Does authenticity matter? How and when employees’ attributions of CSR motives influence their green innovation behaviors: Empirical evidence from Albania
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online July, 2026
Does authenticity matter? How and when employees’ attributions of CSR motives influence their green innovation behaviors: Empirical evidence from Albania
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has become a central component of contemporary business strategy, aiming to reduce environmental externalities through eco-friendly operations and employee engagement. While existing research suggests that employees often perceive and respond positively to CSR, there is a limited understanding of how employees attribute the underlying motives behind CSR initiatives and how these attributions influence their outcomes.
Objective
Drawing on Affective Events Theory (AET), this study's objective is to examine how employees’ attributions of CSR motives influence their green innovation behaviors, with environmental passion and environmental commitment serving as sequential mediators, and environmental empathy acting as a boundary condition.
Methods
An online survey was conducted in two waves to collect data from employees of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in Albania. Responses from 423 participants were analyzed using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) in SmartPLS 3.5 to assess the measurement and structural models. Additionally, Hayes PROCESS Macro was used to examine the hypothesized moderated-mediation effects.
Results
The results indicate that substantive CSR has a positive impact on green innovation behaviors. In contrast, symbolic CSR exerts a negative impact on these behaviors. Additionally, environmental passion and environmental commitment partially mediate the positive effect of substantive CSR on green innovation behaviors, and the negative effect of symbolic CSR on these behaviors. Furthermore, environmental empathy strengthens the positive indirect effect of substantive CSR on green innovation behaviors via environmental passion and environmental commitment, and simultaneously amplifies the negative indirect effect of symbolic CSR on green innovation behaviors.
Conclusion
For resource-constrained SMEs, authentic CSR is not merely ethical but a strategic necessity for securing long-term sustainable competitive advantage. Accordingly, our study offers several implications for theory and for practitioners.
RuppDEAguinisHSiegelD, et al.Corporate social responsibility research: an ongoing and worthwhile journey. Academy of Management Collections2024; 3: 1–16.
2.
ShahzadMQuYJavedSA, et al.Relation of environment sustainability to CSR and green innovation: a case of Pakistani manufacturing industry. J Clean Prod2020; 253: 119938.
3.
ForumWE. Beyond supply chains: empowering responsible value chains. World Economic Forum, 2015.
4.
WildnerovaLMenonCDehghanR, et al.Which SMEs are greening? cross-country evidence from one million websites. OECD Publishing, 2024.
5.
AguinisHRuppDEGlavasA. Corporate social responsibility and individual behaviour. Nat Hum Behav2024; 8: 219–227.
6.
AbdelmotalebMMohamedMABESahaSK. Exploring the impact of being perceived as a socially responsible organization on employee creativity. Manag Decis2018; 56: 2325–2340.
7.
YinCMaHGongY, et al.Environmental CSR and environmental citizenship behavior: the role of employees’ environmental passion and empathy. J Clean Prod2021; 320: 128751.
8.
AukhoonMAIqbalJParrayZA. Impact of corporate social responsibility on employee green behavior: role of green human resource management practices and employee green culture. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag2024; 31: 3768–3778.
9.
AhmadIJamaliDRKhattakMN. Can organizations get away with greenwashing? CSR attributions and counterproductive sustainability behaviors. Bus Ethics Eur Rev2025; 34: 103–120.
10.
Vila-VázquezGCastro-CasalCCarballo-PenelaA. Employees’ CSR attributions and pro-environmental behaviors in the hotel industry: the key role of female supervisors. Serv Ind J2023; 43: 24–42.
11.
BoğanEDedeoğluBBÇalışkanC, et al.Employee negative reactions to CSR: corporate hypocrisy and symbolic CSR attributions as serial mediators. Int J Hospit Manag2024; 120: 103786.
12.
ChaudharyRAkhouriA. Linking corporate social responsibility attributions and creativity: modeling work engagement as a mediator. J Clean Prod2018; 190: 809–821.
13.
LangeDWashburnNT. Understanding attributions of corporate social irresponsibility. Acad Manag Rev2012; 37: 300–326.
14.
AhmadIDoniaMBShahzadK. Impact of corporate social responsibility attributions on employees’ creative performance: the mediating role of psychological safety. Ethics Behav2019; 29: 490–509.
15.
ChenJZhangA. Greening the cubicle: unraveling the impact of corporate environmental ethics on employees’ green innovative behavior through the affective events theory. Curr Psychol2024; 43: 25820–25835.
16.
HafeezMYasinIZawawiD, et al.Unleashing the power of green innovations: the role of organizational ambidexterity and green culture in achieving corporate sustainability. Eur J Innovat Manag2024; 28: 2304–2336. ahead-of-print.
17.
SongWMaYFanX, et al.Corporate environmental ethics and employee’s green creativity? The perspective of environmental commitment. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag2023; 30: 1856–1868.
18.
NejatiMShafaeiA. Why do employees respond differently to corporate social responsibility? A study of substantive and symbolic corporate social responsibility. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag2023; 30: 2066–2080.
19.
ShahzadiGJohnAQadeerF, et al.CSR beyond symbolism: the importance of substantive attributions for employee CSR engagement. J Clean Prod2024; 436: 140440.
20.
Castro-CasalCVila-VázquezGGarcía-ChasR. How and when employees’ attributions of their employers’ CSR activities affect their extra-role work behavior. Business Ethics, the Environment & Responsibility2023; 34: 1399–1411.
21.
ChenXHansenECaiJ, et al.The differential impact of substantive and symbolic CSR attribution on job satisfaction and turnover intention. Bus Ethics Eur Rev2023; 32: 1233–1246.
22.
DoniaMBLRonenSTetrault SirslyC-A, et al.CSR by any other name? The differential impact of substantive and symbolic CSR attributions on employee outcomes. J Bus Ethics2019; 157: 503–523.
23.
SkarmeasDLeonidouCN. When consumers doubt, Watch out! The role of CSR skepticism. J Bus Res2013; 66: 1831–1838.
24.
BriefAPWeissHM. Organizational behavior: affect in the workplace. Annu Rev Psychol2002; 53: 279–307.
25.
PasrichaPNivedhithaKSRaghuvanshiJ. The perceived CSR-innovative behavior conundrum: towards unlocking the socio-emotional black box. J Bus Res2023; 161: 113809.
26.
NgTWHYamKCAguinisH. Employee perceptions of corporate social responsibility: effects on pride, embeddedness, and turnover. Pers Psychol2019; 72: 107–137.
27.
GondJ-PEl AkremiASwaenV, et al.The psychological microfoundations of corporate social responsibility: a person-centric systematic review. J Organ Behav2017; 38: 225–246.
28.
WeissHMCropanzanoRS. Affective Events Theory: a theoretical discussion of the structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at work. 1996; 18: 1–74.
29.
SchaeferSDCunninghamPDiehlS, et al.Employees’ positive perceptions of corporate social responsibility create beneficial outcomes for firms and their employees: organizational pride as a mediator. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag2024; 31: 2574–2587.
30.
Kiffin-PetersenSMurphySASoutarG. The problem-solving service worker: appraisal mechanisms and positive affective experiences during customer interactions. Hum Relat2012; 65: 1179–1206.
31.
IqbalRShahzadKChaudharyR. Green human resource management practices as a strategic choice for enhancing employees’ environmental outcomes: an affective events theory perspective. Int J Manpow2024; 45: 801–819.
32.
Piwowar-SulejKIqbalQDagarV, et al.Employees’ eco-friendly innovative behaviors: examining the role of individual and situational factors. Eur Manag J2024; 43: 676–685.
33.
AlhmoudiRSSinghSKCaputoF, et al.Corporate social responsibility and innovative work behavior: is it a matter of perceptions?Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag2022; 29: 2030–2037.
34.
MirahsaniNAzizanOShahriariM, et al.Green culture toward employee green behavior; the mediation roles of perceived support and green identity. Environ Dev Sustain2024; 26: 16149–16172.
35.
BabuNDe RoeckKRaineriN. Hypocritical organizations: implications for employee social responsibility. J Bus Res2020; 114: 376–384.
36.
RobertsonJLMontgomeryAWOzbilirT. Employees’ response to corporate greenwashing. Bus Strat Environ2023; 32: 4015–4027.
37.
DoniaMBTetrault SirslyCARonenS. Employee attributions of corporate social responsibility as substantive or symbolic: validation of a measure. Appl Psychol2017; 66: 103–142.
38.
RobertsonJLBarlingJ. Greening organizations through leaders’ influence on employees’ pro-environmental behaviors. J Organ Behav2013; 34: 176–194.
39.
CopSAlolaUVAlolaAA. Perceived behavioral control as a mediator of hotels’ green training, environmental commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior: a sustainable environmental practice. Bus Strat Environ2020; 29: 3495–3508.
40.
PailléPMejía MorelosJHRaineriN, et al.The influence of the immediate manager on the avoidance of non-green behaviors in the workplace: a three-wave moderated-mediation model. J Bus Ethics2019; 155: 723–740.
41.
AmabileTMBarsadeSGMuellerJS, et al.Affect and creativity at work. Adm Sci Q2005; 50: 367–403.
42.
RenSJiangKTangG. Leveraging green HRM for firm performance: the joint effects of CEO environmental belief and external pollution severity and the mediating role of employee environmental commitment. Hum Resour Manag2022; 61: 75–90.
43.
KimSCCookeSL. Using the health belief model to explore the impact of environmental empathy on behavioral intentions to protect ocean health. Environ Behav2021; 53: 811–836.
44.
RazaAFarrukhMIqbalMK, et al.Corporate social responsibility and employees’ voluntary pro-environmental behavior: the role of organizational pride and employee engagement. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag2021; 28: 1104–1116.
45.
OregSBartunekJMLeeG, et al.An affect-based model of recipients’ responses to organizational change events. Acad Manag Rev2018; 43: 65–86.
46.
BatsonCDLishnerDAStocksEL. The empathy-altruism hypothesis. The Oxford handbook of prosocial behavior. Oxford University Press, 2015, pp. 259–281.
47.
BurrellGMorganG. Sociological paradigms and organisational analysis: elements of the sociology of corporate life. Routledge, 2019.
48.
PodsakoffPMMacKenzieSBPodsakoffNP. Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annu Rev Psychol2012; 63: 539–569.
49.
UddinMABiswasSRBhattacharjeeS, et al.Inspiring employees’ ecological behaviors: the roles of corporate environmental strategy, biospheric values, and eco-centric leadership. Bus Strat Environ2021; 30: 2367–2381.
50.
CooperBEvaNFazlelahiFZ, et al.Addressing common method variance and endogeneity in vocational behavior research: a review of the literature and suggestions for future research. J Vocat Behav2020; 121: 103472.
51.
BhattiSHIrshadRShehzadN, et al.Exploring the mediating role of social capital and pro-social motivation in the relationship between CSR and creative deviance. J Intellect Cap2023; 24: 1206–1226.
52.
HairJFRisherJJSarstedtM, et al.When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. Eur Bus Rev2019; 31: 2–24.
53.
HairJFHultGTMRingleCM, et al.Evaluation of formative measurement models. In: HairJFHultGTMRingleCM, et al. (eds) Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) Using R: A Workbook. Springer International Publishing, 2021, pp. 91–113.
54.
LinY-TLiuN-CLinJ-W. Firms’ adoption of CSR initiatives and employees’ organizational commitment: organizational CSR climate and employees’ CSR-induced attributions as mediators. J Bus Res2022; 140: 626–637.
55.
KangasEJoensuu-SaloSViljamaaA. Is CSR a solution for crisis? Assessing the impact of three CSR dimensions on SME performance in the Nordic context. Baltic J Manag2025; 20: 1–19.
56.
SharmaG. Pros and cons of different sampling techniques. Int J App Res2017; 3: 749–752.
57.
ReadBWoltersLBerinskyAJ. Racing the clock: using response time as a proxy for attentiveness on self-administered surveys. Polit Anal2022; 30: 550–569.
MalamisPHowleyMJ. Anticipating careless responders in survey design and analysis. Appl Clin Trials2022; 31: 1–28.
60.
NanjundeswaraswamyTSDivakarS. Determination of sample size and sampling methods in applied research. Proceedings on Engineering Sciences2021; 25–32.
61.
ObengHAArhinfulRTessemaDH, et al.The mediating role of organisational stress in the relationship between gender diversity and employee performance in Ghanaian public hospitals. Futur Bus J2025; 11: 38.
62.
ChaokromthongKSintaoN. Sample size estimation using Yamane and Cochran and Krejcie and Morgan and green formulas and Cohen statistical power analysis by G* Power and comparisions. Apheit Int J Int Soc Sci Tech2021; 10: 76–86.
63.
DashGPaulJ. CB-SEM vs PLS-SEM methods for research in social sciences and technology forecasting. Technol Forecast Soc Change2021; 173: 121092.
64.
BrislinRW. Translation and content analysis of oral and written material. In: TriandisHCBerryJW (eds). Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology. Methodology, Allyn and Bacon, 1980, vol 2, pp. 389–444.
65.
AboramadanMKundiYMFaraoC. Examining the effects of environmentally-specific servant leadership on green work outcomes among hotel employees: the mediating role of climate for green creativity. J Hospit Market Manag2021; 30: 929–956.
66.
AboramadanM. The effect of green HRM on employee green behaviors in higher education: the mediating mechanism of green work engagement. Int J Organ Anal2022; 30: 7–23.
67.
AndersonJCGerbingDW. Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach. Psychol Bull1988; 103: 411–423.
68.
PodsakoffPMMacKenzieSBLeeJ-Y, et al.Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol2003; 88: 879–903.
69.
FullerCMSimmeringMJAtincG, et al.Common methods variance detection in business research. J Bus Res2016; 69: 3192–3198.
70.
KockN. Common method bias in PLS-SEM: a full collinearity assessment approach. Int J e-Collab2015; 11: 1–10.
71.
FornellCLarckerDF. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res1981; 18: 39–50.
72.
WangJWangLSunCY, et al.The relationship between perceived corporate environmental responsibility and employees’ pro-environmental behavior: a moderated serial mediation model. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag2023; 30: 2606–2622.
73.
DoniaMBLTetrault SirslyC-A. Determinants and consequences of employee attributions of corporate social responsibility as substantive or symbolic. Eur Manag J2016; 34: 232–242.
74.
MinJKimJYangK. CSR attributions and the moderating effect of perceived CSR fit on consumer trust, identification, and loyalty. J Retailing Consum Serv2023; 72: 103274.
75.
BoganEDedeogluBB. How and when perceived CSR effects interpersonal helping and loyal boosterism: a moderated mediation model. Int J Hospit Manag2022; 102: 1–12.
76.
SchaeferSDTerlutterRDiehlS. Is my company really doing good? Factors influencing employees’ evaluation of the authenticity of their company’s corporate social responsibility engagement. J Bus Res2019; 101: 128–143.
