The Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on Employee Satisfaction in an Insurance Industry in Trincomalee District

Main Article Content

S. Kumuthinidevi
F. A. Shamila

Abstract

The current research is intended to identify the impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on Employee satisfaction in an insurance industry in Trincomalee district. The concept of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has gained much attention in recent years. It provides companies with a significant approach for achieving employee satisfaction and considered a source for enhancing competitive advantage.


Data was collected using a research method, questionnaire survey. This research found that, the majority insurance Industries consider their CSR to society and CSR to their working environment undertaking various measures to conserve resources as well as satisfied their employees within the organization. Insurance Industries provided little support to most internal CSR practices identified in this study. The conceptualization of the study demonstrated independent variables (Corporate Social Responsibility) of Economic responsibility, Ethical responsibility, Legal responsibility and Philanthropic responsibility how to effect on dependent variable of employees satisfaction in an insurance Industries. A quantitative analysis was conducted with 100 of sample. The data was collected though distributing questionnaire among respondent. Further, univariate analysis and bivariate analysis were carried out through SPSS (21.0).


The findings revealed that corporate social responsibility and satisfaction is in high level and corporate social responsibility moderately and positively influence on satisfaction. Furthermore, study found that there was positive and significant relationship between corporate social responsibility and employee satisfaction in an Insurance Industry in Trincomalee district. The recommendations were provided, in order to further improvement in highest returns to their stakeholders, comply with all state laws and regulations, be compromise ethical norms of the society to achieve corporate goals, Strive to provide community betterment. This study will be more beneficial both existing insurance industries and newly joint who will be doing the business in insurance industry in Sri Lanka.

Keywords:
Economic responsibility, legal responsibility, ethical responsibility, philanthropic responsibility, employee satisfaction.

Article Details

How to Cite
Kumuthinidevi, S., & Shamila, F. (2019). The Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on Employee Satisfaction in an Insurance Industry in Trincomalee District. Asian Journal of Economics, Business and Accounting, 11(4), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.9734/ajeba/2019/v11i430137
Section
Original Research Article

Article Metrics


References

Turker D. Measuring corporate social responsibility: A scale development study. Journal of Business Ethics. 2009;85(4): 411-427.

European Commission. 2001;9.

Stropnik N, Humer Ž. The cultural and policy context of fatherhood. Father Involvement in the Early Years: An International Comparison of Policy and Practice. 2015;127.

Waldman DA, Siegel DS, Javidan M. Components of CEO transformational leadership and corporate social responsibility. Journal of management studies. 2006;43(8):1703-1725.

Zedeck SE. APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Building and developing the organization. American Psychological Association. 2011;1.

Buck JM, Watson JL. Retaining staff employees: The relationship between human resources management strategies and organizational commitment. Innovative Higher Education. 2002;26(3):175-193.

Bargh JA, Chen M, Burrows L. Automaticity of social behavior: Direct effects of trait construct and stereotype activation on action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1996;71(2):230.

Pryce-Jones J, Scott DE. Keeping happy at work during economic turmoil. Tar heel nurse. 2009;71(4):18-19.

Furunes T, Mykletun RJ. Age management in Norwegian hospitality businesses. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism. 2005;5(2):116-134.

McWilliams A, Siegel DS, Wright PM. Corporate social responsibility: Strategic implications. Journal of Management Studies. 2006;43(1):1-18.

Orlitzky M, Schmidt FL, Rynes SL. Corporate social and financial performance: A Meta-analysis. Organization Studies. 2003;24(3):403-441.

Tamm K, Eamets R, Mõtsmees P. Relationship between corporate social responsibility and job satisfaction: The Case of Baltic Countries; 2010.

Matten D, Moon J. Implicit and explicit CSR: A conceptual framework for a comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review. 2008;33(2):404-424.

Albinger HS, Freeman SJ. Corporate social performance and attractiveness as an employer to different job seeking populations. Journal of Business Ethics. 2000;28(3):243-253.

Freeman RE. Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Cambridge University Press; 2010.

Galbreath J. Corporate social responsibility strategy: Strategic options, global considerations. Corporate Governance: The international Journal of Business in Society. 2006;6(2):175-187. Taphors, survey design and the workplace context. Journal of Education and Work. 2006;18(4):359-383.

Bauman CW, Skitka LJ. Corporate social responsibility as a source of employee satisfaction. Research in Organizational Behavior. 2012;32:63-86.

Carroll AB. A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. Academy of Management Review. 1979;4(4):497-505.

Basim HN, Şeşen H, Sözen C, Hazir K. The effect of employees learning organization perceptions on organizational citizenship behaviors. Selcuk University Social Sciences Institute Journal. 2009;22.

Harvard Business Essentials; 2002.

March JG, Simon HA. Organizations; 1958.

Hunter JE. Cognitive ability, cognitive aptitudes, job knowledge and job performance. Journal of Hair M; 2007. Samouel and Page, Criteria for Assessing Measurement Scale, Research Methods for Business. Vocational Behavior. 1986;29(3):340-362.

Edgar F, Geare A. HRM practice and employee attitudes: Different measures–different results. Personnel Review. 2005;34(5):534-549.