This article was downloaded by: [New York University]

On: 01 July 2015, At: 04:06

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Human Resource Development

International
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rhrd20

Socially responsible HR practices and

employees’ intention to quit: the
mediating role of job satisfaction
a a
Subhash C. Kundu & Neha Gahlawat
a
Haryana School of Business, Guru Jambheshwar University of
Science and Technology, Hisar, India
Published online: 19 Jun 2015.

Click for updates

To cite this article: Subhash C. Kundu & Neha Gahlawat (2015): Socially responsible HR practices
and employees’ intention to quit: the mediating role of job satisfaction, Human Resource
Development International, DOI: 10.1080/13678868.2015.1056500

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2015.1056500

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
 Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Downloaded by [New York University] at 04:06 01 July 2015
 Human Resource Development International, 2015
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2015.1056500

Socially responsible HR practices and employees’ intention to quit: the

mediating role of job satisfaction
Subhash C. Kundu* and Neha Gahlawat

Haryana School of Business, Guru Jambheshwar University of Science and Technology, Hisar,
India
(Received 7 February 2015; accepted 27 May 2015)

This study investigates the relationship between socially responsible HR practices and
Downloaded by [New York University] at 04:06 01 July 2015

employees’ intention to quit, and the mediating effect of job satisfaction. The article is
based on 563 respondents of 204 organizations from various industries operating in
India. The results of data analysis support the stated hypotheses. Multiple regression
analysis has indicated that socially responsible HR practices have significant influence
on employees’ intention to quit. Job satisfaction has been found to cast a full mediating
effect on the relationship between socially responsible HR practices and employees’
intention to quit. It has also been found that organizations vary in their adoption of
socially responsible HR practices according to the industry to which they belong.
Managerial implications and directions for future research are also provided.
Keywords: employee attitudes; employees’ intention to quit; India; job satisfaction;
socially responsible HR practices

Introduction
In last two decades, a noticeable transformation has been observed in focus of businesses
from charitable donations and philanthropy towards more prominent issues of ethics,
ecology, support for small rural enterprises, and consumer education (Gupta and Gupta
2008, 210). The challenge for modern organizations is how to achieve this daunting task
of being ethical by defining the obligations for HR function that it needs to fulfil for
achieving this goal. In the opinion of Bierema and D’abundo (2004), simply concentrating
on productivity- and performance-based HRD will not prove fruitful for the organizations
in the long run, rather it will diminish the ‘human resources’ in the process and will
increase other associated costs such as turnover, stress, and employees quitting the work
for competition. A paradigm shift is much needed at this time that can eliminate the
organizations’ fascination over continuous economic and organizational growth and
encourage them towards the adoption of more responsible and sustainable HR practices
within a blend of three interconnected areas, i.e. sustainability, corporate social responsi-
bility (CSR), and business ethics (Ardichvili 2012; Garavan and McGuire 2010). To
achieve this anticipated shift, researchers believe that organizations need to adopt a
planned approach that can institutionalize CSR and sustainability in organizational system
in alignment with various management practices including HR practices (Ardichvili 2011;
Jenkins 2009). Shen and Zhu (2011) have addressed such type of HR practices as ‘socially
responsible HR practices’. The present study mainly revolves around these socially

*Corresponding author. Email: sckundu@yahoo.com

© 2015 Taylor & Francis

 2 S.C. Kundu and N. Gahlawat

responsible HR practices, beginning from their conceptualization to examining their

effects on employees.
Rising awareness about sustainability and social responsibility has led organizations to
broaden their interests in a more planet focused way instead of narrow business-focused
way, while providing an opportunity to redesign the HR role of ‘architect’ in establish-
ment of long-term values-driven relationships with all of the organization’s stakeholders
(Baek and Kim 2014; Scully-Russ 2012; Ulrich 2014). Stressing the importance of this
changing HRD role, Bhattacharya, Doty, and Garavan (2014) have opined that the
investments that an organization make to redesign the ‘HRD’ architecture in the form
of upgraded HRD practices are the embodiment of a true strategic investment. In the
words of Anderson, Garavan, and Sadler-Smith (2014), it’s high time to realize that HRD
field has potential to support organizations and individuals in excelling socially, ethically,
and sustainably through the offering of a core set of principles and practices that can help
in designing and implementing ethical as well as responsible interventions and practices.
Downloaded by [New York University] at 04:06 01 July 2015

So, it becomes quite relevant to concentrate on this CSR–HRD nexus for development of
good HRD practices, which in future will assist an organization in rising socially,
ethically, and sustainably.
With increased globalization and sharing of information, a growing number of
Indian organizations have begun emphasizing on long-term orientation to their business
strategy with a social mission, strengthened by organizational commitment to core
values, employee development, and welfare (Thite 2013). According to Chatterjee
(2007, 95), it is the outcome of global integration of the Indian economy and the
cross-flow of best practices in human resource management that the main objective of
Indian HR managers is, now, to build new and improved employment relationships
through revolutionary HRM policies and practices. Since these revolutionary HRM
practices are known to encompass the positive effects on employee physical and
emotional well-being in accordance with social responsibility and sustainability per-
spective of modern organizations (Pfeffer 2010). The present article concentrates on
this relatively novel area, which is very often termed socially responsible HRM. Very
little empirical research has examined the effects of socially responsible HR practices
from an internal or employee perspective. Except for the study by Shen and Zhu
(2011), which includes socially responsible HRM and its impact on organizational
commitment, and the paper of Celma, Martínez-Garcia, and Coenders (2014), which
focuses on how socially responsible HR practices benefit employees, none has
explored the influence of socially responsible HR practices on employees’ attitudes
and behaviour beyond organizational commitment and satisfaction. In the words of
Baek and Kim (2014), the field of HRD has not yet developed a framework that can
evidently explain the interactions between HRD and its beneficiaries in the societal
context and the characteristics involved in such interactions. To fill out this research
gap, the current study attempts to investigate the effects of socially responsible HR
practices on employees’ performance through two important employee outcomes, i.e.
job satisfaction and employees’ intention to leave. The study is mainly undertaken to
assess whether job satisfaction, being an important attitudinal variable, mediates the
relationship between socially responsible HR practices and employees’ intention to
quit, another important performance outcome. Also, it will help in determining the
variations in adoption of socially responsible HR practices in Indian organizations on
the basis of the industries. In the light of the above, a conceptual framework is
proposed here in the beginning section (see Figure 1) so as to depict the hypothesized
relationships chosen for testing in this study.
 Human Resource Development International 3

–
Socially Employees’
responsible HR intention to
practices quit
Job
+ –
satisfaction

Control variables: designation, gender, age, ownership, nature, and industry

Figure 1. Proposed conceptual model.

Notes: –––– line depicts the direct relationships between predictor and dependent variables.
+ and – signs represent the direction of relationships between predictor and dependent variables.
- - - - - line shows the mediating effect of job satisfaction.
Downloaded by [New York University] at 04:06 01 July 2015

Conceptual background and hypotheses formulation

Since the last few decades, numerous authors have tried to encapsulate the concept of
CSR. However, ‘what exactly CSR concept is’ still remains a debatable issue (Nikolaou
and Evangelinos 2009). Jones (1980, 60) has defined social responsibility as the obliga-
tions of constituent groups in society other than stockholders that are beyond the pre-
scription of any law or union contract. Freeman (2004) believes that development of CSR
concept can be understood well through the stakeholder theory. He purports that while
incorporating the CSR perspective into strategy formulation, an organization needs to
consider the interest of its multiple stakeholders such as employees, customers, suppliers,
and other communities as they all have effect upon firm performance. According to Basu
and Palazzo (2008), considering the protection of interests of diverse stakeholders, general
CSR initiatives such as environmental protection, AIDS prevention, and poverty reduction
seem to be quite important. Fuentes-Garcı́a, Núñez-Tabales, and Veroz-Herradón (2008,
33) argue that CSR constitutes a vast range of concepts that vary from fulfilling minimum
requirements of respecting the employees’ basic human rights to the implementation of
policies and practices that help them to achieve a better work/life balance.
In the opinion of Morgeson et al. (2013), ‘how CSR should be managed in organiza-
tions and what amount of resources need to be allocated to CSR activities’ is a bigger
point of concern for organizations as well as researchers. The answer to this question
reflects in various socially and environmentally focused conceptions regarding HRD,
namely sustainable HRD (Garavan and McGuire 2010), CSR-focused HRD (Shen and
Zhu 2011), societal HRD (Kim 2012), and socially conscious HRD (Bierema and
D’Abundo 2003). All these conceptions cumulatively propose that HRD plays a very
important yet facilitative role in implementing CSR- and sustainability-related activities in
organizations. Garavan and McGuire (2010) have suggested that with a good number of
HR activities, HRD can hold organizations accountable for ethical actions while assisting
them in embracing leadership in CSR, sustainability, and ethics. Further, they comment
that HRD is now aimed to achieve ‘individual autonomy’ rather than ‘managerial effec-
tiveness’ for development while stressing the importance of triple bottom line, which
addresses economic, social, and environmental aspects equally. Recently, HRD scholars
have found that the field of HRD is now being viewed as a focal point where prevailing
culture, strategies, and HRM of an organization overlaps in an expectation that with
increase in overlapping of these three said components, the essence and need for strong
HRD values and principles will increase (Alagaraja 2013; Werner 2014).
 4 S.C. Kundu and N. Gahlawat

The transition in modern businesses from fixation on fast economic growth towards
the expansion in ethical and sustainable philosophy has led practitioners to transform not
only business strategies, but also HRD and HRM policies and practices (Ardichvili 2011).
A flourishing way to achieve this transformation is concentrating upon CSR enacted
through HRM perspective, where the centrality is put upon encouraging the employee
participation in CSR through HR practices (Garavan et al. 2010). The main argument is
that these are the employees who represent an organization, that increasing their participa-
tion as a stakeholder as well as contributor through HRM in CSR activities will undoubt-
edly help the organizations in rising ethically and sustainably. To attain this internal or
employee-focused CSR, organizations are very much dependent upon their HRM function
for the effective implementation of such kind of HR practices. Shen and Zhu (2011) have
termed these HR practices as ‘socially responsible HR practices’ with a notion that
socially responsible HRM is as effective as other progressive HRM systems in strategic
development of organizations. Since the last few decades, socially responsible HRM has
Downloaded by [New York University] at 04:06 01 July 2015

been developed to a great extent and includes practices like responsible recruitment and
selection, employee empowerment, improved information flow throughout the company,
clear and improved definition of training needs, equitable pay criteria, better career
prospects for women, profit sharing and stock ownership plan, and concern for job
security (European Commission 2001). Shen and Zhu (2011, 3025) have studied socially
responsible HRM by dividing it into three main components, i.e. labour law–related legal
compliance HRM, employee-oriented HRM, and general CSR facilitation HRM. Celma,
Martínez-Garcia, and Coenders (2014) corroborate that concern towards ethical perspec-
tive of CSR while implementing HR practices implies better focus on worker well-being
and leads to socially responsible HR practices in areas like training, compensation and
reward, internal communication, discrimination, worker health and safety, and the work
family issues. Taking into account the relevant studies, the present study defines ‘socially
responsible HRM’ as an organization’s involvement in taking up those HR activities that
are aimed to enhance the employees’ participative role in CSR while considering them
both as a transmitter and recipient of CSR practices.

Socially responsible HR practices, job satisfaction, and employees’ intention to quit

Social exchange theory (Blau 1964) offers an explanatory framework to elucidate how
employees’ perceptions of socially responsible HR practices are linked to job satisfaction
and turnover intentions. The basic tenet behind the social exchange theory is the ‘norm of
reciprocity’ inside social relationships. According to Blau (1964), when employees obtain
economic or socio-emotional benefits in the form of HR initiatives from their organiza-
tions, they feel obligated to respond in the same way. In the same manner, Gong, Chang,
and Cheung (2010) opine that an organization’s HR practices are generally viewed as
‘personalized commitment’ by the employees, which obligates them to respond with
positive attitudes and behaviour. According to Nishii, Lepak, and Schneider (2008),
employees’ perceptions of whether HR practices are implemented out of concern for
ethical standards in employment relationship or only as a way to attract and retain talented
workforce determine their attitudes and behaviours at workplace. In this regard, Brammer,
Millington, and Rayton (2007) have opined that successful implementation of ethical and
CSR practices can be achieved only when employees feel positive about the ethical
treatment they receive from the employment relationships. Hammann, Habisch, and
Pechlanern (2009) have affirmed that the value orientation towards employees has a
positive effect on the employee motivation, satisfaction as well as perceived level of
 Human Resource Development International 5

absenteeism. Kundu (2003, 215) has stated that organizations’ appreciation of diverse
workforce as an ethical HR strategy helps in enhancing positive attitudes among employ-
ees towards the job as well as the organization. On the same line, Shen and Zhu (2011,
3030) have recognized the relevance of socially responsible HR practices while establish-
ing a significant positive relationship between socially responsible HR practices and
various components of organizational commitment.
It is noteworthy that earlier studies have mainly concentrated on investigating socially
responsible practices’ impact on restricted employee attitudes, particularly, employee
commitment (Shen and Zhu 2011) and job satisfaction (De Roeck et al. 2014). Hansen
et al. (2011) have also opined that research on socially responsible practices has mainly
concentrated upon external stakeholders and outcomes; no spotlight has been given to the
internal aspects that relate CSR and firm performance and its impact on internal stake-
holders such as employees. Till now, no empirical study has attempted to find the
relationship between socially responsible HR practices and employees’ intention to quit,
Downloaded by [New York University] at 04:06 01 July 2015

especially in developing countries. This underlines the significance of studying the effects
of socially responsible HR practices on a very important employee performance outcome,
i.e. intention to quit while determining the underlying mechanism beneath this relation-
ship with the help of other employee attitudinal variable, i.e. job satisfaction.
As a significant dimension of employee attitudes, job satisfaction refers to the positive
emotional state of employee, resulting from the appraisal of his or her job or job
experiences (Locke 1976). A line of research is there that highlights the positive associa-
tion between employee perception of organization involvement in socially responsible
activities and job satisfaction (De Roeck et al. 2014; Valentine and Fleischman 2008). De
Roeck et al. (2014) in their study on hospital employees have attempted to explain the
positive relationship between CSR initiatives and employee job satisfaction. They state
that organisation’s investment in CSR generates benefits by influencing employees’ job
satisfaction, which is considered a strong predictor of employees’ behaviours and overall
job performance. Similarly, Koh and Boo (2001) are of the opinion that greater job
satisfaction is experienced by employees when they find their employer ethical.
O’Donohue and Nelson (2009) has commented that CSR expands the unitarist philosophy
of HRM through its support in better alignment of the interests, values, and goals of
employees with the organization. Being a component of ‘soft HRM’, CSR helps in
developing the employees’ social identity to a new level, which in turn effectively
enhances their job-related attitudes and behaviour (Ardichvili 2011; Brammer,
Millington, and Rayton 2007). Thus, following hypothesis can be raised:

Hypothesis 1: Socially responsible HR practices are positively related to job satisfaction.

An employee’s conscious and deliberate willingness to leave his or her organization is

generally termed turnover intention (Tett and Meyer 1993). Lambert, Hogan, and Barton
(2001) have stated that organizations believe that intention to quit is a more imperative
measure than the actual turnover. De Jong (2011) has explored that employee-oriented
CSR practices enhance employee organizational commitment as well as his identification
with the firm, which results in improved productivity and creativity by lowering absentee-
ism and voluntary turnover rate. Similarly, Kuvaas (2009) is of the opinion that HR
practices help in reducing turnover intention and, consequently, voluntary turnover, only
when employees perceive them as progressive. Bhattacharya, Sen, and Korschun (2008)
also believe that organizations that engage in CSR activities generate an ability to attract
and keep top talent. In this regard, Thompson and Bunderson (2003) have argued that
 6 S.C. Kundu and N. Gahlawat

enacted CSR through HR practices may be considered an important component for an

ideological psychological contract between an employer and an employee and, thereby, is
responsible for eliciting greater employee contributions and commitment towards the
organization. Explaining further, Schuyler (2004) has suggested that pursuing well-
being in HRD practices helps in creation of organizational health, which in turn is
responsible for reciprocal nourishment between workers and management. Drawing on
above studies, the following hypothesis can be stated:

Hypothesis 2: Socially responsible HR practices are negatively related to employees’

intention to quit.

Numerous authors believe that job satisfaction is the key predictor of employees’ turnover
intentions (Egan, Yang, and Bartlett 2004; MacIntosh and Doherty 2010). Through a
study of nurses in Malaysia, Ramoo, Abdullah, and Piaw (2013) suggest that a significant
Downloaded by [New York University] at 04:06 01 July 2015

association exists between job satisfaction and nurses’ intention to leave their current
employment. Chen et al. (2011) have predicted a dynamic relationship between job
satisfaction and employees’ turnover intentions and demonstrate that change in turnover
intentions is clearly visible whenever there is a change in job satisfaction of employees
over and above average job satisfaction. In a longitudinal study of 225 employees,
Tschopp, Grote, and Gerber (2014) have also reported similar findings that an increase
(decline) in job satisfaction is more strongly related to a decline (increase) in turnover
intention for independent employees than for loyalty-focused employees. Hence, the
following hypothesis can be raised:

Hypothesis 3: Job satisfaction is negatively related to employees’ intention to quit.

A number of studies have attempted to find out the significant relationships between
HR practices and employees’ turnover intentions (Chew and Chan 2008; Lam, Chen, and
Takeuchi 2009). As expounded in the above section, job satisfaction is associated with
employees’ intention to quit. At this point, while analysing the pattern of relationships, it
is worth determining whether job satisfaction mediates the relationship between socially
responsible HR practices and employees’ intention to quit. Alfes et al. (2013) have opined
that a mediating variable that holds a more holistic vision of an individual’s self can
explain the relationship between HR practices and behavioural outcomes in a better way.
Guest (1997) has stated that when HR practices are positively perceived by employees,
they lead to outcomes that are attitudinal in nature, such as job satisfaction, which in turn
further lead to behavioural outcomes like intention to quit. Based on a sample of 279
Chinese managers, Chiu and Francesco (2003) have claimed that job satisfaction mediates
the relationship between positive affectivity and turnover intentions of employees.
Therefore, we hypothesize that:

Hypothesis 4: The relationship between socially responsible HR practices and employees’

intention to quit is mediated by job satisfaction.

Research methodology
Sample
The present study employed a questionnaire survey approach to gather data for testing the
stated hypotheses. Primary data based on 563 respondents from 204 firms belonging to
 Human Resource Development International 7

Table 1. Demographic characteristics of the sample.

Variables Categories Number Percentage Average

1. Ownership
Organizations Indian 98 48.04
Multinational 106 51.96
Total 204 100.0
Managers Indian 270 48.0
Multinational 293 52.0
Total 563 100.0
2. Nature
Organizations Manufacturing 97 47.55
Service 107 52.45
Total 204 100.0
Managers Manufacturing 270 48.0
Service 293 50.2
Downloaded by [New York University] at 04:06 01 July 2015

Total 563 100.0

3. Gender Male 413 73.4
Female 150 26.6
Total 563 100.0
4. Designation HR 223 39.6
Non -HR 340 60.4
Total 563 100.0
5. Age Managers 31.04
Organization 40.63
6. Industry ITES 83 14.7
Automobile 90 16.0
Electronics 40 7.1
Pharmaceutical 35 6.2
Banking and Finance 47 8.3
Foods and Beverages 30 5.3
Hospitality 30 5.3
Construction 30 5.3
Media and Entertainment 36 6.4
Telecom 32 5.7
Miscellaneous 110 19.5
Total 563 100.0

various industries was collected in India. In order to avoid bias, it was taken into
consideration that at least one questionnaire must be filled by HR manager and one to
two by non-HR managers. Every firm was represented by two to three respondents. The
characteristics of sample can be seen in Table 1.
Table 1 shows that the sample consisted of both Indian companies (48.04%) and
multinational companies (51.96%). Further, managers sampled in Indian companies were
48.0% and in MNCs were 52.0%. Considering the nature of the organizations, the sample
covered 47.55% manufacturing companies and 52.45% service companies and managers
sampled in manufacturing companies were 48.0% and in service companies were 52.0%.
The sample included 73.4% males and 26.6% females. Out of the total sample, 39.6%
were HR managers and 60.4% were non-HR (line) managers. Average age of the
respondent employees/managers was 31.04 years whereas the average age of the firms
was 40.63 years. Considering the industry, 14.7% of the respondents belonged to ITES
industry, 16.0% to automobile, 7.1% to electronics, 6.2% to pharmaceutical, 8.3% to
 8 S.C. Kundu and N. Gahlawat

banking and finance, 5.3% to food and beverages, 5.3% to hospitality, 5.3% to construc-
tion, 6.4% to media and entertainment, 5.7% to telecom, and remaining 19.5% belonged
to miscellaneous industries.

Measures
Socially responsible HR practices (independent variable)
Existing literature does not have studies on measures related to socially responsible HR
practices. The only study that has introduced the socially responsible HRM scale in a
broader manner is the Shen and Zhu (2011) study, which has suggested a three-component
approach to measure socially responsible HRM, i.e. Legal compliance HRM (6-item
scale), Employee-oriented HRM (four-item scale), and General CSR facilitation HRM
(three-item scale). To conceptualize socially responsible HRM more widely, we have
introduced a four-component approach while adopting all the three components of
Downloaded by [New York University] at 04:06 01 July 2015

socially responsible HRM suggested by Shen and Zhu (2011) with some modifications.
Instead of the six-item scale of legal compliance HRM (Shen and Zhu 2011), we
constructed the first component ‘Legal compliance HRM’ on four items and they were:
organization comply with all the laws regarding hiring, employee welfare, occupational
health and safety, and working hours; managers comply with all the labour laws; equality
in HRM; and no use of child labour (Shen and Zhu 2011). The second component
‘Employee-oriented HRM’ was measured on a four-item scale that included provision
of adequate training and development opportunities; unions participation in determining
labour terms; employees’ participation in decision-making and total quality management;
and adoption of flexible working hours and employment programmes achieving work–life
balance (Shen and Zhu 2011). A three-item scale was used to measure ‘General CSR
facilitation HRM’ and the items were: rewarding employees on their contribution towards
CSR activities; giving priority in employment to candidates who are in difficulty and who
are local; and appointing CSR staff (Shen and Zhu 2011). The fourth and last component,
‘general CSR conduct’, was measured using three items. The items included were poverty
reduction (Jenkins 2005); environment protection and natural disaster relief (Basu and
Palazzo 2008); and increasing AIDS awareness and its protection (Walsh 2005). However,
the clues related to the items of ‘general CSR conduct’ were traced from Shen and Zhu
(2011) study itself. Respondents were asked to assess their opinions on a five-point Likert
scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5), regarding the extent to
which their companies adopted and practised these socially responsible HR practices.
Cronbach α for this 13-item scale was 0.830.

Employees’ intention to quit (dependent variable)

Employees’ intention to quit was measured with the three-item scale used by Yavas et al.
(2003). Responses were taken on a five-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5
(strongly agree). The items were ‘I often think about resigning’, ‘It would not take much
to make me resign from this organization’, and ‘I will probably be looking for another job
soon’. Cronbach α for this scale was 0.925.

Job satisfaction (mediating variable)

Job satisfaction was measured by using the four-item scale. The items were adopted from
the Green et al. (2006) study. Responses were taken on a five-point scale ranging from 1
 Human Resource Development International 9

(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The items were ‘I find real enjoyment in my
work’, ‘I feel fairly well satisfied with my job’, ‘Most days I am enthusiastic about my
work’, and ‘I like my work’. Cronbach α for this scale was 0.846.

Control variables
Several variables such as age, gender, designation, nature, and ownership of the firm had
been identified as significant determinants of employees’ attitudes and behaviour (Chiu
and Francesco 2003; De Moura et al. 2009; Ramoo, Abdullah, and Piaw 2013) and
therefore, these variables were chosen as control variables. Also, the industry of respon-
dents’ organizations was incorporated into the set of control variables. Here, in this study,
industry was broadly classified into ITES, automobile, electronics, banking and finance,
foods and beverages, hospitality, pharmaceutical, automobile, construction, media, and
miscellaneous. Age was classified into six categories: under 25 years, 26–30 years,
Downloaded by [New York University] at 04:06 01 July 2015

31–40 years, 41–50 years, 51–60 years, and above 60 years. Other control variables
were categorized as: gender (male and female), designation (HR and non-HR), nature of
the firm (manufacturing and service), and ownership of the firm (Indian and MNC). These
variables were used only as appropriate controls for elucidating their influence on vari-
ables incorporated in the proposed model, not to investigate their moderating effects on
linkage between independent and dependent variables used in the study.

Results
Factor analysis
A total of 13 variables regarding socially responsible HR practices were subjected to
principal component factor analysis with varimax rotation by using the criterion that
factors with eigenvalue greater than 1.00 were retained. For stating the factors clearly,
loadings exceeding 0.550 were considered. The value of commonalities ranged from
0.496 to 0.791 for various variables. The four factors extracted had eigenvalues 4.352,
2.072, 1.612, and 1.015, explaining 69.619% of the variance. The four derived factors
were considered subscales and used for further analysis. The first factor named
‘employee-oriented HRM (EOHRM)’ loaded significantly with four practices/variables.
It addressed those personal needs of employees that were above and beyond legal
boundaries. The second factor was described as ‘legal compliance HRM (LCHRM)’. It
stressed upon the organizations and managers’ compliance with all the labour laws.
The third factor recognized as ‘general CSR facilitation HRM (GFHRM)’ involved
the application of those HRM policies and practices that can help an organization in
initiating general CSR activities. The fourth factor ‘general CSR conduct (GCSR)’
concerned with initiation of general CSR activities that can help a firm in protecting the
interests of various stakeholders including employees/managers. The variables related to
these factors are stated earlier in the research methodology. The four-factor structure in
our study found to deviate from the three factor structure given by Shen and Zhu (2011)
related to SRHRM, where the extracted first factor was LCHRM. Not only this, the item
‘union participation in determining labour terms’ was not loaded significantly in our
factor structure and another item ‘equality in HRM’ was loaded on EOHRM instead of
LCHRM. Further, it has been found that Cronbach α values for the subscales are within
the range of 0.705 and 0.797 and for the full scale it is 0.830, higher than the suggested
value of 0.70 (Hair et al. 1998).
 10 S.C. Kundu and N. Gahlawat

Analysis of variance (ANOVA)

Table 2 shows means and results of analysis of variance (ANOVA) for each factor related to
socially responsible HR practices. The significant F-values indicate the differences regard-
ing adoption of various socially responsible HR practices between industries in Indian
context. The results indicated that firms differed significantly (p ≤ 0.003) in adoption of
EOHRM according to their industry. The mean scores pointed out that firms in electronics
and various equipment (x = 3.97), ITES (x = 3.87), automobile (x = 3.81), and pharmaceu-
tical (x = 3.81) industries strongly favoured the adoption of employee-oriented HR practices
in comparison to firms in banking and finance (x = 3.50) and foods and beverages industries
(x = 3.45). Firms did not differ significantly (p ≤ 0.358) according to their industry on
LCHRM. However, as mean scores of all industries crossed the value of 4.00, the firms
across industries ensured LCHRM. In context of GFHRM, firms differed significantly
(p ≤ 0.000) according to their industry. Firms in hospitality (x = 3.98) and ITES industries
(x = 3.72) strongly favoured the adoption of general CSR facilitation HR practices in
Downloaded by [New York University] at 04:06 01 July 2015

comparison to firms in media and entertainment (x = 3.08) and construction and equipment
industries (x = 3.11). Similarly, the findings highlighted that firms differed significantly
(p ≤ 0.000) according to their industry in case of GCSR. Firms in electronics and various
equipment (x = 4.02) and hospitality industries (x = 3.87) were tended to adopt general CSR
activities relatively more as compared to telecom (x = 3.34) and media and entertainment
industry (x = 3.10). Further, results indicated that on overall adoption of socially responsible
HRM, firms in hospitality industry (x = 3.98) were ranked first, followed by electronics and
various equipment (x = 3.92), and then ITES industry (x = 3.89). Media and entertainment
(x = 3.49) industry stood last in adoption of socially responsible HR practices (see Table 2).

Descriptive statistics
Means, standard deviations, and bivariate correlations are reported in Table 3. These
correlations supported the hypothesized linkages between socially responsible HR prac-
tices, job satisfaction, and employees’ intention to quit. Significant correlations had been

Table 2. Summary results of means and analysis of variance (ANOVA) by industries.

Industry EOHRM LCHRM GFHRM GCSR Grand mean

ITES 3.87 4.18 3.72 3.80 3.89

Automobile and various components 3.81 4.14 3.48 3.62 3.76
Electronics and various equipment 3.97 4.01 3.70 4.02 3.92
Pharmaceutical 3.81 4.23 3.45 3.79 3.82
Banking and finance 3.50 4.04 3.40 3.79 3.68
Foods n beverages 3.45 4.17 3.58 3.40 3.65
Hospitality 3.76 4.31 3.98 3.87 3.98
Construction and equipment 3.58 4.25 3.11 3.35 3.57
Media and entertainment 3.59 4.18 3.08 3.10 3.49
Telecom 3.72 4.25 3.29 3.34 3.65
Others 3.71 4.06 3.27 3.49 3.63
Grand mean 3.73 4.14 3.46 3.61 -
F-value 2.72 1.10 4.51 5.80
Significance 0.003 0.358 0.000 0.000
Cronbach α values 0.782 0.751 0.797 0.705

Note: EOHRM, employee-oriented HRM; LCHRM, legal compliance HRM; GFHRM, general CSR facilitation
HRM; GCSR, general CSR conduct.
 Downloaded by [New York University] at 04:06 01 July 2015

Table 3. Descriptive statistics and Cronbach α values.

Variables No. of items Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Cronbach Alpha

1. Designation – 1.60 0.49 –

2. Gender – 1.27 0.44 −0.30*** –
3. Age of employees – 31.03 7.25 −0.01 −0.27*** –
4. Ownership – 1.52 0.50 −0.05 0.00 −0.13** –
5. Nature – 1.52 0.50 0.07 0.14*** −0.22*** −0.05 –
6. Industry – 5.76 3.71 −0.02 0.03 −0.05 −0.35*** 0.05 –
7. Overall SRHRM 13 3.73 0.50 −0.07 0.02 −0.06 0.16*** −0.09* −0.18*** – 0.830
8. Job satisfaction 4 3.97 0.58 −0.04 0.05 0.13** −0.07 0.01 −0.01 0.37*** – 0.846
9. Intention to quit 3 2.42 0.99 −0.01 −0.01 −0.11** 0.11** −0.05 −0.06 −0.12** −0.29*** – 0.925

Note: ***p ≤ .001, **p ≤ .01, *p ≤ .05.

Human Resource Development International
11
 12 S.C. Kundu and N. Gahlawat

established among most of the variables. In order to check out the possibility of multi-
collinearity among predictor variables, the collinearity diagnosis was computed. The
values of the VIF statistics associated with the predictors found within the range of
1.09–1.22, significantly less than 10, hence, fall within acceptable limits (Bowerman
and O’Connell 1990; Myers 1990). The calculated average VIF was 1.18, not consider-
ably greater than 1 and, as a result, regression was not biased (Bowerman and O’Connell
1990). The lowest tolerance value was 0.78, clearly distant from the ‘rule of thumb’ level
of 0.40 (Allison 1999). Thus, there was no need to worry with respect to multi-collinearity
problem in the specified equations.

Regression analysis
To test the stated hypotheses, mediated regression analysis was adopted in this study as
suggested by Baron and Kenny (1986). According to Baron and Kenny (1986), three
Downloaded by [New York University] at 04:06 01 July 2015

conditions need to be fulfilled for mediation to exist. First, the predictor variable (i.e.
overall SRHRM) must have an effect on proposed mediating variable (i.e. job satisfac-
tion). Second, the proposed mediating variable (i.e. job satisfaction) must have an
effect on the dependent variable (i.e. intention to quit). And third, the predictor variable
must exercise an effect on the dependent variable when the mediating variable is
excluded from the regression equation. For full mediating effect, the effect size of
the predictor variable must reduce to non-significant when the mediating variable is
included in the regression equation. For partial mediating effect, the effect size of the
predictor variable must reduce but different from zero after the inclusion of mediator
variable in the regression equation.
Table 4 indicates that all the conditions for mediation were satisfied. The regression
model in all four steps is found to be significant according to F statistics (see Table 4). In
model one, the coefficient of overall SRHRM is found to be significant and positive for
job satisfaction (β = 0.409, p ≤ 0.001). Hence, the results support hypothesis H1. Model 2

Table 4. Results of multiple regression analysis testing the mediating effects of job satisfaction.

Dependent variables

Job satisfaction Intention to quit

Independent variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

Constant 1.873*** 4.303*** 4.729*** 5.093***

Designation 0.007 −0.031 −0.026 −0.030
Gender 0.080 −0.039 −0.018 −0.019
Age of employees 0.164*** −0.153*** −0.104* −0.113*
Ownership −0.111** 0.098* 0.062 0.071
Nature 0.066 −0.088* −0.064 −0.071
Industry 0.032 −0.164 −0.046 −0.056
Overall SRHRM 0.409*** −0.169*** − −0.067
Job satisfaction − − −0.276*** −0.249***
R2 0.184 0.060 0.107 0.110
Adjusted R2 0.174 0.048 0.096 0.098
F statistic 17.862*** 5.039*** 9.485*** 8.596***
N 563 563 563 563

Note: ***p ≤ .001, **p ≤ .01, *p ≤ .05.

 Human Resource Development International 13

Socially –0.169*** Employees’

responsible HR –0.067 a intention to
practices quit
0.409*** Job –0.276***
satisfaction
–0.249***

Control variables: designation, gender, age, ownership, nature, and industry

Figure 2. Results of regression analysis for derived model.

Note: The standardized β coefficients are presented in Figure 2.
***p ≤ .001, **p ≤ .01, *p ≤ .05.
a
Non-significant β coefficient after mediation of job satisfaction.
Downloaded by [New York University] at 04:06 01 July 2015

captures the direct effects of overall SRHRM on employees’ intention to quit. The
coefficient of overall SRHRM is significant and negative for employees’ intention to
quit (β = −0.169, p ≤ 0.001). Thus, hypothesis H2 has been supported.
Model 3 demonstrates a significant and negative influence of job satisfaction on
employees’ intention to quit (β = −0.276, p ≤ 0.001). So, hypothesis H3 has been
supported. In model 4, when overall SRHRM and job satisfaction were entered simulta-
neously into the regression model as independent variables, overall SRHRM no longer
significantly influenced employees’ intention to quit, whereas job satisfaction still had
significant and negative impact on employees‘ intention to quit (β = −0.249, p ≤ 0.001). It
depicted that job satisfaction played a full mediating role between overall SRHRM and
employees’ intention to quit. Hence, hypothesis H4 has been supported (see Table 4). The
results of regression analysis can be clearly seen through the derived model presented in
Figure 2.

Discussion
The rising need for organizations to become socially responsible (Kapstein 2001) has
made it mandatory to acknowledge the role of CSR–HRM nexus in achieving this
objective and the subsequent effects of such association on employees’ attitudes and
behaviour. Using multiple regression analysis on a sample of 563 respondents from 204
organizations, the study has first investigated the variations in adoption of socially
responsible HRM components according to the industry in which the corresponding
firm falls. Considering the point that Shen and Zhu (2011) research was in-depth study
of two organizations, this study has attempted to capture a good representative sample of
organizations for more generalized results. The results have indicated that firms have
varied in adoption of three socially responsible HRM components, i.e. GFHRM,
EOHRM, and GCSR according to their industry, except LCHRM where no difference
in adoption level is found. It may be due to the reason that LCHRM consists of various
labour laws enacted by the government itself and held mandatory for organizations to
adopt while other components of SRHRM rely on an organizations’ attempt to become
more socially responsible towards its stakeholders. Further, it has been explored that
hospitality, electronics, and ITES industries are leading across industries in adopting
socially responsible HR practices. Cho et al. (2006) have shared similar findings, that
 14 S.C. Kundu and N. Gahlawat

employee-oriented HR practices with an aim to increase empowerment and work–life

balance are preferred more in service settings than in manufacturing.
The results of the study provide a strong indication that socially responsible HR
practices contribute to both job satisfaction and intention to leave. With application of
various socially responsible HR practices, organizations enhance job satisfaction and
decrease employees’ intention to leave simultaneously. The logic behind this finding is
that socially responsible HR practices are mainly related to humanization of work such
as provision of equal opportunities in HRM, adopting employment programmes related
to work–life balance, improving employee participation, complying with all the labour
laws, etc. When employees perceive that their organizations have adopted such prac-
tices, their satisfaction towards the job and the organization increase and they tend to
stay. The findings are in alignment with the results of the study by Shen and Zhu (2011)
where socially responsible HRM is found to be more positively related to affective
commitment than normative and continuance commitment. Overall, the results support
Downloaded by [New York University] at 04:06 01 July 2015

the notion given by Morgeson et al. (2013) that effectively internalized CSR in HRM
function builds a good organizational culture, which in turn positively affects employ-
ees’ attitudes and behaviours. Similarly, Ramdani et al. (2014) have highlighted that
providing employees with developmental HR practices results in positive work attitudes
among employees. Through a study of health-care industry, Shuck et al. (2014) have
revealed that participation in HRD practices enhances the cognitive, emotional, and
behavioural engagement of employees, which is partially responsible for reduced turn-
over intent. Allen (2001) has also established that employee-oriented practices are
positively related to job satisfaction among employees and negatively related to inten-
tion to leave the organization. Also, the findings have indicated that the effect size of the
relationship between socially responsible HR practices and job satisfaction is greater
than that between socially responsible HR practices and employees’ intention to quit.
The reason behind this result is that being an attitudinal variable, job satisfaction is the
most immediate consequence of the application of socially responsible HR practices
and, therefore, receives a bigger impact than employees’ intention to leave, which is a
behavioural outcome. As also suggested by Guest (1997), attitudinal outcomes lead to
behavioural outcomes whenever employee perceptions of HR practices are measured.
The results have further explored that job satisfaction is negatively related to employees’
intention to quit. Other researchers too claim job satisfaction as a determining factor that
can help in decreasing turnover intentions among employees (Boswell, Boudreau, and
Tichy 2005; Calisir, Gumussoy, and Iskin 2011).
At the outset of this study, it is highlighted that the mechanisms through which
socially responsible HR practices are linked to employees’ intention to quit have received
very little attention. The current study has addressed this gap by examining the mediating
effect of one such mechanism, i.e. job satisfaction. The results provide support for the
proposed conceptual model in the study (see Figure 2). It has been established that job
satisfaction fully mediates the relationship between socially responsible HR practices and
employees’ intention to quit. This is in line with findings of some other studies. Through a
sample of 155 engineers from 19 different industries, García-Chas, Neira-Fontela, and
Castro-Casal (2014) have indicated that job satisfaction mediates the relationship between
high-performance work practices and engineers’ intention to leave. Likewise, Ang et al.
(2013, 3106) have found that the relationship between employee-oriented work practices
and intention to leave is mediated by job satisfaction for all occupation groups in the
hospitals. Considering the job satisfaction’s significant impact on employees’ intention to
quit, and its mediating role between socially responsible HR practices and employees’
 Human Resource Development International 15

intention to quit, this research has robustly promoted the significance of job satisfaction in
reducing the employees’ intention to leave the organizations while adopting socially
responsible HR practices.

Conclusions
The empirical results highlight that adoption of socially responsible HR practices such
as LCHRM, EOHRM, GFHRM, and GCSR increases job satisfaction and decreases
intention to leave among employees. Further, the findings imply that the relationship
between socially responsible HR practices and employees’ intention to quit is fully
mediated by job satisfaction. Also, it has been revealed that organizations differ
significantly according to their industry in adoption of socially responsible HR prac-
tices such as EOHRM, GFHRM, and GCSR, except LCHRM where no such difference
has been found. The study has provided a number of noteworthy implications for HR
Downloaded by [New York University] at 04:06 01 July 2015

practitioners and organizations in Indian as well as global context. The results give
strong indication that socially responsible HR practices need to be well managed as
employees reciprocate in the form of higher job satisfaction and lower intention to quit.
Therefore, the key implication is that adoption of socially responsible HRM in the
form of LCHRM, EOHRM, GFHRM, and GCSR will enable firms to retain talents,
which in turn will assist in enhancing firm performance (Kundu and Gahlawat, forth-
coming). From a practical stance, the study suggests that to promote desirable attitudes
and behaviour in employees, it is important to design and implement socially respon-
sible HR practices in ways that are perceived favourably by employees. The findings
further suggest that to advance the agenda of socially responsible HRM in organiza-
tions, HR professionals need to raise the awareness of such practices among employees
by playing an informative and supportive role in designing and conducting organiza-
tion change programmes regarding ethics and social responsibility, meeting the expec-
tations of various stakeholders, expanding the scope of organizational performance, and
encouraging the exploitation of organizational resources to promote employee welfare
and development.
The findings present an insight into the organizations about how the role of HR
practitioners should be redesigned so that implementation of socially responsible initia-
tives can be facilitated through better alignment of HRD/HRM with CSR and other ethical
issues in a corporate-level strategy. Improvements in socially responsible HR practices can
be easily made by nurturing the working environment for employees via compliance with
all the labour laws, providing them equal opportunities in all HR actions and meeting the
other stakeholder needs as well. As hospitality, ITES, and electronics industries lead the
others in adopting socially responsible HR practices, it provides a roadmap to the
organizations in other industries that might need to follow their HR policies or initiatives
related to social responsibility in order to enhance the employee development in their
organization. Taking into consideration the job satisfaction’s significant impact on
employees’ intention to quit, and its mediating role between socially responsible HR
practices and employees’ intention to quit, the results offer some important lessons for HR
practitioners that only providing an HR policy or initiative related to social responsibility
will not prove sufficient in retaining employees, the HR policies/practices must first
address the need to increase job satisfaction among employees. Overall, the study favours
the prospects of a participative and democratic mode of relationship between employees,
organizations, and the society through adoption of socially responsible HRM rather than
focusing solely on individual or organizational performance.
 16 S.C. Kundu and N. Gahlawat

The contributions of this study, when viewed in the light of certain limitations, have
offered several avenues for further theoretical and empirical studies. The very first
limitation of the study is that the data was collected through a single measurement tool,
i.e. survey; certainly, there lies a possibility of common method variance in our findings.
In order to check out that possibility, Harman’s (1976) single-factor test was applied to all
the relevant variables in the model. Significant common method variance is assumed to
occur if one factor explains the majority of covariance in the variables (Podsakoff and
Organ 1986). A principal factor analysis on the measurement items revealed six factors,
not just one, with eigenvalues greater than 1, which accounted for 72.9% of the total
variance, and the first factor accounted for only 14.1% of the variance in the data. As one
general factor failed to explain all the variance, the common method variance was not of
much serious concern in this study (Podsakoff and Organ 1986). However, future
empirical studies should examine the causal sequencing of our model by gathering data
at different points of time or designing separate questionnaires for independent and
Downloaded by [New York University] at 04:06 01 July 2015

dependent variables to gather data from multiple sources. Another limitation of our
study is its cross-sectional design. To overcome this problem, it is suggested that a replica
in the form of longitudinal design must be taken into consideration so as to collect the data
over repeated observations, which will bring more robust evidence of the mechanisms
involved in the SRHRM and employees’ outcome relationships. The other limitation of
this study is that we examined for mediating effects of one variable only, i.e. job
satisfaction. Future researches may incorporate the other variables such as commitment,
employee engagement, and organizational citizenship behaviour when investigating the
links between socially responsible HR practices and employees’ intention to quit. The
future researchers also need to undertake the studies that will investigate sequentially the
conversion of socially responsible HR perceptions into employees’ attitudes and beha-
viour, and then, ultimately into organizational performance. Last but not least, in order to
get more concrete and generalized results, assessment of this mediating model in other
cultural contexts seems very appropriate.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

References
Alagaraja, M. 2013. “Mobilizing Organizational Alignment through Strategic Human Resource
Development.” Human Resource Development International 16 (1): 74–93. doi:10.1080/
13678868.2012.740794.
Alfes, K., A. D. Shantz, C. Truss, and E. C. Soane. 2013. “The Link between Perceived Human
Resource Management Practices, Engagement and Employee Behaviour: A Moderated
Mediation Model.” The International Journal of Human Resource Management 24 (2): 330–
351. doi:10.1080/09585192.2012.679950.
Allen, T. D. 2001. “Family-Supportive Work Environments: The Role of Organizational
Perceptions.” Journal of Vocational Behavior 58 (3): 414–435. doi:10.1006/jvbe.2000.1774.
Allison, P. D. 1999. “Comparing Logit and Probit Coefficients across Groups.” Sociological
Methods and Research 28 (2): 186–208.
Anderson, V., T. Garavan, and E. Sadler-Smith. 2014. “Corporate Social Responsibility,
Sustainability, Ethics and International Human Resource Development.” Human Resource
Development International 17 (5): 497–498. doi:10.1080/13678868.2014.954187.
Ang, S. H., T. Bartram, N. McNeil, S. G. Leggat, and P. Stanton. 2013. “The Effects of High
Performance Work Systems on Hospital Employees’ Work Attitudes and Intention to Leave: A
 Human Resource Development International 17

Multi-Level and Occupational Group Analysis.” The International Journal of Human Resource
Management 24 (16): 3086–3114. doi:10.1080/09585192.2013.775029.
Ardichvili, A. 2011. “Sustainability of Nations, Communities, Organizations and Individuals: The
Role of HRD.” Human Resource Development International 14 (4): 371–374. doi:10.1080/
13678868.2011.601570.
Ardichvili, A. 2012. “Sustainability or Limitless Expansion: Paradigm Shift in HRD Practice and
Teaching.” European Journal of Training and Development 36 (9): 873–887. doi:10.1108/
03090591211280946.
Baek, P., and N. Kim. 2014. “Exploring a Theoretical Foundation for HRD in Society: Toward a
Model of Stakeholder-Based HRD.” Human Resource Development International 17 (5): 499–
513. doi:10.1080/13678868.2014.954189.
Baron, R. M., and D. A. Kenny. 1986. “The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social
Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations.” Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 51 (6): 1173–1182. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173.
Basu, K., and G. Palazzo. 2008. “Corporate Social Responsibility: A Process Model of
Sensemaking.” Academy of Management Review 33 (1): 122–136.
Bhattacharya, C. B., S. Sen, and D. Korschun. 2008. “Using Corporate Social Responsibility to Win
Downloaded by [New York University] at 04:06 01 July 2015

the War for Talent.” MIT Sloan Review 49 (2): 37–44.

Bhattacharya, M., D. H. Doty, and T. Garavan. 2014. “The Organizational Context and Performance
Implications of Human Capital Investment Variability.” Human Resource Development
Quarterly 25 (1): 87–113. doi:10.1002/hrdq.21182.
Bierema, L. L., and M. L. D’abundo. 2004. “HRD with a Conscience: Practicing Socially
Responsible HRD.” International Journal of Lifelong Education 23 (5): 443–458.
doi:10.1080/026037042000293416.
Bierema, L. L., and M. L. D’Abundo. 2003. “Socially Conscious HRD.” In Critical Issues in HRD:
A New Agenda for the Twenty-First Century, edited by A. M. Gilley, J. L. Callahan, and L. L.
Bierema, 215–234. Cambridge, MA: Pereus.
Blau, P. M. 1964. Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York: Wiley.
Boswell, W. R., J. W. Boudreau, and J. Tichy. 2005. “The Relationship between Employee Job
Change and Job Satisfaction: The Honeymoon-Hangover Effect.” Journal of Applied
Psychology 90 (5): 882–892. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.5.882.
Bowerman, B. L., and R. T. O’Connell. 1990. Linear Statistical Models: An Applied Approach. 2nd
ed. Belmont, CA: Duxbury.
Brammer, S., A. Millington, and B. Rayton. 2007. “The Contribution of Corporate Social
Responsibility to Organizational Commitment.” The International Journal of Human
Resource Management 18 (10): 1701–1719. doi:10.1080/09585190701570866.
Calisir, F., C. A. Gumussoy, and I. Iskin. 2011. “Factors Affecting Intention to Quit among IT
Professionals in Turkey.” Personnel Review 40 (4): 514–533. doi:10.1108/00483481111133363.
Celma, D., E. Martínez-Garcia, and G. Coenders. 2014. “Corporate Social Responsibility in Human
Resource Management: An Analysis of Common Practices and Their Determinants in Spain.”
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 21 (2): 82–99. doi:10.1002/
csr.v21.2.
Chatterjee, S. R. 2007. “Human Resource Management in India: ‘Where From’ and ‘Where To’?”
Research and Practice in Human Resource Management 15 (2): 92–103.
Chen, G., R. E. Ployhart, H. T. Cooper, N. Anderson, and P. D. Bliese. 2011. “The Power of
Momentum: A New Model of Dynamic Relationships between Job Satisfaction Change and
Turnover Intentions.” Academy of Management Journal 54 (1): 159–181.
Chew, J., and C. C. A. Chan. 2008. “Human Resource Practices, Organizational Commitment and
Intention to Stay.” International Journal of Manpower 29 (6): 503–522. doi:10.1108/
01437720810904194.
Chiu, R. K., and A. M. Francesco. 2003. “Dispositional Traits and Turnover Intention: Examining
the Mediating Role of Job Satisfaction and Affective Commitment.” International Journal of
Manpower 24 (3): 284–298. doi:10.1108/01437720310479741.
Cho, S., R. H. Woods, S. Jang, and M. Erdem. 2006. “Measuring the Impact of Human Resource
Management Practices on Hospitality Firms’ Performances.” International Journal of
Hospitality Management 25 (2): 262–277. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2005.04.001.
De Jong, D. J. 2011. “International Transfer of Employee-Oriented CSR Practices by Multinational
Smes.” International Journal of Workplace Health Management 4 (2): 123–139.
 18 S.C. Kundu and N. Gahlawat

De Moura, G. R., D. Abrams, C. Retter, S. Gunnarsdottir, and K. Ando. 2009. “Identification as an

Organizational Anchor: How Identification and Job Satisfaction Combine to Predict Turnover
Intention.” European Journal of Social Psychology 39 (4): 540–557. doi:10.1002/ejsp.v39:4.
De Roeck, K., G. Marique, F. Stinglhamber, and V. Swaen. 2014. “Understanding Employees’
Responses to Corporate Social Responsibility: Mediating Roles of Overall Justice and
Organisational Identification.” The International Journal of Human Resource Management 25
(1): 91–112. doi:10.1080/09585192.2013.781528.
Egan, T. M., B. Yang, and K. R. Bartlett. 2004. “The Effects of Organizational Learning Culture and
Job Satisfaction on Motivation to Transfer Learning and Turnover Intention.” Human Resource
Development Quarterly 15 (3): 279–301. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1532-1096.
European Commission. 2001. Green Paper: Promoting a European Framework for Corporate
Social Responsibility. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities.
Freeman, R. E. 2004. “The Stakeholder Approach Revisited.” Zeitschrift Fuer Wirtschafts-
Undunternehmensethik 5 (3): 228–241.
Fuentes-García, F. J., J. M. Núñez-Tabales, and R. Veroz-Herradón. 2008. “Applicability of
Corporate Social Responsibility to Human Resources Management: Perspective from Spain.”
Journal of Business Ethics 82 (1): 27–44. doi:10.1007/s10551-007-9560-8.
Downloaded by [New York University] at 04:06 01 July 2015

Garavan, T. N., N. Heraty, A. Rock, and E. Dalton. 2010. “Conceptualizing the Behavioral Barriers
to CSR and CS in Organizations: A Typology of HRD Interventions.” Advances in Developing
Human Resources 12 (5): 587–613. doi:10.1177/1523422310394779.
Garavan, T. N., and D. McGuire. 2010. “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:10.1177/1523422310394757.
García-Chas, R., E. Neira-Fontela, and C. Castro-Casal. 2014. “High-Performance Work System and
Intention to Leave: A Mediation Model.” The International Journal of Human Resource
Management 25 (3): 367–389. doi:10.1080/09585192.2013.789441.
Gong, Y., S. Chang, and S.-Y. Cheung. 2010. “High Performance Work System and Collective
OCB: A Collective Social Exchange Perspective.” Human Resource Management Journal 20
(2): 119–137. doi:10.1111/(ISSN)1748-8583.
Green, K. W., C. Wu, D. Whitten, and B. Medlin. 2006. “The Impact of Strategic Human Resource
Management on Firm Performance and HR Professionals’ Work Attitude and Work
Performance.” The International Journal of Human Resource Management 17 (4): 559–579.
doi:10.1080/09585190600581279.
Guest, D. E. 1997. “Human Resource Management and Performance: A Review and Research
Agenda.” The International Journal of Human Resource Management 8 (3): 263–276.
doi:10.1080/095851997341630.
Gupta, A. D., and A. D. Gupta. 2008. “Corporate Social Responsibility in India: Towards a Sane
Society?” Social Responsibility Journal 4 (1/2): 209–216. doi:10.1108/17471110810856965.
Hair Jr., J. F., R. E. Anderson, R. C. Tatham, and W. C. Black. 1998. Multivariate Data Analysis.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Hammann, E., A. Habisch, and H. Pechlanern. 2009. “Values That Create Value: Socially
Responsible Business Practices in Smes-Empirical Evidence from German Companies.”
Business Ethics: A European Review 18 (1): 37–51.
Hansen, D., B. Dunford, A. Boss, R. Boss, and I. Angermeier. 2011. “Corporate Social
Responsibility and the Benefits of Employee Trust: A Cross-Disciplinary Perspective.”
Journal of Business Ethics 102 (1): 29–45. doi:10.1007/s10551-011-0903-0.
Harman, H. H. 1976. Modern Factor Analysis. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Jenkins, H. 2009. “A “Business Opportunity” Model of Corporate Social Responsibility for Small
and Medium-Sized Enterprises.” Business Ethics: A European Review 18 (1): 21–36.
Jenkins, R. 2005. “Globalization, Corporate Social Responsibility and Poverty.” International
Affairs 81 (3): 525–540. doi:10.1111/inta.2005.81.issue-3.
Jones, T. M. 1980. “Corporate Social Responsibility Revisited, Redefined.” California Management
Review 22 (3): 59–67. doi:10.2307/41164877.
Kapstein, E. B. 2001. “The Corporate Ethics Crusade.” Foreign Affairs 80 (5): 105–119.
Kim, N. 2012. “Societal Development through Human Resource Development: Contexts and Key
Change Agents.” Advances in Developing Human Resources 14 (3): 239–250. doi:10.1177/
1523422312446054.
 Human Resource Development International 19

Koh, H. C., and E. H. Y. Boo. 2001. “The Link between Organizational Ethics and Job Satisfaction:
A Study of Managers in Singapore.” Journal of Business Ethics 29: 309–324. doi:10.1023/
A:1010741519818.
Kundu, S. C. 2003. “Workforce Diversity Status: A Study of Employees’ Reactions.” Industrial
Management & Data Systems 103 (4): 215–226. doi:10.1108/02635570310470610.
Kundu, S. C., and N. Gahlawat. forthcoming. “Effects of Employee Retention Practices on
Perceived Firm and Innovation Performance.” International Journal of Innovation and
Learning.
Kuvaas, B. 2009. “An Exploration of How the Employee-Organization Relationship Affects the
Linkage between Perception of Developmental Human Resource Practices and Employee
Outcomes.” Journal of Management Studies 45 (1): 1–23.
Lam, W., Z. G. Chen, and N. Takeuchi. 2009. “Perceived Human Resource Management Practices
and Intention to Leave of Employees: The Mediating Role of Organizational Citizenship
Behaviour in a Sino-Japanese Joint Venture.” The International Journal of Human Resource
Management 20 (11): 2250–2270. doi:10.1080/09585190903239641.
Lambert, E. G., N. L. Hogan, and S. M. Barton. 2001. “The Impact of Job Satisfaction on Turnover
Intent: A Test of A Structural Measurement Model Using A National Sample of Workers.” The
Downloaded by [New York University] at 04:06 01 July 2015

Social Science Journal 38 (2): 233–250. doi:10.1016/S0362-3319(01)00110-0.

Locke, E. A. 1976. “The Nature and Consequences of Job Satisfaction.” In Handbook of
Industrial Organizational Psychology, edited by M. D. Dunnette, 1297–1349. Chicago, IL:
Rand McNally.
MacIntosh, E. W., and A. Doherty. 2010. “The Influence of Organizational Culture on Job
Satisfaction and Intention to Leave.” Sport Management Review 13 (2): 106–117.
doi:10.1016/j.smr.2009.04.006.
Morgeson, F. P., H. Aguinis, D. A. Waldman, and D. S. Siegel. 2013. “Extending Corporate Social
Responsibility Research to the Human Resource Management and Organizational Behavior
Domains: A Look to the Future.” Personnel Psychology 66 (4): 805–824. doi:10.1111/
peps.2013.66.issue-4.
Myers, R. H. 1990. Classical and Modern Regression Application. 2nd ed. Belmont, CA: Duxbury.
Nikolaou, E. I., and I. K. Evangelinos. 2009. “Towards A Generally Accepted CSR Accounting
Framework: A Literature Mapping.” World Review of Entrepreneurship, Management and
Sustainable Development 5 (1): 26–41.
Nishii, L. H., D. P. Lepak, and B. Schneider. 2008. “Employee Attributions of the “Why” of HR
Practices: Their Effects on Employee Attitudes and Behaviors, and Customer Satisfaction.”
Personnel Psychology 61 (3): 503–545. doi:10.1111/peps.2008.61.issue-3.
O’Donohue, W., and L. Nelson. 2009. “The Role of Ethical Values in an Expanded Psychological
Contract.” Journal of Business Ethics 90 (2): 251–263. doi:10.1007/s10551-009-0040-1.
Pfeffer, J. 2010. “Building Sustainable Organizations: The Human Factor.” Academy of
Management Perspectives 24 (1): 34–45. doi:10.5465/AMP.2010.50304415.
Podsakoff, P. M., and D. W. Organ. 1986. “Self-Reports in Organizational Research: Problems and
Prospects.” Journal of Management 12 (4): 531–544. doi:10.1177/014920638601200408.
Ramdani, B., K. Mellahi, C. Guermat, and R. Kechad. 2014. “The Efficacy of High Performance
Work Practices in the Middle East: Evidence from Algerian Firms.” The International Journal
of Human Resource Management 25 (2): 252–275. doi:10.1080/09585192.2013.826918.
Ramoo, V., K. L. Abdullah, and C. Y. Piaw. 2013. “The Relationship between Job Satisfaction and
Intention to Leave Current Employment among Registered Nurses in a Teaching Hospital.”
Journal of Clinical Nursing 22 (21–22): 3141–3152. doi:10.1111/jocn.12260.
Schuyler, G. K. 2004. “The Possibility of Healthy Organizations: Toward a New Framework for
Organizational Theory and Practice.” Journal of Applied Social Science 21 (2): 57–79.
Scully-Russ, E. 2012. “Human Resource Development and Sustainability: Beyond Sustainable
Organizations.” Human Resource Development International 15 (4): 399–415. doi:10.1080/
13678868.2012.707529.
Shen, J., and C. J. Zhu. 2011. “Effects of Socially Responsible Human Resource Management on
Employee Organizational Commitment.” The International Journal of Human Resource
Management 22 (15): 3020–3035. doi:10.1080/09585192.2011.599951.
Shuck, B., D. Twyford, T. G. Reio Jr., and A. Shuck. 2014. “Human Resource Development
Practices and Employee Engagement: Examining the Connection with Employee Turnover
 20 S.C. Kundu and N. Gahlawat

Intentions.” Human Resource Development Quarterly 25 (2): 239–270. doi:10.1002/

hrdq.2014.25.issue-2.
Tett, R. P., and J. P. Meyer. 1993. “Job Satisfaction, Organizational Commitment, Turnover
Intention, and Turnover: Path Analyses Based on Meta-Analytic Findings.” Personnel
Psychology 46 (2): 259–293. doi:10.1111/peps.1993.46.issue-2.
Thite, M. 2013. “Ethics and Human Resource Management and Development in a Global Context:
Case Study of an Indian Multinational.” Human Resource Development International 16 (1):
106–115. doi:10.1080/13678868.2012.737691.
Thompson, J. A., and J. S. Bunderson. 2003. “Violations of Principle: Ideological Currency in the
Psychological Contract.” Academy of Management Review 28 (4): 571–586.
Tschopp, C., G. Grote, and M. Gerber. 2014. “How Career Orientation Shapes the Job Satisfaction-
Turnover Intention Link.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 35 (2): 151–171. doi:10.1002/
job.1857.
Ulrich, D. 2014. “The Future Targets or Outcomes of HR Work: Individuals, Organizations, and
Leadership.” Human Resource Development International 17 (1): 1–9. doi:10.1080/
13678868.2013.825144.
Valentine, S., and G. Fleischman. 2008. “Ethics Programs, Perceived Corporate Social
Downloaded by [New York University] at 04:06 01 July 2015

Responsibility and Job Satisfaction.” Journal of Business Ethics 77 (2): 159–172.

doi:10.1007/s10551-006-9306-z.
Walsh, J. P. 2005. “Book Review Essay: Taking Stock of Stakeholder Management.” Academy of
Management Review 30 (2): 426–438. doi:10.5465/AMR.2005.16387898.
Werner, J. M. 2014. “Human Resource Development ≠ Human Resource Management: So What Is It?”
Human Resource Development Quarterly 25 (2): 127–139. doi:10.1002/hrdq.2014.25.issue-2.
Yavas, U., O. M. Karatepe, T. Avci, and M. Tekinkus. 2003. “Antecedents and Outcomes of Service
Recovery Performance: An Empirical Study of Frontline Employees in Turkish Banks.”
International Journal of Bank Marketing 21 (5): 255–265. doi:10.1108/02652320310488439.