good Balance Sheet (CGB) is an instrument to measure a company’s contribution to the common good. In our study, we investigate whether employees from companies with higher CBG scores perceive more corporate social responsibility than employees from companies with lower CBG scores and whether relationships can be found between the achieved CGB scores and employees’ job-related attitudes and behaviors. We conducted an online survey of 332 employees from eight German companies with published CGBs. According to results from multiple linear regression analyses, employees from companies with higher CGB scores perceive more CSR and are more satisfied with their jobs and payments. In addition, they report less job demands, more organizational support, more work meaningfulness and more organizational citizenship behaviors towards their company. Employees identify more with their company if high transparency and co-determination is practiced. However, the value and social impact of the companies’ products is not related to employees’ organizational identification. Moreover, employees from companies with high CGB scores do not report more organizational citizenship behaviors towards their colleagues. Our results indicate that the CGB is a tool that measures aspects concerning job-related attitudes and behaviors and allows comparability between companies. However, aspects relevant to job satisfaction may still be missing in the CGB scoring.

Suggested Citation

  • Jasmin Wiefek & Kathrin Heinitz, 2021. "The Common Good Balance Sheet and Employees’ Perceptions, Attitudes and Behaviors," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-30, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:3:p:1592-:d:492057
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/3/1592/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/3/1592/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wiefek, Jasmin & Heinitz, Kathrin, 2019. "The Common Good Approach in Entrepreneurial Practice," Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts- und Unternehmensethik - Journal for Business, Economics & Ethics, Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, vol. 20(3), pages 320-345.
    2. Michael Fordyce, 1988. "A review of research on the happiness measures: A sixty second index of happiness and mental health," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 20(4), pages 355-381, August.
    3. Niklas S. Mischkowski & Simon Funcke & Michael Kress-Ludwig & Klara H. Stumpf, 2018. "Die Gemeinwohl-Bilanz – Ein Instrument zur Bindung und Gewinnung von Mitarbeitenden und Kund*innen in kleinen und mittleren Unternehmen? [The Common Good Balance Sheet—an instrument to promote loya," Sustainability Nexus Forum, Springer, vol. 26(1), pages 123-131, December.
    4. Wiefek, Jasmin & Heinitz, Kathrin, 2018. "Common Good-Oriented Companies: Exploring Corporate Values, Characteristics and Practices That Could Support a Development Towards Degrowth," management revue - Socio-Economic Studies, Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, vol. 29(3), pages 311-331.
    5. Glavas, Ante & Kelley, Ken, 2014. "The Effects of Perceived Corporate Social Responsibility on Employee Attitudes," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 24(2), pages 165-202, April.
    6. Jean-Pascal Gond & Assâad El Akremi & Valérie Swaen & Nishat Babu, 2017. "The psychological microfoundations of corporate social responsibility: A person-centric systematic review," Post-Print halshs-01698534, HAL.
    7. Ante Glavas & Lindsey Godwin, 2013. "Is the Perception of ‘Goodness’ Good Enough? Exploring the Relationship Between Perceived Corporate Social Responsibility and Employee Organizational Identification," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 114(1), pages 15-27, April.
    8. Lee, Eun Mi & Park, Seong-Yeon & Lee, Hyun Jung, 2013. "Employee perception of CSR activities: Its antecedents and consequences," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 66(10), pages 1716-1724.
    9. Christian Felber & Vanessa Campos & Joan R. Sanchis, 2019. "The Common Good Balance Sheet, an Adequate Tool to Capture Non-Financials?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(14), pages 1-23, July.
    10. Blake A. Allan & Cassondra Batz-Barbarich & Haley M. Sterling & Louis Tay, 2019. "Outcomes of Meaningful Work: A Meta‐Analysis," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 56(3), pages 500-528, May.
    11. Ana T. Ejarque & Vanessa Campos, 2020. "Assessing the Economy for the Common Good Measurement Theory Ability to Integrate the SDGs into MSMEs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-17, December.
    12. Angélique Catharina Elford & Claus-Heinrich Daub, 2019. "Solutions for SMEs Challenged by CSR: A Multiple Cases Approach in the Food Industry within the DACH-Region," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(17), pages 1-31, August.
    13. Aguinis, Herman & Glavas, Ante, 2013. "Embedded Versus Peripheral Corporate Social Responsibility: Psychological Foundations," Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Cambridge University Press, vol. 6(4), pages 314-332, December.
    14. Laia OLLÉ-ESPLUGA & Johanna MUCKENHUBER & Markus HADLER, 2019. "Job Quality in Economy for the Common Good Firms in Austria and Germany," CIRIEC Working Papers 1921, CIRIEC - Université de Liège.
    15. David A. Jones & Alexander Newman & Ruodan Shao & Fang Lee Cooke, 2019. "Advances in Employee-Focused Micro-Level Research on Corporate Social Responsibility: Situating New Contributions Within the Current State of the Literature," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 157(2), pages 293-302, June.
    16. H. Jack Shapiro & Mahmoud A. Wahba, 1978. "Pay Satisfaction: An Empirical Test of a Discrepancy Model," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(6), pages 612-622, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Susana Rodrigues & Teresa Proença & Marisa R. Ferreira, 2024. "Insights into employee perspectives on corporate social responsibility policies and practices: Embeddedness, participation, and meaningfulness through work," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(4), pages 3502-3516, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Erifili-Christina Chatzopoulou & Dimitris Manolopoulos & Vasia Agapitou, 2022. "Corporate Social Responsibility and Employee Outcomes: Interrelations of External and Internal Orientations with Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 179(3), pages 795-817, September.
    2. Pasricha, Palvi & Nivedhitha, K.S. & Raghuvanshi, Juhi, 2023. "The perceived CSR-innovative behavior conundrum: Towards unlocking the socio-emotional black box," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    3. Marco Guerci & Adelien Decramer & Thomas Waeyenberg & Ina Aust, 2019. "Moving Beyond the Link Between HRM and Economic Performance: A Study on the Individual Reactions of HR Managers and Professionals to Sustainable HRM," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 160(3), pages 783-800, December.
    4. Castaldo, Sandro & Ciacci, Andrea & Penco, Lara, 2023. "Perceived corporate social responsibility and job satisfaction in grocery retail: A comparison between low- and high-productivity stores," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    5. Seunghee Im & Yang Woon Chung & Ji Yeon Yang, 2016. "Employees’ Participation in Corporate Social Responsibility and Organizational Outcomes: The Moderating Role of Person–CSR Fit," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-14, December.
    6. Kenneth Roeck & François Maon, 2018. "Building the Theoretical Puzzle of Employees’ Reactions to Corporate Social Responsibility: An Integrative Conceptual Framework and Research Agenda," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 149(3), pages 609-625, May.
    7. Huynh Thi Thuy Giang & Luu Tien Dung, 2022. "The effect of internal corporate social responsibility practices on firm performance: the mediating role of employee intrapreneurial behaviour," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 16(4), pages 1035-1061, May.
    8. Won‐Moo Hur & Tae‐Won Moon & Han‐Geun Lee, 2018. "Employee engagement in CSR initiatives and customer‐directed counterproductive work behavior (CWB): The mediating roles of organizational civility norms and job calling," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(6), pages 1087-1098, November.
    9. Christoph Harrach & Sonja Geiger & Ulf Schrader, 2020. "Sustainability empowerment in the workplace: determinants and effects," Sustainability Nexus Forum, Springer, vol. 28(3), pages 93-107, December.
    10. Lin, Yi-Ting & Liu, Nien-Chi & Lin, Ji-Wei, 2022. "Firms’ adoption of CSR initiatives and employees’ organizational commitment: Organizational CSR climate and employees’ CSR-induced attributions as mediators," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 626-637.
    11. Hans Jaich, 2022. "Linking environmental management and employees' organizational identification: The mediating role of environmental attitude," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(2), pages 305-315, March.
    12. Heung-Jun Jung & Mohammad Ali, 2017. "Corporate Social Responsibility, Organizational Justice and Positive Employee Attitudes: In the Context of Korean Employment Relations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-24, October.
    13. Lianidou, Theano & Zhu, Di, 2023. "Corporate social purpose statements and employee perceptions about the CEO and the corporation: A large sample natural experiment," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    14. Muzhi Wang & Weichen Yan, 2022. "Brain Gain: The Effect of Employee Quality on Corporate Social Responsibility," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 58(4), pages 679-713, December.
    15. Wioleta Kucharska, 2020. "Employee Commitment Matters for CSR Practice, Reputation and Corporate Brand Performance—European Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-16, January.
    16. Leemen Lee & Li‐Fei Chen, 2018. "Boosting employee retention through CSR: A configurational analysis," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(5), pages 948-960, September.
    17. Xie, Jiangtao & Jain, Tanusree, 2024. "Unpacking micro-CSR through a computational literature review: An identity heterogeneity view of internal stakeholders," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
    18. Sandra Castro‐González & Belén Bande & Takuma Kimura, 2019. "How and when corporate social responsibility affects salespeople's organizational citizenship behaviors?: The moderating role of ethics and justice," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(3), pages 548-558, May.
    19. Esmee M. Veenstra & Naomi Ellemers, 2020. "ESG Indicators as Organizational Performance Goals: Do Rating Agencies Encourage a Holistic Approach?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-15, December.
    20. Gullifor, Daniel P. & Petrenko, Oleg V. & Chandler, Jeffrey A. & Quade, Matthew J. & Rouba, Yury, 2023. "Employee reactions to perceived CSR: The influence of the ethical environment on OCB engagement and individual performance," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:3:p:1592-:d:492057. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.