The Effect of Perceived Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainable Human Resources on Employee Engagement with the Moderating Role of the Employer Brand

Abstract

Employee Engagement (EE) is an important aspect of human resources management, which is instrumental in the financial success of an organization. While an internal aspect, EE is also influenced by organizational factors. As a descriptive study, the present paper examines the direct and indirect effects of Perceived Corporate Social Responsibility (PCSR) and Perceived Sustainable Human Resource Management (PSHRM) on EE through the Employer Brand (EB) as the mediating variable. A survey of 252 official employees in an Iranian oil company, using the PLS method, constitute the basis for the conceptual model analysis. The results of the study confirmed the overall direct and indirect effects of PCSR and PSHRM on EE through the EB.

Full text

Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal
The Effect of Perceived Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainable Human
Resources on Employee Engagement with the Moderating Role of the Employer Brand
--Manuscript Draft--
Manuscript Number: ERRJ-D-20-00073R3
Full Title: The Effect of Perceived Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainable Human
Resources on Employee Engagement with the Moderating Role of the Employer Brand
Article Type: Research Articles
Keywords: Stakeholders; Social Responsibility; Employee Engagement; Employer Brand;
Sustainable Human Resource Management
Corresponding Author: Alireza Moghaddam, ph. D.
Semnan University
IRAN, ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF
Corresponding Author Secondary
Information:
Corresponding Author's Institution: Semnan University
Corresponding Author's Secondary
Institution:
First Author: Seyede Asma Hosseini, ph.D. Student
First Author Secondary Information:
Order of Authors: Seyede Asma Hosseini, ph.D. Student
Alireza Moghaddam, Assistant Professor
Hossein Damganian, Associate Professor
Mohsen Shafiei Nikabadi, Associate Professor
Order of Authors Secondary Information:
Funding Information:
Abstract: Employee Engagement (EE) is an important aspect of human resources management,
which is instrumental in the financial success of an organization. While an internal
aspect, EE is also influenced by organizational factors. As a descriptive study, the
present paper examines the direct and indirect effects of Perceived Corporate Social
Responsibility (PCSR) and Perceived Sustainable Human Resource Management
(PSHRM) on EE through the Employer Brand (EB) as the mediating variable. A survey
of 252 official employees in an Iranian oil company, using the PLS method, constitute
the basis for the conceptual model analysis. The results of the study confirmed the
overall direct and indirect effects of PCSR and PSHRM on EE through the EB.
Response to Reviewers: Date: May 3, 2021
Dear Reviewer
Thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript titled "The Effect of Perceived
Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainable Human Resources on Employee
Engagement with the Moderating Role of Employer Brand" to Employee
Responsibilities and Rights Journal. We also greatly appreciate the reviewers for their
complimentary comments and suggestions. We have carried out the experiments that
the reviewers suggested and revised the manuscript accordingly. Here is a point-by-
point response to your comments and concerns. Comments:
There are just a few minor points to address and I believe that this manuscript will be
ready for publication. In the measures section, please refer to the specific Appendix
(i.e., Appendix !....) that your measures are tied to, rather than just referring to the
overall appendices with the range of items. This will make it clearer to readers which
measures are tied to which appendix. Everything else looks really good. I look forward
to seeing this change.
Answer: Thank you for bringing it to our attention. We did as you instructed.
Powered by Editorial Manager® and ProduXion Manager® from Aries Systems Corporation

We look forward to hearing from you regarding our submission. We would be glad to
respond to any further questions and comments that you may have.
Sincerely
Powered by Editorial Manager® and ProduXion Manager® from Aries Systems Corporation

Seyede Asma Hosseini A, Alireza Moghaddam B, Hossein Damganian C, Mohsen Shafiei Nikabadi D
Title: The Effect of Perceived Corporate Social
Responsibility and Sustainable Human Resources on
Employee Engagement with the Moderating Role of the
Employer Brand
A: Ph.D. Student, Department of Business Management, Faculty of Economics, Management and
Administrative Sciences, Semnan University, IRAN. asmahosseini@ semnan.ac.ir
B: Assistant Professor, Department of Industrial Management, Faculty of Economics, Management
and Administrative Sciences, Semnan University, IRAN. moghaddam@semnan.ac.ir
C: Associate Professor, Department of Business Management, Faculty of Economics, Management
and Administrative Sciences, Semnan University, IRAN. hdamghanian@semnan.ac.ir
D: Associate Professor, Department of Industrial Management, Faculty of Economics, Management
and Administrative Sciences, Semnan University, IRAN.shafiei@semnan.ac.ir
Postal Address: Department of Industrial Management, Faculty of Economic, Management and
Administrative Sciences, University of Semnan, Iran.
Postal code: 35131-19111
E-mail: moghaddam@semnan.ac.ir
Tel: +989122488221
Acknowledgements:
Dear Mr. Seyed Javad Mirjahanmard
Thanks for your reviewing the article, Statistical Consultation, and good suggestions which will surely improve
its quality.
Best regards
Corresponding Author

Title Page (With Complete Author Contact Information)

1
Title: The Effect of Perceived Corporate Social
Responsibility and Sustainable Human Resources
on Employee Engagement with the Moderating Role
of the Employer Brand
Abstract: Employee Engagement (EE) is an important aspect of human resources management,
which is instrumental in the financial success of an organization. While an internal aspect, EE is also
influenced by organizational factors. As a descriptive study, the present paper examines the direct
and indirect effects of Perceived Corporate Social Responsibility (PCSR) and Perceived Sustainable
Human Resource Management (PSHRM) on EE through the Employer Brand (EB) as the mediating
variable. A survey of 252 official employees in an Iranian oil company, using the PLS method,
constitute the basis for the conceptual model analysis. The results of the study confirmed the overall
direct and indirect effects of PCSR and PSHRM on EE through the EB.
Keywords: Stakeholders, Social Responsibility, Employee Engagement, Employer Brand,
Sustainable Human Resource Management.
INTRODUCTION
Recently, Employee Engagement (EE) has come to be considered as a principal factor in a
company's human resources strategies (Ruban Antony et al. 2018). EE revolves around the
dynamics of the positive attitude of employees toward an organization in order to achieve
its organizational goals (Aibaghi Esfahani et al. 2017), which depend on business
outcomes, particularly the financial success of that organization, profitability, customer
engagement (Gallup 2013), efficiency (Armstrong 2011; Gallup 2013), decreased
employee turnover, and improved employee satisfaction (Armstrong 2011). On the other
hand, companies in developing countries are faced with the challenge of cultivating and
retaining talent (Richardson 2007). Therefore, businesses need to maintain their employees
and enhance employee commitment to the mission of the organization by meeting their
demands and needs (Fernandez-Lores et al. 2016). The term Employer Brand (EB) is one
of the approaches that companies adopt to retain their employees (Moroko and Uncles
2008). Today, organizations are increasingly trying to boost their employer brands in order
to attract talent (Viktoria Rampl and Kenning 2014). Improvement of EB comes with many
benefits, including maintaining talent (Kunerth and Mosley 2011) and creating a positive
attitude among the existing employees regarding the EB, which also makes sense for EE
Manuscript (BLINDED - No Author Contact Information) Click here to view linked References

2
(Davies et al. 2018; Glen 2007; Kunerth and Mosley 2011). Meanwhile, investing in
existing employees and creating a sense of belonging helps portray a positive perception
for people outside the organization (Kunerth and Mosley 2011).
The research on EE has traditionally focused on the workplace. However, it has recently
been recognized that the employees' understanding of Corporate Social Responsibility
(CSR) has a positive effect on EE (Rupp et al. 2018). This means that the focus of EE on
the internal environment has changed toward the external environment and Social
Responsibility (SR). CSR and Sustainability are fundamental issues in Human Resources
Management (Zhou et al. 2018). Organizations are increasingly fostering SR in response
to increased competition and pressure from various stakeholders (Chaudhary 2017). Hence,
businesses aim at more than just maximizing profits – seeking not just to create value for
the company, but also for all the stakeholders, including employees that are actively
involved in sustainable businesses (Kryger Aggerholm et al. 2011). One of the most
important challenges facing human resource professionals today, is the integration of
sustainability with human resource policies (Saeed et al. 2019). This is because
sustainability perspectives within the framework of human resources can significantly
enhance the status of individuals within the organization (De Prins et al. 2014).
Previous studies have shown that there is an overlap between CSR and SHRM in some
areas (Wikhamn 2019); however, no clear line has been drawn between the two. Some
studies have identified the indicators of SHRM by adopting the dimensions of Human
Resource Management (HRM) from international CSR standards and have found SHRM
to be a type of internal CSR (Albdour and Altarawneh 2012; Diaz‐Carrion et al. 2018).
Furthermore, SHRM and CSR have not been studied as two independent variables. This is
while the greatest emphasis in CSR is on the external dimensions of the organization, and
its responsibility to external rather than internal stakeholders is more important. On the
other hand, the emphasis in SHRM is often on employees – the organization's most
important internal stakeholders. Therefore, in order to clarify the difference between these
two approaches, we measure the organization's degree of attention to external stakeholders
in terms of the CSR dimension and the degree of attention to the employees (internal
stakeholders) from the perspective of SHRM. The study of these two variables is conducted
at the individual level and is from the perspective of the employees of the organization. In
other words, the employees’ perception of the CSR (i.e., attention to external stakeholders)
and SHRM (i.e., attention to internal stakeholders) affects the employer brand in the
existing employees and increases their engagement with the organizational goals.
Therefore, this study attempts to examine the relation between PCSR and PSHRM and their
impact on the EB from the perspective of the existing employee. It also evaluates their
impact on EE, which comes through reinforcing the EB.
2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESES
2.1. Employee Engagement
EE is an important topic in various sectors of the industry (Wasilowski 2018). Scholars
have distinguished the concept of EE from other similar constructs such as job involvement,
job commitment and job satisfaction (Gavino 2020). Kahn (1990) defines EE as the full
use of the employees’ potential at work and during the time that they are not at work, and
introduces engagement as an intellectual, emotional, and physical element (Agbionu et al.
2018; Kahn 1990). EE is a feeling of commitment to the job and the organization, and the
desire to invest one’s capacities and competencies to benefit both the individual and the
organization (Ilyasa et al. 2018; Mohanty 2018). Therefore, those who work in the
organization, will physically, mentally, and emotionally apply themselves to their jobs
(Agbionu et al. 2018; Ruban Antony et al. 2018; Awasthi and Sharma 2017; Mohanty

3
2018). EE is defined as a stage of commitment and willingness for self-devotion beyond
the required expectations by working toward achieving the goals and values of the
organization (Hee et al. 2018). Engaged employees support innovation, growth, and
performance that are required for an organization (Gallup 2013). EE can be identified by
two elements: 1) logical – which includes employees' perception of their roles, how they
are fit for the jobs, and how they are aligned with the organization's goals; and 2) emotional
– which includes the individual's perception of the organization and feelings of personal
success that comes from the job (Armstrong 2011). In this study, we examine the effect of
the three variables of PCSR, PSHRM, and the EB on EE.
2.2 Corporate Social Responsibility
CSR has been one of the key issues over the past decade (Ferreira and Real de Oliveira
2014; Garavan and McGuire 2011). Recent studies on the impact of CSR on employee
psychology and its impact on employee attitudes and performance are on the rise (Ozkan
and Elci 2020). Corporate social responsibility refers to actions taken by an organization to
advance certain social interests beyond the immediate interests of the company and its
shareholders, as well as beyond what is applicable by law (Rap et al. 2018). CSR has gained
importance as a new management perspective that increases the value of the company and
ensures its sustainability. The implementation of CSR-related activities helps meet the
needs of different stakeholders, a process that ensures the company achieves legitimacy
and survival in a competitive market (Barrena‐Martinez 2019).
CSR has been approached from different angles, such as business ethics, management and
business studies (Ferreira and Real de Oliveira 2014). CSR is a strategic approach (Inyang
et al. 2011; Teng and Wu 2018) and an integrated process throughout the business
performance process (De Prins et al. 2014), which shows the organization's interactions
with its stakeholders to achieve business success (De Prins et al. 2014; Inyang et al. 2011).
The most important group of stakeholders is employees (Lindholm 2018; Barrena‐Martinez
2019); hence, employers must pay particular attention to strengthening their relationships
with them (Lindholm 2018). Moreover, this commitment to CSR can be attractive for both
present and potential employees (Montgomery and Ramus 2003; Barrena‐Martinez 2019).
Therefore, CSR is important in attracting and retaining talent through promoting the EB,
because it helps improve the organizational reputation and has a positive correlation with
the attractiveness of the EB for the employees (Kharisma 2013; Heinrich 2017; Lindholm
and Olsson 2015). Organizations that foster CSR as part of their strategies would help
improve their corporate image, prosperity, and their social sense of belonging, thereby
enhancing their attractiveness as an employer (Lindholm and Olsson 2015). Recently, a
number of researchers have examined the impact of CSR efforts on employee's attitudes
and behavior, however, they have mostly examined organizational commitment and job
satisfaction (Chaudhary 2017). Despite the benefits of CSR for employees and the
importance of employees as a group of stakeholders, little attention has been paid to the
relationship between EE and CSR (Slack and Morris 2014).
When organizational efforts are in line with the principles of CSR, employees would feel
that their efforts would be appreciated and reflected in the society, and as a result, they
would feel proud to engage themselves with the goals of the organization (Al-Shateri et al.
2017). According to studies on the relationship between CSR and employee engagement,
the employees' perception of how their employer sees SR stems from work engagement
(Slack and Morris 2014; Rapp et al. 2018), that could also result in a healthier and more
productive work environment (Rapp et al. 2018). Albdour and Altarawneh (2012) also
examined the effect of internal CSR activities on job and organizational engagement. They

4
found that internal CSR activities lead to more organizational engagement than job
engagement (Albdour and Altarawneh 2012).
There are several studies which have explored the direct impact of CSR on EE (Ferreira
and Real de Oliveira 2014; Rap et al. 2018; Kim and Kim 2020). However, there is not any
research on the relationship between the three components of CSR, the EB, and EE, as well
as the indirect effect that is reinforced through the EB. Therefore, in light of the research
problem and the literature review, a researcher-developed model (adapted from Aldousari
et al. 2017; App et al. 2012; Kryger Aggerholm et al. 2011; Macioschek and Katoen 2007),
is suggested as shown in Fig.1 and the following hypotheses are proposed.
The conceptual model is to empirically test the effect of PCSR and PSHRM of the company
on the EB, as well as the effect of the EB on EE. We also propose that PCSR and PSHRM
have an indirect effect on EE through the EB (Hypothesis 3).
Insert Figure 1 here
Hypothesis 1: PCSR brings about a positive effect on EB
Hypothesis 2: PCSR brings about a positive effect on EE
Hypothesis 3: The EB will partially mediate the relationship between PCSR and EE.
2.3 Employer Brand
In the global economy, one of the major problems for HR executives is lack of motivated
and qualified human resources (Mariappanadar 2019). Competition for attracting skilled
employees is as important as competition for attracting customers. Therefore, companies
must strive to remain attractive for their current employees and future applicants (Moroko
and Uncles 2008; Theurer et al. 2018).
The employer brand refers to the process of creating a unique identity for the employer
(Weske et al. 2019). The EB is a set of psychological, economic, and functional benefits
that a company could obtain through recruitment (Ambler and Barrow 1996), thus making
up part of the company's overall characteristics (Ambler and Barrow 1996; Chhabra and
Sharma 2014). Functional and economic benefits refer to instrumental and tangible benefits
(e.g. job characteristics, payment, opportunities for development) and psychological
(symbolic) benefits (e.g. subjective feelings and intangible factors), which pertain to the
employer (App and Büttgen 2016; Lievens and Highhouse 2003). There are only few
studies that that have addressed the topic of existing employees (Chaudhary 2017).
Moreover, since engagement improves as a result of the positive perceptions of the
employees about the EB (Glenn 2007; Concert and Mozelli 2011; Davis and Matt 2018)
and given the positive effect of SHRM on the attractiveness of the organization’s brand
(Kryger Aggerholm et al. 2011; App et al. 2012), and also considering the positive effect
of CSR on attracting and retaining talent by strengthening the employer brand (Kharisma
2013; Lindhall and Olson 2015; Henrich 2017), this study investigated the EB, as the only
mediating variable in the relationship between PCSR and PSHRM and EE. As a result, in
order to investigate the EB, the existing employees were examined and the following
hypothesis was considered (As shown in Figure 1):

5
Hypothesis 4: EB brings about a positive effect on EE.
2.4 Sustainable Human Resource Management
The HRM philosophy, which used to rely on performance-based financial indicators, has
been moving toward a philosophy of human resources based on a threefold approach that
takes into account economic, social and environment indicators equally (Ren and Jackson
2019). Stahl et al. (2019) argue that SHRM involves the adaptation of HRM strategies and
actions that lead the organization to achieve its economic, social and environmental goals;
with an impact on the inside and outside of the organization, as well as on the long-term
time horizon. Furthermore, it has a key role in addressing CSR challenges and actions and
goes beyond public relations efforts (Stahl et al. 2019).
Various terms have been used to link sustainability and human resources in previous
research, such as Human Resource Sustainability, Sustainable Leadership, Sustainable
Organization, Socially Responsible HRM, SHRM, and Green HRM (Kramer 2015).
Despite recent studies on SHRM, there is still disagreement about its conceptual terms
(Macke and Genari 2019; Santana et al. 2019) and researchers in this field have not yet
arrived at a unanimous definition for this concept (Vikhamn 2019).
Some believe that SHRM is an emerging and evolving paradigm that is related to HRM
and contributes to it (de Souza Freitas et al. 2011; De Prins et al. 2014). Therefore,
organizations are increasingly striving to integrate sustainability into their goals, strategies,
and main operations (Milliman 2013). In SHRM, organizations can use strategic HRM
methods to maximize their profits, and at the same time work to reduce the disadvantages
that HRM might have for stakeholders and the environment (Mariappanadar 2014).
Indeed, organizations need motivated and skilled employees to achieve their long-term
commercial goals (App and Büttgen 2016). SHRM not only requires the recruitment and
retaining of motivated and talented employees, but also aims to provide a healthy working
environment and helps to create opportunities for development (App and Büttgen 2016;
Ehnert 2009). This could give rise to an attractive corporate brand which could meet the
needs and expectations of current and potential employees of an organization (App et al.
2012; Kryger Aggerholm et al. 2011).
In a study by Gao and Zhang (2006) about the role of corporate sustainability in
engagement of stakeholders, it was shown that the integration of sustainable approaches
into a business could result in increased engagement on the part of the stakeholders. Also,
Meijerink et al. (2018) studied the employees' perception of high commitment to human
resources management and its impact on EE (Meijerink et al. 2018). However, we did not
find any research on the effect of SHRM on EE. In this study, as shown in Figure 1, we
also examine the direct effect of PSHRM on EE, as well as its indirect effect, which could
result from the enhanced effect of EE on the EB. Thus, the following hypotheses are
proposed:
Hypothesis 5: PSHRM brings about a positive effect on EB.
Hypothesis 6: PSHRM brings about a positive effect on EE.
Hypothesis 7: The EB will partially mediate the relationship between PSHRM and EE.

6
3. METHODOLOGY
This study falls into the category of applied research. In addition, it adopts a descriptive-
correlational approach and uses a survey for data collection and analysis.
In this research, the hypotheses were tested using the structural equation modeling (SEM)
in the PLS software. Recently, PLS has been widely considered for its capacity to model
latent variables in non-normal conditions with small and medium-sized samples (Chin et
al. 2003). In addition, PLS is very useful in measuring causal relationships (Hensler et al.
2009). In the inferential statistics section, the Smart PLS software was used to examine the
fitting of the model, including the three stages of fitting the measurement models, the
structural model, and the general model. According to the data analysis algorithm in the
PLS method, after examining the fit of the model, a researcher can evaluate and test their
research hypotheses and arrive at a conclusion.
To assess the measurement model, the criteria of reliability, content validity, the Average
Variance Extracted (AVE), and divergent validity were used. The reliability of the
reflective constructs of the model was measured by examining the Cronbach's alpha
coefficients, the combined reliability (as internal consistency), as well as the loading
factors.
The Cronbach's alpha and composite reliability were used according to Fornell and
Larcker's (1981), to test the reliability of the internal and one-dimensional compatibility.
The optimal Cronbach's alpha for the desired homogeneous and mono-dimensional block
was higher than 0.7 (Nunnally, 1967), as well as for composite reliability, which indicates
the internal consistency for multi-criteria scales, the optimal value is 0.8 and values greater
than 0.7 are acceptable (Nunnally and Bernstein 1994).
3.1 Sampling
The present paper was conducted by sampling from the permanent contract employees in
one of the major state-owned companies under the Iranian Ministry of Petroleum. This
company is a private joint stock company and its main mission is exporting crude oil and
gas condensate to foreign customers and also to a limited extent to some Iranian companies.
Due to the geographical distribution of its main activities, the company has employees in
its headquarters, as well as the south and north of Iran. The company's employee
composition consists of three categories of permanent, contractual and hired employees.
According to Gallup (2015), permanent contract employees are more likely to harbor a
sense of belonging to the organization than contractual employees. The key executive roles
are taken by permanent contract employee, which means higher job awareness. This, in
turn, leads to fewer systematic and random errors originating from the source (Huber and
Power 1985). According to the latest figures from the Human Resource department, the
company has 1241 employees on permanent contracts, who have been considered as the
statistical population of this study.
One of the most commonly used methods for estimating the minimum sample size in the
PLS-SEM is the 10-times rule. Although simple, studies have shown that this method may
produce false estimates (Kock and Hadaya 2018). In his discussion of the sample size,
Locholin (2004) concluded that factor-analysis models with a sample size of 100 and bigger
would provide reliable results. In addition, based on Chin et al. (2003) significant levels
and indicator numbers with different sample sizes show that a sample size of 100 and
bigger with four or more indicators for each predictor construct (independent variables) or
modifying variables is sufficient at a significance level of 0.01 (Chin et al. 2003). However,
in order to improve the validity of the research data, efforts were made to include
employees with various organizational positions, including experts, senior experts,

7
chairmen and managers, and from various job areas including technical affairs
management, export management, support management, HSE, and legal affairs and
contracts, human resource management, and finance. Also, the experience of the
participants affects their perceptions of the variables. Therefore, permanent employees with
at least 5 years of experience in the company were considered as the statistical population.
The researchers distributed and collected the questionnaires via e-mail. It should be
mentioned that the questionnaires were distributed among and collected from the company
employees at its headquarters in the north and south of Iran. In addition to the questionnaire,
a guide file was also sent containing instructions about completing the questionnaire. The
researcher’s contact number was also provided to answer possible questions by the
respondents. A 3-week time period was considered for completing the questionnaires, and
at the end of the second week, participants were contacted and reminded to complete the
uncollected questionnaires. In order to ensure the validity of the questionnaire, a number
of participants were randomly interviewed for confirmation and the correctness of their
answers.
Overall, 252 questionnaires were distributed among and collected from the statistical
population. Due to using the purposeful sampling method, considering the way we
distributed and collected the questionnaires as previously described, the return rate of
research questionnaires was 100%. The process of following up and receiving all the
questionnaires took more than six weeks. Of all the participants, 0.36% had 5 to 10 years
of work experience, 0.44 had 10 to 20 years of work experience and 0.20 had more than 20
years of work experience. Due to the nature of jobs in the oil industry, most of the
participants were men (0.92). In terms of age, 0.38 had 30 to 40 years of age, 0.40 had 40
to 50 years of age and 0.22 had 50 to 60 years of age (at present, 60 is the retirement age
of employees in the Iranian oil industry).
3.2 Measures
We have used several scales to measure the components of the model. To measure the
perceived social responsibility of the company, we adopted the four-component model
proposed by Heidarzadeh Hanzaee and Rahpeima (2013), refer Appendix 1.
Furthermore, to measure the employer brand, we used the four components introduced by
Kumar Dawn and Biswas (2010) (see Appendix2).
Also, to measure employee engagement, we utilized the 9-item Utrecht Work Engagement
Scale (UWES-9) (Schaufeli and Baker 2002, Appendix 3)
Since researchers in the field of sustainable human resource management have not reached
a unanimous agreement about the definition of sustainable human resources (Wikhamn
2019), we made use of several questionnaires. In this study, a combination of
questionnaires by Wikhamn (2019) and Aibaghi Esfahani et al. (2016) were used to
measure sustainable human resource management.
At the first stage, the study questionnaire was distributed among 20 experts in the field of
human resources at the Oil Company and among 10 experts and scholars to investigate
their comments and opinions. The questionnaire was then modified based on the
suggestions by the members of this selected sample, the researcher's knowledge of the oil
industry, the culture of the company under study, as well as the literature. The corrections
largely concerned how the questions were expressed, however, it was also suggested that
some questions be removed. The resulting questionnaire was again given to the selected
sample and was approved.

8
In order to test the reliability, the final questionnaire was distributed as a test among 20
selected employees who a suitable representation of the statistical population in terms of
their knowledge, experience and management level. After collecting the questionnaires,
face-to-face interviews were conducted with the participants from the experimental sample
and the respondents' arguments for their answers were reviewed. Hence, the content
validity of the questions was reaffirmed. The reliability of this questionnaire in the selected
sample was shown by the Cronbach's alpha coefficient (0.86), employee engagement
(0.97), sustainable human resources (0.92), employer brand (0.93) and perceived social
responsibility (0.85). The final questionnaire can be found in the appendix section. The
Sustainable Human Resources section of this questionnaire includes the following
components: competency development, employee relations used in Wikhamn (2019), job
opportunities, and personal accountability adopted from the questionnaire developed by
Aibaghi Esfahani et al. (2016) (see Appendix4).
4. ANALYSES
Different types of employees, in terms of work experience, gender, age, position and job
field, participated in this study. Before performing the inferential analyses, the possible
differences between the participants in terms of the effects of demographic characteristics
on the employees’ perceptions of the main variables were examined by virtue of the
ANOVA analysis. Based on the results, it was concluded that there was no significant
difference between the opinions of different respondent groups regarding the main
variables of the research.
Based on Table 1, all the reflective constructs of the structural model of this research have
a satisfactory internal consistency in terms of composite reliability values and the
Cronbach's alpha coefficients. Single validity assessment of each indicator for constructs
with reflective indicators includes loadings or simple correlations analyses between the
items that measure the construct. Carmines and Zeller (1979) showed that loading factors
should be greater than 0.707 in order for them to be acceptable as indicators for measuring
their corresponding constructs (Carmines and Zeller 1979). This means that the variance
between the construct and its indicators is greater than the variance of the error (none of
the items is below the specified minimum value, so none of the indicators are removed
from the model and have construct validity). Table 2 reports the results after performing
500 various repetitions.
Insert Table 2 here
Content validity was also examined by ensuring that there was consistency between the
measurement indicators and the existing literature, which was achieved by conducting a
survey among professors and researchers who au fait with the research subject. The experts
also suggested that the value for AVE should be higher than 0.5, which means that a latent
variable can generally explain more than half of the distribution of its indicators, and over
half of the variance of a construct comes from its indicators (Fornell and Larcker 1981).
The results in Table 1 showed the suitable convergence of the values. The divergent validity
is considered as the third fit criterion, which is measured by comparing the square root of
AVE with the correlation between the latent variables. For each of the reflective constructs,
the square root of AVE should be greater than the correlation of that construct with other
constructs (Chou and Chen 2009). This criterion is also a complementary concept, for
which the Fornell-larcker criterion will be used.
The Fornell and lacker criterion argues that a variable has to have greater distribution
among its identifiers in comparison with the indicators of other latent variables (Fornell

9
and Larcker 1981). This type of divergent validity was confirmed for each of the four
reflective constructs of the model (Table 3).
Insert Table 3 here
After verifying the validity and reliability of the measurement model (Tables 1 and 3),
which confirmed the fit of the model, the fitting of the determined structural model was
evaluated by examining the relationships between the latent variables. At this stage, we
assessed the conceptual model of the research using path coefficients (or standardized
regression weights) and the explained variance (R²) for the endogenous variables. When a
variable does not reach the minimum threshold of 0.1 for the explained variance as
specified by Falk and Miller (1992), then that variable is bounded to other factors that are
outside the scope of this study (Falk and Miller 1992). The values of R² for the EB (.418)
and EE (.562) illustrates that both endogenous variables meet the minimum desired value.
An analysis of the contribution of predictor (independent) variables in relation to the
explained variance of the endogenous variables consist of the evaluation of path
coefficients (standardized regression weights) and the correlation between latent variables.
Table 4 contains the hypothesized relationships, path coefficients, correlations, and the t-
values (as the critical bootstrapping ratios), and shows that the relationships between latent
variables meet this condition. To determine the contribution of the predictor variables to
the analytic variance (R2) for the endogenous variables in the proposed model, researchers
must carefully measure the results from the multiples of the path coefficients (between two
constructs) in the correlation between the two constructs (Falk and Miller 1992). This
determines the explained variance of the endogenous construct by the predictor variable
(see Table 4).
Insert Table 4 here
Falk and Miller (1992) state that the predictor variable must explain at least 1.5% of the
variance of the dependent variable. When this value is smaller than the desired minimum
value, it means that this variable is influenced by other factors not mentioned in this study.
All the proposed relationships in the present study met this condition; therefore, the fit of
the structural model is also confirmed.
For assessing the general fit, there is only one criterion – goodness of fit (GOF). A GOF of
0.7 indicates a suitable fit of a model (Wetzels et al. 2009). Therefore, the GOF of the
model was computed, which was suggested by Tenenhaus et al. (2004) for simultaneous
evaluation of fitness for internal models and external measurements of data (Tenenhaus et
al. 2004).
The GOF index is the root of the product of the average communality for all the constructs
multiplied by the average R² for the Endogenous structures, as shown below:
GOF=√communality
















*R2



The average communality represents the percentage of change in the indicators that is
justified by the corresponding construct (Lee et al. 2008). According to the specified sizes
of R2 determined by Cohen et al. (2013) and using a minimum value of 0.5 for the rate of
communality as prescribed by Fornell and Larcker (1981), it can be decided that the GOF
criterion is acceptable at 0.1 (Cohen et al. 2013; Schepers et al. 2005). The GOF computed
for the model was close to 0.73, which implies the overall goodness of fit of the model to
fit the data.
Figure 2 shows the output model with the values of path coefficients, t-values, R², and
loading factors. A path coefficient value equal and greater than 0.6 indicates that there is a
strong correlation between two variables and if it is between 0.3 and 0.6 then the

10
relationship as moderate strength and if it is below 0.3, then, it is a weak relationship (Chin
et al. 2003). Since the hypotheses are related to two domains, to reject the zero hypothesis
at the 5% level, the absolute value of the observed t-value must be greater than the absolute
value of 1.96. This condition was achieved for all the hypothesized paths and, as a result,
all of the direct hypotheses were confirmed. To produce critical rates, the bootstrapping
procedure was performed using 500-instance samples with a sub-instance of 200 states, in
Hypothesis 1. It was predicted that PCSR has a positive effect on improving the EB; the
results support the hypothesis at 0.05 with a β coefficient of 0.364 (t= 6.287). In Hypothesis
2, PCSR has a positive effect on improving EE. The results also support this hypothesis
with a β coefficient of 0.380 (t=6.886). Hypothesis 3 predicted that EB will partially
mediate the relationship between PSHRM and EE. Based on the analysis, PCSR with the
EB as the mediator has a significant indirect effect (β: 0.064, p <.004) on EE. This means
that increasing the company's level of CSR leads to a stronger EB, which in turn, leads to
improved EE. Hypothesis 4 predicted that the strengthening of EB has a positive effect on
EE; this hypothesis has also been confirmed at the level of 0.05 with a β coefficient of
0.177 (t =3.267). In Hypothesis 5, it was predicted that PSHRM would affect the EB; the
obtained results support this hypothesis at 0.05 with a β coefficient of .376 (t=7.116).
Hypothesis 6 predicted that PSHRM has a positive effect on improving EE. This was also
supported with a β coefficient of 0.333 (t=6.199). In Hypothesis 7, it was predicted that EB
would partially mediate the relationship between PSHRM and EE. Based on the analysis,
PSHRM with EB as the mediator has a significant indirect effect (β: 0.067, p <.006) on EE.
This means that improved PSHRM leads to the strengthening of the EB, which in turn
enhances the EE of the company (Figure 2).
Insert Figure 2 here
5. DISCUSSION
The present study contributed to literature in the field of SHRM by investigating the direct
and indirect effects of three components, i.e., SHRM, CSR and EB on EE. Although
previous studies have examined the impact of integrated sustainable business approaches
on EE (Gao and Zhang, 2006), no specific research has been conducted on the impact of
SHRM on improving EE. In addition to examining the direct effect of perceived CSR and
SHRM on EE, this study also examined the role of SHRM in enhancing the EB and its
indirect effect on EE.
Additionally, due to the similarities between SHRM and CSR, examining these two
concepts in a study and as two independent variables can help to enrich the literature as
regards the differences between the two concepts. CSR largely emphasizes the external
dimension of the organization. For this reason, a company's responsibility to its external
stakeholders is more diverse from the CSR’s point of view. SHRM, on the other hand,
emphasizes employees as the most important internal stakeholders of the organization.
Most organizations engage in CSR activities in response to increased competition and
pressure from various stakeholder groups (Chaudhary 2017). Although oil export is
undertaken by state-owned oil companies in Iran and they do not face any competition from
the private sector (there is competition in other dimensions among companies, such as in
retaining employees) but there has always been a debate about the increasing pressure of
various stakeholder groups to enforce CSR, which has been strengthened by the
development of cyberspace and the increasing influence of the mass media. It should be
noted though that the increased international sanctions on the Iranian oil industry have led
to a decline in oil revenues, and this has brought about more constraints in implementation
or improvement of CSR practices. Nevertheless, the results of this study showed that
greater commitment to CSR, led to an improvement in EE and positive attitudes toward
this oil company. This means that the overall increase in the company’s level of
commitment to the customers, social programs, the environment, laws and regulations, as

11
well as the community, has led to an improvement in the EE indicators such as motivation,
dedication and more professional involvement with the work and organization. This can be
logical because, as Alshathry and et al. (2017) have noted, when an organization works in
accordance with the principles of CSR, a feeling is inspired in its employees that their
cooperation and activities are reflected in the community, and as a result, employees would
feel proud to be engaged with the organization (Alshathry et al. 2017). Thus, commitment
to CSR can create a win-win situation and positive outcomes for both the community and
the organization and lead to increased employee loyalty to the organization (Ruban Antony
et al. 2018). Of course, the impact of PCSR with the EB as the mediator variable can also
have a positive impact on EE in an organization. As a result, the indirect effect of PCSR is
less significant than its direct effect on EE.
Based on the results of this study, an increase in the level of CSR could also lead to an
enhanced EB. That is, an increased level of company’s influence in society would conduce
to an overall improvement in the work-life balance, culture and work environment, strength
of the product brand, and compensation and benefits. Kharisma (2013) also argues that
CSR leads to Corporate Reputation and the EB’s attractiveness (Kharisma 2013). It also
seems that stronger commitment to CSR can set the organization apart from other
companies and competitors and, in fact, this distinction could apply to both the current and
potential employees of the organization (Kryger Aggerholm et al. 2011). Therefore, proper
short- and long-term planning, and commitment to correct and accurate implementation of
CSR programs can lead to improved EE as well as EB. The results of the analysis also
demonstrate the significant effect of improved EB on EE. Furthermore, as the attitude of
the current employees of the company has been taken as the basis for the EB analysis, we
can conclude that the research results are in line with the outcomes of previous studies that
identified EB's improvement and the creation of a positive mindset among employees
toward the EB as a way to retain organizational talent and increase the EE's effectiveness
(Davies et al. 2018; Glen 2007; Kunerth and Mosley 2011). In other words, improved EB
would result in better performance among the competitors (Chhabra and Sharma 2014;
Russell and Brannan 2016), and an overall increase in the EB indicators will lead to an
overall improvement of the EE indicators in the company, namely, motivation, dedication,
and more professional involvement with the job.
The results also show that the overall improvement in the indicators of SHRM such as
competency development, employee relations, employability and individual responsibility
will lead to improved EB. In other words, by formulating appropriate human resource
sustainability policies for this major oil company and other organizations, other elements
will improve such as the EB in its symbolic dimension (such as product brand strength), as
well as the functional dimension (e.g., rewards and benefits). Improvement in the symbolic
(psychological) and functional (economic-financial) dimensions could create a significant
and positive image and mentality among the employees and their employers (Lievens and
Highhouse 2003).
In addition, the sustainability of human resources will improve the EE at a company;
however, its impact and relevance were only slightly observed in our research and this
could be due to various possible reasons, including the economic pressures on human
resources due to the sharp increase in the rates of inflation and increase in the exchange
rates at the time of the study, which all led to a significant reduction in the purchasing
power of government employees on fixed salaries. Also, there may be other variables
involved which were not considered in this study. Although we did not find any related
research that directly examined the impact of SHRM on EE, there is a study by Gao and
Zhang (2006) who have found the combination of sustainable business approaches to be
effective in EE (Gao and Zhang 2006). We also found that efforts to improve SHRM,
increased EE in the organization. However, the effects of PSHRM by using the firm's brand
as a mediating variable can also have positive effects on employees' engagement with the
organization. Of course, this increase in the level of the employer brand will gradually
improve the employees' engagement with the company. In general, this study and the

12
obtained results improve our understanding of the position and importance of EE in the
organization and the effects of PCSR and PSHRM on the EB and EE, thus creating a
positive picture of the relationship between these elements in the organization.
Limitations and Future Research
First, the study was based on a convenient sample of employees in one company, which
constrains the extent to which the findings can be generalized. For future research, it is
suggested that research be conducted with a selected and more extensive sample in the
entire Ministry of Petroleum.
Second, considering the type of the research methodology, the data for this research have
been collected in a specific period of time and some variables such as employer brand and
social responsibility have been based on the respondents' perceptions of the organization's
attention to this variable. Therefore, it is suggested that for future research, variables such
as the employer brand be measured over a wider period of time and variables such as social
responsibility be measured based on the company's investment on it. It is also suggested
that the views of external stakeholders on the company's performance in the field of social
responsibility be measured and then the relationship and role of these variables be
investigated again.
Conclusion
The main objective of the present study was to improve our understanding of the effects of
Perceived Corporate Social Responsibility and Perceived Sustainable Human Resource
Management of the organization on Employee Engagement through the Employer Brand.
We hope that by creating a comprehensive approach to CSR, EB, SHRM and Employee
Engagement, this study helps to provide a general and positive view of the role of these
variables in the short-term and long-term decisions of the organization. Moreover, the
present study results can serve as a tool to improve the performance of similar
organizations. We encourage researchers and also managers of large companies to examine
our model and view it as a template to make effective changes in their human resources
and environments.
Compliance with Ethnical Standards
Conflict of Interest The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.
Ethical Approval All procedures performed in this study involving human participants
were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institution and with the 1964 Helsinki
declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed Consent Informed consent was obtained from participants in this study.
Funding This study was self-funded.
APPENDIX 1
Measurement: (5 point scales assessing the degree of agreement or disagreement, where 5:
strongly agree and 1: strongly disagree)
Variable: Perceived Corporate Social Responsibility
PCSR1: Obligation to customers
1. My company considers both customer satisfaction and his/her long-term benefits
in its plans and actions.

13
2. My company has enough disclosure about its products and services to customers.
3. My company respects customer rights meanwhile attention to other stakeholders’
rights.
4. My company tries to implement local and international standards in its production.
PCSR2: Obligation to social programs and natural environment
5. My company participates in activities which aim to protect and improve the natural
environment.
6. My company takes part in altruistic activities and encourages its employees to
participate in such activities.
7. My company tries to minimize its unfavorable and damaging effects on the natural
environment.
8. My company supports social welfare programs and creation of employment
opportunities.
PCSR3: Obligation to laws and regulations
9. My firm tries to act on the basis of local and global legal regulations.
10. Complying with legal regulations in every situation is an underlying purpose of my
company.
11. My company always pays its taxes and other duties regularly and completely.
PCSR4: Obligation to society
12. My company cooperates with other private and public entities in social
responsibility projects.
13. My company emphasizes the importance of its social responsibilities to the society.
14. My company targets sustainable development and creation of a better life for future
generations.
15. My company seeking opportunities to define projects that are beneficial both for
the organization and society.
APPENDIX 2
Variable: Employer Brand
EB1: Work-Life Balance
16. I work more than the set hours in the company.
17. I use the sports facilities.
18. I am constantly thinking or worried about work, when I'm not working.
19. Because of my work, I miss the time I can spend with my family and friends.
20. I am actively involved in social, religious and cultural activities.
EB2: Company Culture and Environment
21. The quality of the relationship between senior management and staff is good.
22. My company has a good reputation in the community.

14
23. My company has a high level of technology-work challenge.
24. My job-related activities involve a good amount of challenge.
25. My company is a large organization.
26. The roles in my company have a high level of transparency.
EB3: Product/Company Brand Strength
27. The company's products have a wide appeal.
28. The company's services have a wide appeal.
29. People prefer to work in my company than in other companies.
EB4: compensation and benefits
30. I receive a sufficient salary (Base pay).
31. My salary is almost equal to that of the others in the company (Internal equity).
32. My salary is almost equal to that of the others in similar companies (External
equity).
33. We receive good benefits in addition to our salaries (Perks and bonuses).
34. We have good retirement plans.
35. Our company provides us with good healthcare plans.
APPENDIX 3
Variable: Employee Engagement
Measurement: (5 point scales assessing the degree of agreement or disagreement, where 5:
strongly agree and 1: strongly disagree)
EE1: Vigor
50. At my work, I feel bursting with energy.
51. At my job, I feel strong and vigorous.
52. When I get up in the morning, I feel like going to work.
EE2: Dedication
53. I am enthusiastic about my job.
54. My job inspires me.
55. I am proud on the work that I do.
EE3: Absorption
56. I feel happy when I am working intensely.
57. I am immersed in my work.
58. I get carried away when I’m working.
APPENDIX 4
Variable: Perceived Sustainable Human Resource Management

15
PSHRM 1: Competence Development
36. Employees in this company are provided with clear career paths
37. The company provides opportunities for individual development other than formal
training (e.g., work assignments and job rotation).
38. The company encourages employees to attend formal developmental activities
Extensive training programs.
39. Extensive training programs are provided for individuals in our organization.
PSHRM 2: Employee Relations
40. We treat our employees as the most valuable resources within our company.
41. Our company emphasizes the importance of having satisfied employees.
42. The hotel seeks to maintain a high level of employee motivation.
43. Employees receive effective feedback on their performance.
PSHRM 3: Employability
44. I adjust my behavior to the work environment.
45. Our staff possess the ability to think in ways that provide economic value to our
products and services.
PSHRM 4: Personal Responsibility
46. I am responsive to the implications of my performance in the work environment.
47. I aware of the effect of my behavior to other staffs.
48. I emphasize the effect of my behavior to other staffs.
49. I always feel, tired and depressed.
REFERENCES
Agbionu, U. C., Anyalor, M., & Chukwuma Nwali, A. (2018). Employee Engagement and
Performance of Lecturers in Nigerian Tertiary Institutions. Journal of Education &
Entrepreneurship Formerly Journal of Educational Policy and Entrepreneurial Research, 5, 69-87.
Aibaghi Esfahani, S., Rezaii, H., Koochmeshki, N., & Sharifi Parsa, S. (2017). Sustainable and
flexible human resource management for innovative organizations. AD-minister, (30), 195-215.
http://dx.doi.org/10.17230/ad-minister.30.10
Albdour, A. A., & Altarawneh, I. I. (2012). Corporate social responsibility and employee
engagement in Jordan. International Journal of Business and Management, 7(16), 89.

16
Aldousari, A. A., Robertson, A., Yajid, M. S. A., & Ahmed, Z. U. (2017). Impact of employer
branding on organization’s performance. Journal of Transnational Management, 22(3), 153-170.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15475778.2017.1335125.
Alshathry, S., Clarke, M., & Goodman, S. (2017). The role of employer brand equity in employee
attraction and retention: a unified framework. International Journal of Organizational Analysis,
25(3), 413-431. Doi: 10.1108/IJOA-05-2016-1025
Ambler, T., & Barrow, S. (1996). The employer brand. Journal of brand management, 4(3), 185-
206. https://doi.org/10.1057/bm.1996.42.
App, S., & Büttgen, M. (2016). Lasting footprints of the employer brand: can sustainable HRM lead
to brand commitment? Employee Relations, 38(5), 703-723. Doi: 10.1108/ER-06-2015-0122
App, S., Merk, J., & Büttgen, M. (2012). Employer Branding: Sustainable HRM as a Competitive
Advantage in the Market for High-Quality Employees. Management revue, 262-278.
Armstrong, M. (2011). Engagement strategy. In Armstrong’s Handbook of Strategic Human
Resource Management (5 ed., pp. 200-210). London, Philadelphia, New Delhi: Kogan Page.
Awasthi, A. K., & Sharma, S. (2017). Work Place Dynamics for Employee Engagement.
COMMERCE TODAY, 6, 78-81.
Barrena‐Martinez, J, López‐Fernández, M, Romero‐Fernández, PM. (2019). The link between
socially responsible human resource management and intellectual capital. Corp Soc Resp Env Ma,
26, 71– 81. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1658
Carmines, E. G., & Zeller, R. A. (1979). Reliability and Validity Assessment. Doi:
10.4135/9781412985642
Chaudhary, R. (2017). Corporate social responsibility and employee engagement: can CSR help in
redressing the engagement gap? Social Responsibility Journal, 13(2), 323-338. Doi: 10.1108/SRJ-
07-2016-0115
Chhabra, N., & Sharma, S. (2014). Employer branding: Strategy for improving employer
attractiveness, 26(3), 536-566. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-11-2017-1280

17
Chin, W., L. Marcolin, B., & R. Newsted, P. (2003). A Partial Least Squares Latent Variable
Modeling Approach for Measuring Interaction Effects: Results from a Monte Carlo Simulation
Study and an Electronic-Mail Emotion/Adoption Study. 14(2), 189–217.
https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.14.2.189.16018
Chou, S.-W., & Chen, P.-Y. (2009). The influence of individual differences on continuance
intentions of enterprise resource planning (ERP). International Journal of Human-Computer
Studies, 67(6), 484-496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2009.01.001
Cohen, J. (2013). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences: Routledge.
Commission, E. (2011). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the
Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the REGIONS-A
renewed EU strategy 2011-14 for Corporate Social Responsibility. Brussels
Davies, G., Mete, M., & Whelan, S. (2018). When employer brand image aids employee satisfaction
and engagement. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance, 5(1), 64-80.
Doi: 10.1108/JOEPP-03-2017-0028
De Souza Freitas, W. R., Jabbour, C. J. C., & Santos, F. C. A. (2011). Continuing the evolution:
towards sustainable HRM and sustainable organizations. Business strategy series.
De Prins, P., Van Beirendonck, L., Vos, A., & Segers, J. (2014). Sustainable HRM: Bridging theory
and practice through the 'Respect Openness Continuity (ROC)'-model, 25(4),263-284.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/24710112
Diaz‐Carrion, R., López‐Fernandez, M., & Romero‐Fernandez, P. M. (2018). Developing a
sustainable HRM system from a contextual perspective. Corporate Social Responsibility and
Environmental Management, 25(6), 1143-1153.
Edwards, M. R. (2010). An integrative review of employer branding and OB theory. Personnel
Review 39(1), 5–23.
Ehnert, I. (2009). Sustainable Human Resource Management: A conceptual and exploratory
analysis from a paradox perspective. London: springer.
Falk, R., & Miller, N. (1992). A Primer for Soft Modeling. University of Akron Press.

18
Fernandez-Lores, S., Gavilan, D., Avello, M., & Blasco, F. (2016). Affective commitment to the
employer brand: Development and validation of a scale. BRQ Business Research Quarterly, 19(1),
40-54. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brq.2015.06.001
Ferreira, P., & Real de Oliveira, E. (2014). Does corporate social responsibility impact on employee
engagement? Journal of Workplace Learning, 26(3/4), 232-247. Doi: 10.1108/JWL-09-2013-0070
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable
Variables and Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50. Doi:
10.2307/3151312
Gallup. (2013). State of the American Workplace: Employee Engagement Insights for U.S. Business
Leaders. Retrieved from Washington.
Gao, S. S., & Zhang, J. J. (2006). Stakeholder engagement, social auditing and corporate
sustainability. Business Process Management Journal, 12(6), 722-
740.doi/abs/10.1108/14637150610710891. Doi: 10.1108/14637150610710891
Garavan, T. N., & McGuire, D. (2011). Human Resource Development and Society: Human
Resource Development’s Role in Embedding Corporate Social Responsibility, Sustainability, and
Ethics in Organizations. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 12(5), 487-507.
Doi.org/10.1177/1523422310394757
Gavino, M.C., Lambert, J.R., Elgayeva, E. et al. HR Practices, Customer-Focused Outcomes, and
OCBO: The POS-Engagement Mediation Chain. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal
(2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10672-020-09355-x
Glavas, A., & Kelley, K. (2014). The effects of perceived corporate social responsibility on
employee attitudes. Business Ethics Quarterly, 24(2), 165-202.
Glen, C. (2007). Fostering talent opportunity: getting past first‐base. Strategic Direction, 23(10), 3-
5. Doi:10.1108/02580540710824220
Hee, O., Ibrahim, R., Tan, K., & Chin Fei, G. (2018). Employee Engagement as a Mediator between
Transformational Leadership and Employee Performance. Asian Journal of Scientific Research,
11(3), 441-448. doi: 10.3923/ajsr.2018.441.448

19
Heinrich, E. (2017). Overcoming Regional Retention Issues: How Some Michigan Organizations
Use CSR to Attract and Engage Top Talent. In Corporate Social Responsibility, Sustainability, and
Ethical Public Relations. The Changing Context of Managing People, Emerald Publishing Limited,
89-122.
Hensler, J., Ringle, C., & Sinkovics, R. R. (2009). The use of partial least squares path modeling in
international marketing. Advances in international Marketing, 20, 227-319.
Huber, G. P., & Power, D. J. (1985). Retrospective Reports of Strategic-Level Managers: Guidelines
for Increasing Their Accuracy. Strategic Management Journal, 6(2), 171-180.
Ilyasa, Madhakomala, & Mansyur, R. (2018). The Effect of Organization Culture, Knowledge
Sharing and Employee Engagement on Employee Work Innovation. International Journal of
Scientific Research and Management, 6(1). doi:10.18535/ijsrm/v6i1.em09
Inyang, B., R.O, E., & H.O, A. (2011). CSR-HRM Nexus: Defining the Role Engagement of the
Human Resources Professionals. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(5), 118-
126.
Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological Conditions of Personal Engagement and Disengagement at
Work. Academy of management journal, 33(4), 692-724. doi.org/10.5465/256287
Kharisma, P. (2013). THE ROLE OF CSR IN EMPLOYER BRANDING STRATEGY: FROM
LEGITIMACY TO ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT. University of Bourgogne, Dijon,
France.
Kock, N., & Hadaya, P. (2018). Minimum sample size estimation in PLS‐SEM: The inverse square
root and gamma‐exponential methods. Information Systems Journal, 28(1), 227-261.
https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12131
Kryger Aggerholm, H., Esmann Andersen, S., & Thomsen, C. (2011). Conceptualizing employer
branding in sustainable organizations. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 16(2),
105-123. Doi/abs/10.1108/13563281111141642.
Kunerth, B., & Mosley, R. (2011). Applying employer brand management to employee engagement.
Strategic HR Review, 10(3), 19-26. doi.org/10.1108/14754391111121874

20
Lee, J., Park, S. Y., Baek, I., & Lee, C.-S. (2008). The impact of the brand management system on
brand performance in B–B and B–C environments. Industrial marketing management, 37(7), 848-
855. doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2008.04.005
Lievens, F., & Highhouse, S. (2003). The Relation of Instrumental and Symbolic Attributes to a
Company's Attractiveness as an Employer. Personnel psychology, 56(1), 75-102.
doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2003.tb00144.x
Lindholm, K., & Olsson, C. (2015). Employer branding through the use of CSR: CSR's effect on
university students in their preference for employment. (Independent thesis Basic level (degree of
Bachelor) Student thesis), Retrieved from http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:ltu:diva-51050
DiVA database.
Lindholm, L. (2018). The Use of Corporate Social Responsibility in Employer Branding. In
Developing Insights on Branding in the B2B Context, 73-93. Emerald Publishing Limited.
Macioschek, A., & Katoen, R. (2007). Employer branding and talent-relationship-management:
Improving the organizational recruitment approach. In: Handelshögskolan vid Umeå universitet.
Macke, J., & Genari, D. (2019). Systematic literature review on sustainable human resource
management. Journal of cleaner production, 208, 806-815.
Mariappanadar, S. (2014). Stakeholder harm index: A framework to review work intensification
from the critical HRM perspective. Human Resource Management Review, 24(4), 313-329.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2014.03.009
Mariappanadar, S. (2019). Sustainable human resource management: Strategies, practices and
challenges. Macmillan International Higher Education.
Meijerink, J., Bos-Nehles, A., & de Leede, J. (2018). How employees’ pro-activity translates high-
commitment HRM systems into work engagement: the mediating role of job crafting. The
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 1-
26.Doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2018.1475402

21
Milliman, J. (2013). Leading-Edge Green Human Resource Practices: Vital Components to
Advancing Environmental Sustainability. Environmental Quality Management, 23(2), 31-45.
Doi/abs/10.1002/tqem.21358.
Mohanty, S. (2018). Individualized employee engagement or collaborative employee relations:
Insights on leadership strategies to manage employees in the UK market. Problems and Perspectives
in Management, 16(3), 366-376.
Montgomery, D., & Ramus, C. (2003). Corporate Social Responsibility Reputation Effects on MBA
Job Choice. Stanford GSB Working Paper, 1805. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.412124
Moroko, L., & Uncles, M. (2008). Characteristics of successful employer brands. Journal of Brand
Management, 16(3), 160-175. doi.org/10.1057/bm.2008.4
Nunnally, J. C. (1967). Psychometric Methods. New York: McGraw Hill.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw Hill.
Ozcan F, Elci M. (2020). Employees’ Perception of CSR Affecting Employer Brand, Brand Image,
and Corporate Reputation. SAGE Open. doi:10.1177/2158244020972372
Radda, A. A., Majidadi, M. A., & Akanno, S. N. (2015). Employee Engagement in Oil and Gas
Sector. International Journal of Management & Organizational Studies, 4(3), 104-116.
Ren, S., & Jackson, S. E. (2019). HRM institutional entrepreneurship for sustainable business
Organizations. Human Resource Management Review, 30(3), 100691.
Richardson, S. (2007). What is a skill shortage? : NCVER
Ruban Antony, M., ARrulraj, A., & Umamaheswari, D. (2018). Operational excellence in
manufacturing organizations through employee engagement- a critical analysis on the driving
factors of employee engagement. International Journal of Mechanical and Production Engineering
Research and Development (IJMPERD), 8(2), 1271-1282.
Rupp, D. E., Shao, R., Skarlicki, D. P., & Layne Paddock, E. (2018). Corporate social responsibility
and employee engagement: The moderating role of CSR‐specific relative autonomy and
individualism. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(5), 559-579. doi.org/10.1002/job.2282

22
Russell, S., & Brannan, M. (2016). Getting the right people on the bus” recruitment, selection and
integration for the branded organization. European Management Journal, 34(2), 114-124.
Doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2016.01.001
Saeed, B. B., Afsar, B., Hafeez, S., Khan, I., Tahir, M., & Afridi, M. A. (2019). Promoting
employee's proenvironmental behavior through green human resource management practices.
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 26(2), 424-438.
Santana, M., & Lopez‐Cabrales, A. (2019). Sustainable development and human resource
management: A science mapping approach. Corporate social responsibility and environmental
management, 26(6), 1171-1183.
Schepers, J., Wetzels, M., & de Ruyter, K. (2005). Leadership styles in technology acceptance: do
followers practice what leaders preach? Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, 15(6),
496-508. doi.org/10.1108/09604520510633998
Slack, R., Corlett, S., & Morris, R. (2015). Exploring employee engagement with (corporate) social
responsibility: a social exchange perspective on organizational participation. Journal of business
ethics, 127(3), 537-548. Retrieved from http://dro.dur.ac.uk/11565/.
Stahl, G. K., Brewster, C. J., Collings, D. G., & Hajro, A. (2020). Enhancing the role of human
resource management in corporate sustainability and social responsibility: A multi-stakeholder,
multidimensional approach to HRM. Human Resource Management Review, 30(3), 100708.
Tenenhaus, M., Amato, S., & Esposito Vinzi, V. (2004). A global goodness-of-fit index for PLS
structural equation modelling. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the XLII SIS scientific
meeting. Oral Communication to PLS Club, HEC School of Management, France, March, 24, 1-4.
Teng, M.-J., & Wu, S.-Y. (2018). Sustainable Development and Competitive Advantages – Utilizing
Matching to Overcome Sample Selection Bias. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental
Management, 25(4), 313-326. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/csr.1462
Theurer, C. P., Tumasjan, A., Welpe, I. M., & Lievens, F. (2018). Employer Branding: A Brand
Equity-based Literature Review and Research Agenda. International Journal of Management
Reviews, 20(1), 155-179. Retrieved from
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ijmr.12121

23
Thom, N., & Zaugg, R. J. (2004). Nachhaltiges und innovatives Personal management. In E. J.
Schwarz (Ed.), Nachhaltiges Innovations management (pp. 215-245). Wiesbaden: Gabler Verlag,
Wiesbaden.
Vasantha, L. R., & Hanuman, K. (2017). The Role of Business Sustainability in Human Resource
Management: A Study on Indian Manufacturing Companies. The South East Asian Journal of
Management, 11(1), 70.
Viktoria Rampl, L., & Kenning, P. (2014). Employer brand trust and affect: linking brand
personality to employer brand attractiveness. European Journal of Marketing, 48(1/2), 218-236.
Doi:10.1108/EJM-02-2012-0113
Wasilowski, S. (2018). Employee Engagement in Higher Education. JOURNAL OF SOCIAL
SCIENCE RESEARCH, 12(2), 2699-2712. https://doi.org/10.24297/jssr.v12i2.7435
Weske, U., Ritz, A., Schott, C., & Neumann, O. (2019). Attracting Future Civil Servants with Public
Values? An Experimental Study on Employer Branding. International Public Management Journal.
DOI: 10.1080/10967494.2018.1541830
Wetzels, M., Odekerken-Schröder, G., & Van Oppen, C. (2009). Using PLS path modeling for
assessing hierarchical construct models: Guidelines and empirical illustration. MIS quarterly, 177-
195.
Wikhamn, W. (2019). Innovation, sustainable HRM and customer satisfaction. International
Journal of Hospitality Management, 76, 102-110. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.04.009
Zhou, Z., Luo, B. N., & Tang, T. L.-P. (2018). Corporate Social Responsibility Excites ‘Exponential’
Positive Employee Engagement: The Matthew Effect in CSR and Sustainable Policy. Corporate
Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 25(4), 339-354. Retrieved from
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/csr.1464

24
Tables:
Table 1: components of conceptual model
AVE
Composite
reliability
Cronbach,s
alpha
sources
components
.768
.929
.898
Heidarzadeh Hanzaee and Rahpeima
(2013)
PCSR
.746
.921
.892
Wikhamn (2019); Aibaghi Esfahani
et.al (2017)
PSHRM
.851
.958
.941
Ambler and Barrow (1996); Kumar
Dawn and Biswas (2010); Edwards
(2010)
EB
.825
.934
.895
Schaufeli et.al (2002)
EE
PCSR = Perceived Corporate Social Responsibility; PSHRM = Perceived Sustainable Human
Resource Management; EB = Employer Brand; EE = Employee Engagement

25
Table3: latent and observed variables
Latent
variables
Observed variables
loading
PCSR
Obligation to customers
Obligation to social programs and natural
environment
Obligation to laws and regulations
Obligation to society
.817
.941
.909
.832
EB
Work-life balance
Culture and work environment
strength of product brand
compensations and benefits
.962
.956
.944
.822
EE
Vigor
Dedication
Absorption
.921
.916
.888
PSHRM
Competence development
Employee relations
Employability
Individual Responsibility
.889
.874
.810
.879

26
Table 3: divergent validity
PSHRM
EE
EB
PCSR
constructs
.876
PCSR
.923
.562
EB
.909
.579
.654
EE
.863
.633
.568
.525
PSHRM

27
Table4: path coefficients for direct relations
Explained variance percentage
t-value
correlation
s
Path Coefficients
relation
20.45
6.287
.562
.364
PCSR -EB
24.85
6.886
.654
.380
PCSR -EE
21.35
7.116
.568
.376
PSHRM -EB
21.07
6.199
.633
.333
PSHRM -EE
10.2
3.267
.579
.177
EB-EE

28
Figures:
Figure 1: Conceptual model
Figure2: PLS Output model (path coefficient and T)

Figures:
Figure 1: Conceptual model
Sustainable
Human Resource
Management
Corporate Social
Responsibility
Employer Brand
Employee
Engagement
Figure

Figure2: PLS Output model (path coefficient & T)

Date: May 3, 2021
Dear Reviewer
Thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript titled "The Effect of Perceived
Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainable Human Resources on Employee
Engagement with the Moderating Role of Employer Brand" to Employee
Responsibilities and Rights Journal. We also greatly appreciate the reviewers for
their complimentary comments and suggestions. We have carried out the
experiments that the reviewers suggested and revised the manuscript accordingly.
Here is a point-by-point response to your comments and concerns. Comments:
There are just a few minor points to address and I believe that this manuscript will
be ready for publication. In the measures section, please refer to the specific
Appendix (i.e., Appendix !....) that your measures are tied to, rather than just
referring to the overall appendices with the range of items. This will make it clearer
to readers which measures are tied to which appendix. Everything else looks really
good. I look forward to seeing this change.
Answer: Thank you for bringing it to our attention. We did as you instructed.
We look forward to hearing from you regarding our submission. We would be glad
to respond to any further questions and comments that you may have.
Sincerely
Response to Reviewer Comments