Internal Corporate Social Responsibility and Employee Burnout: An Employee Management Perspective from the Healthcare Sector

Figures & data

Table 1 Previous Contributions from CSR Scholars with Respect to Negative Employee Outcomes, Including Burnout

Authors	Variables	Findings
Chaudhary^Citation70	CSR, turnover, employee engagement, belief, gender	CSR at the level of employees reduces turnover while employee engagement mediates this relation, and belief and gender produce moderating effects
Xue, Zhang^Citation27	ICSR, emotional exhaustion, turnover, pride, meaningfulness, belongingness	ICSR negatively predicts emotional exhaustion and turnover intentions, while organizational pride, belongingness, and meaningfulness mediate this relationship
Huang, Fei^Citation72	CSR, burnout, engagement, ethical leadership, self-efficacy,	CSR reduces burnout of employees, while self-efficacy and employee engagement were included in the model as mediators
[77]	CSR, stress, well-being	Organizational ethics like CSR significantly relate to well-being, and stress negatively mediates this relation
Lin and Liu^Citation142	CSR, ethical leadership, turnover, burnout	CSR and ethical leadership negatively predict employee turnover intentions, and burnout mediates this relationship
Lanham, Rye^Citation143	Gratitude, job satisfaction, burnout	Gratitude positively predicted job satisfaction, while burnout negatively related to job satisfaction of healthcare professionals
Cheng, Wang^Citation144	CSR cynicism, distrust, turnover	CSR cynicism positively predicts employee distrust which increases their turnover intentions
Virador and Chen^Citation145	(in)congruant CSR, turnover	A congruent CSR strategy of an organization will reduce the turnover intentions of employees, whereas an incongruent CSR strategy will increase turnover intentions
Castro-González, Bande^Citation146	CSR, organizational pride, organizational reputation turnover	CSR negatively predicts employee turnover intentions, and organizational pride and reputation mediate this relationship
Sobhani, Haque^Citation147	Socially responsible HRM, citizenship behavior, reputation, turnover	Socially responsible human resource management improves organizational citizenship behavior and organizational reputation while reducing turnover
Darvishmotevali and Ali^Citation110	Self-efficacy, optimism, resilience, job satisfaction, well-being	Self-efficacy, optimism, and resilience moderate the relationship between well-being and job satisfaction
Jiang, Ming^Citation112	Resilience, well-being	Resilience is a significant moderator to buffering well-being
[101]	CSR, resilience	CSR is an organizational enabler to enhance employee resilience

Figure 1 Theoretical framework.

Table 2 Data Cleaning, Outliers, and Response Rate

	Distributed	Returned	Unreturned	Missing	Outliers	Final
	600	427	173	09	16	402
Percentage	–	28.833	35.29	2.107	3.747	67.00

Table 3 Outliers

Observation Number	Mahalanobis d-Squared	p1	p2
106	15.082	0.005	0.000
189	14.832	0.011	0.000
54	14.702	0.012	0.000
202	14.662	0.012	0.000
372	13.882	0.012	0.000
24	13.127	0.014	0.000
393	13.003	0.015	0.016
410	12.723	0.028	0.028
163	12.528	0.030	0.039
277	12.320	0.036	0.045
387	12.108	0.039	0.042
532	11.596	0.042	0.033
188	11.404	0.046	0.027
356	11.222	0.048	0.040
101	10.881	0.051	0.016
333	10.349	0.053	0.024

Table 4 Validity and Reliability

	λ	λ^2	E-Variance	AVE	CR
ICSR				0.54	0.88
	0.70	0.49	0.51
	0.77	0.59	0.41
	0.73	0.53	0.47
	0.73	0.53	0.47
	0.76	0.58	0.42
	0.70	0.49	0.51
RS				0.57	0.89
	0.78	0.61	0.38
	0.72	0.52	0.39
	0.75	0.56	0.48
	0.72	0.52	0.44
	0.75	0.56	0.48
	0.79	0.62	0.44
SB				0.55	0.83
	0.75	0.56	0.44
	0.73	0.53	0.47
	0.70	0.49	0.51
	0.78	0.61	0.39
BUO				0.60	0.91
	0.82	0.67	0.33
	0.89	0.79	0.21
	0.71	0.50	0.50
	0.71	0.50	0.50
	0.72	0.52	0.48
	0.70	0.49	0.51
	0.84	0.71	0.29

Abbreviations: λ, item loadings; C.R, composite reliability; ∑λ², sum of square of item loadings; E-Variance, error variance; ICSR, internal corporate social responsibility; RS, resilience; SB, subjective well-being; BUO, Burnout N = 402.

Table 5 Model Fit Comparison, Alternate vs Hypothesized Models

Model	Composition	χ^2/df	GFI	TLI	IFI	CFI	RMSEA	Δχ^2/df
		(<3)	(>0.9)	(>0.9)	(>0.9)	(>0.9)	(<0.08)	–
1	(hypothesized) ICSR, RS, SB, BUO	2.13	0.93	0.94	0.96	0.96	0.05	_
2	(three-factor) ICSR+RS, SB, BUO	5.69	0.79	0.80	0.80	0.81	0.07	3.56
3	(two-factor) ICSR+RS, SB+BUO	7.42	0.62	0.67	0.67	0.67	0.12	1.73
4	(one-factor) ICSR+RS+SB+BUO	9.88	0.54	0.55	0.56	0.56	0.19	2.46

Table 6 Correlations and Discriminant Validity

Construct	ICSR	RS	SB	BUO	Mean	SD
ICSR	0.73	0.48	0.55	−0.57	3.62	0.77
RS		0.75	0.59	−0.39	3.09	0.68
SB			0.74	−0.59	2.88	0.70
BUO				0.77	2.96	0.69

Abbreviations: S.D, standard deviation; diagonal, discriminant validity values, p<0.001; ICSR, Internal corporate social responsibility; RS, resilience; SB, subjective well-being; BUO, Burnout N = 402.

Table 7 Direct, Indirect, and Conditional Effects

Hypotheses	Estimates (SE)	t/z	p-value	CI
(ICSR➔SB)	0.49(0.073)	06.71	0.000	0.359, 0.528
(SB➔BUO)	−0.55(0.065)	−08.46	0.006	−0.612, −0.398
(ICSR➔BUO)	−0.59(0.061)	−09.67	0.000	−0.688, −0.367
Indirect effect (ICSR➔SB➔BUO)	−0.27(0.019)	−14.21	0.002	−0.291, −0.244
Conditional effect of RS between ICSR and SB at different levels
−1SD (−0.8996)	0.543(0.16)	–	–	0.276, 0.890
At mean	0.449(0.14)	–	–	0.216, 0.753
+1SD(0.8996)	0.623(0.18)	–	–	0.533, 0.728
The conditional indirect effect of RS between ICSR➔SB➔BUO	−0.085(0.03)	–	–	−0.143, −0.036

Abbreviations: CI, 95% confidence interval with lower and upper limits; ICSR, Internal corporate social responsibility; RS, resilience; SB, subjective well-being; BUO, Burnout N = 402.

Figure 2 Measurement model.

Figure 3 Structural model.

Chaudhary R. CSR and turnover intentions: examining the underlying psychological mechanisms. Soc Responsibil J. 2017;13(3):643–660. doi:10.1108/SRJ-10-2016-0184

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Xue S, Zhang L, Chen H. CSR, emotional exhaustion and turnover intention: perspective of conservation of resources theory. In: Academy of Management Proceedings. Briarcliff Manor, NY: Academy of Management; 2018:10510.

 Google Scholar

Huang SY, Fei Y-M, Lee Y-S. Predicting job burnout and its antecedents: evidence from financial information technology firms. Sustainability. 2021;13(9):4680. doi:10.3390/su13094680

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Schwepker CH, Valentine SR, Giacalone RA, Promislo M. Good barrels yield healthy apples: organizational ethics as a mechanism for mitigating work-related stress and promoting employee well-being. J Bus Ethics. 2021;174(1):143–159. doi:10.1007/s10551-020-04562-w

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Lin C-P, Liu M-L. Examining the effects of corporate social responsibility and ethical leadership on turnover intention. Personn Rev. 2017;46(3):526–550. doi:10.1108/PR-11-2015-0293

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Lanham M, Rye M, Rimsky L, Weill S. How gratitude relates to burnout and job satisfaction in mental health professionals. J Ment Health Counsel. 2012;34(4):341–354. doi:10.17744/mehc.34.4.w35q80w11kgpqn26

 Google Scholar

Cheng Y, Wang Y, Pan F. The impact of CSR perceptions on employees’ turnover intention during the COVID-19 crisis in China. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(14):8297. doi:10.3390/ijerph19148297

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Virador LB, Chen LF. Does an (in) congruent corporate social responsibility strategy affect employees’ turnover intention? A configurational analysis in an emerging country. Bus Ethics Environ Responsibil. 2022;32:57–73.

 Google Scholar

Castro-González S, Bande B, Vila-Vázquez G. How can companies decrease salesperson turnover intention? The corporate social responsibility intervention. Sustainability. 2021;13(2):750. doi:10.3390/su13020750

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Sobhani FA, Haque A, Rahman S. Socially responsible HRM, employee attitude, and bank reputation: the rise of CSR in Bangladesh. Sustainability. 2021;13(5):2753. doi:10.3390/su13052753

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Darvishmotevali M, Ali F. Job insecurity, subjective well-being and job performance: the moderating role of psychological capital. Int J Hosp Manage. 2020;87:102462. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102462

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Jiang Y, Ming H, Tian Y, et al. Cumulative risk and subjective well-being among rural-to-urban migrant adolescents in China: differential moderating roles of stress mindset and resilience. J Happiness Stud. 2020;21(7):2429–2449. doi:10.1007/s10902-019-00187-7

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Mahmood S, Shaari R, Sarip A. Sprituality and resilience effects on employee awareness and engagement in CSR: an overview and research agenda. J Adv Res Soc Behav Sci. 2018;12(1):35–44.

 Google Scholar