To Study the Impact of Organizational Culture on Corporate Social Responsibility

22044528038
 2

INDEX

S No. Content Page No. Signature

1. Studying the impact of 3 - 52
Organizational Culture on
Corporate Social Responsibility
 3

Abstract
This study explores the influence of Organizational Culture (OC) on Corporate Social
Responsibility (CSR), focusing on companies within the IT sector. Employing an exploratory
and correlational research design, 157 participants with over five years of experience were
surveyed to understand the relationship between OC and CSR. The study used established
scales, including the Competing Values Culture Assessment and the Organizational Culture
Assessment Instrument (OCAI), to measure OC dimensions (Clan, Market, Hierarchy, and
Adhocracy cultures) and CSR practices, which were categorized into five dimensions,
Philanthropic Engagements, Value Creation, Legal Compliance, Workplace Concerns, and
Environmental Integrity. Data analysis revealed significant correlations between specific
culture types and CSR outcomes, emphasizing how collaborative and competitive cultural traits
influence philanthropic and sustainability efforts. The findings highlight the transitional nature
of CSR, reflecting evolving mindsets toward integrating CSR into core business strategies.
This research contributes to the understanding of how culture shapes CSR practices to enhance
performance and productivity within an organisation.

Keywords: Organizational Culture, Corporate Social Responsibility, IT Sector, OCAI and

Productivity.
 4

Bowen, 1953, first introduced the idea of CSR as the Social Responsibilities of the
Businessman. Bowen suggested that the “social responsibility of businessmen” involves the
obligation to adopt policies, make decisions, and take actions that align with society's values
and goals.

The European Commission in 2011 defined CSR as a concept where businesses

voluntarily integrate social and environmental considerations into their operations and
interactions with stakeholders.

The World Business Council for Sustainable Development describes CSR as an

ongoing commitment by businesses to act ethically, contributing to economic growth while
enhancing the quality of life for their employees, their families, the local community, and
society.

Forbes (2010) explains that CSR operates in two ways: companies give back to society,
and in return, people recognize and support the businesses that help them, leading to increased
awareness and demand for their products and services.

Narayan Murthy (2013), the founder of Infosys, views social responsibility as

maximizing shareholder value while ensuring fairness to all stakeholders, including employees,
consumers, the community, the government, and the environment.

Here are a few notable examples of highly socially responsible actions taken by well-
known companies-

Chiquita Brands International, a global leader in banana production, is also regarded as

a leader in corporate social responsibility. The company has appointed a corporate
responsibility officer at the vice president level, avoids the use of toxic chemicals, and unlike
some competitors, treats its workers fairly by refraining from underpaying or mistreating them.

McDonald’s, a global fast-food giant, is deeply committed to social responsibility and

publishes an extensive Worldwide Corporate Responsibility Report online. Among its key
initiatives is the Ronald McDonald House Charities, which works to enhance the health and
well-being of children and families worldwide. McDonald’s also actively engages in
 5

environmental protection (published in January 2010) is that it tracks the company’s progress
toward social responsibility goals set in previous years, such as maintaining a sustainable
supply chain, community involvement, and environmental stewardship.

UPS has been a leader in corporate social responsibility for over 50 years through its
non-profit arm, the UPS Foundation, which supports community initiatives. Recently, UPS has
placed a strong focus on environmental sustainability by introducing 245 new delivery trucks
powered by compressed natural gas (CNG) in cities like Colorado and California. These
environmentally friendly “green” trucks reflect the company’s dedication to reducing
emissions and lowering its carbon footprint.

While these examples are significant, these companies are not alone in their
commitment to corporate social responsibility. In fact, many of the largest U.S. companies are
making considerable efforts to engage in a variety of socially responsible practices. A number
of these companies are regularly recognized as among the “top 10” most socially responsible
firms.

Rather than being a separate activity, CSR is woven into the fabric of business strategy,
ensuring that the company not only pursues profit but also creates a positive impact on society
and the environment.

Voluntary Commitment: CSR is primarily voluntary, arising from the company’s own
values and sense of accountability rather than legal obligations. It reflects the organization’s
desire to contribute to society and the environment beyond what is required by law. This
voluntary nature showcases a company’s commitment to act responsibly towards all
stakeholders.

Ethical Behavior: At its heart, CSR is about promoting ethical behavior within the
company. It encourages businesses to go beyond profit and think about the moral implications
of their actions. This involves making decisions that are fair, transparent, and respectful of
human rights, ensuring the company operates with integrity in all dealings.

Sustainability Focus: CSR is closely linked to sustainability. It promotes the long-term

viability of businesses by encouraging them to consider the social, environmental, and
 6

economic impacts of their activities. By focusing on sustainability, companies help ensure the
well-being of future generations, maintaining a balance between economic growth and the
planet’s resources.

Holistic Approach: CSR is not confined to a single department or initiative; it’s a

comprehensive approach that touches all aspects of a business. From supply chain management
to employee welfare, product development, environmental impact, and community
engagement, CSR integrates socially responsible practices into every level of operations.

Corporate Accountability: CSR embodies the notion of corporate accountability, where

businesses take ownership of the effects of their operations on society and the environment. It
encourages transparency and responsibility, as companies must be answerable for their actions
and actively mitigate any negative impacts.

Community Engagement: A key element of CSR is actively engaging with and

supporting the communities in which a business operates. This can involve charitable activities,
educational programs, healthcare initiatives, and employment opportunities that uplift local
communities and contribute to social progress.

Regulatory and Market Influence: While CSR is mostly voluntary, businesses are
increasingly influenced by regulatory pressures and market demands to adopt responsible
practices. Governments, industry standards, and consumer expectations are driving companies
to be more accountable for their social and environmental impact, making CSR a strategic
necessity rather than a choice.

Long-term Business Strategy: CSR is seen as an integral part of long-term business

strategy rather than a one-time effort. Companies that invest in CSR build a solid foundation
for future success, fostering brand loyalty, improving reputation, and securing the trust of
consumers, employees, and investors over time.

In essence, CSR reflects a company’s broader role in society, demonstrating that

success in business goes hand in hand with contributing to the greater good. It is a responsible
and forward-thinking approach that ensures the business remains relevant, respected, and
sustainable in an increasingly interconnected and socially conscious world.
 7

These examples demonstrate that corporate social responsibility (CSR) can take many
forms. The key types are outlined below:

Supporting the community through charitable contributions: One of the most common
ways companies engage in CSR is by donating to the communities in which they operate. These
contributions not only provide meaningful support but also serve as good business practice by
fostering community goodwill and helping to develop future employees.

Protecting the environment: Many companies actively work to safeguard the

environment. As seen with Chiquita Brands, McDonald’s, and UPS, businesses are
increasingly prioritizing environmental sustainability. In fact, due to rising interest in
environmental preservation, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in 2010
introduced a regulation requiring public companies to alert investors about any significant risks
posed by global warming to their operations.

Socially responsible investing: Another form of CSR involves being selective in

investments. Companies that embrace this approach choose to invest in businesses that support
societal well-being while avoiding those that may cause harm.

Enhancing employee welfare: A fundamental aspect of CSR is ensuring the well-being

of employees. Some companies go above and beyond to avoid exploitative labor practices,
even if such practices are common in their industry. For example, Brazilian cosmetics company
Natura Cosméticos upholds human rights by refusing to use child labor and supporting
education programs. The company also encourages its employees to volunteer for non-profit
organizations.

These examples highlight that being socially responsible is more than just occasional
acts of generosity or one-off goodwill gestures. Moreover, CSR is not merely a strategy for
enhancing marketing or public relations. Instead, it involves a comprehensive set of policies,
practices, and programs integrated throughout the business and its decision-making processes,
with strong support and commitment from top management.
 8

Carroll’s Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)

Proposed by Archie B. Carroll in 1991, Carroll’s Pyramid outlines four levels of CSR
responsibilities that businesses should fulfill. At the base of the pyramid is economic
responsibility, where businesses are expected to be profitable and meet their financial
obligations. The next level is legal responsibility, meaning businesses should comply with the
laws and regulations of society. The third level is ethical responsibility, encouraging businesses
to do what is right, just, and fair, beyond legal requirements. Finally, at the top of the pyramid
is philanthropic responsibility, where companies voluntarily contribute to societal well-being
through charitable acts or social programs. This model emphasizes that while economic
responsibilities are foundational, businesses should also consider legal, ethical, and
philanthropic aspects to be socially responsible.

Triple Bottom Line (TBL)

The Triple Bottom Line framework was introduced by John Elkington in 1994. It
expands the traditional focus on financial performance to include social and environmental
considerations. These three pillars—profit, people, and planet—serve as a guideline for
sustainable business practices. Profit refers to the economic value created by the organization,
people represent the social responsibility toward employees, customers, and the community,
while planet signifies the environmental impact of the company's operations. The TBL suggests
that companies should strive to balance all three dimensions, ensuring long-term sustainability
for both the business and the world around it.

Stakeholder Theory
Freeman, 1984 states that stakeholder theory challenges the traditional shareholder-
centric view of business. It argues that businesses should create value not only for shareholders
but for all stakeholders, including employees, customers, suppliers, the environment, and the
wider community. According to this theory, businesses must consider the interests and well-
being of these diverse groups in their decision-making processes. Freeman’s Stakeholder
Theory has since become a central concept in corporate governance and social responsibility,
highlighting that companies have a broader set of obligations beyond maximizing profits for
shareholders.
 9

Friedman’s Shareholder Theory

Milton Friedman, a renowned economist, introduced the Shareholder Theory in his
1970 essay titled “The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits.” According
to Friedman, the primary responsibility of a business is to maximize profits for its shareholders,
if it operates within the bounds of the law and ethical customs. He argued that corporate
executives are agents of the shareholders, and they must focus on increasing the company’s
profitability. Friedman was critical of the idea that businesses should engage in social or
environmental causes, believing that such activities detracted from the primary goal of profit
maximization. His view has been highly influential, particularly in the field of neoliberal
economics and corporate governance.

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is not a new concept in India. Its evolution can
be traced through several distinct phases:
In the first phase, CSR was largely shaped by culture, religion, family traditions, and
the early stages of industrialization. Business activities and CSR efforts were driven mainly by
self-regulation. Charity and philanthropy, the oldest forms of CSR, continue to influence
community development today. Before industrialization (up to the 1850s), merchants
contributed to society for religious reasons, often by building temples and providing aid during
crises like famines or epidemics by distributing food and wealth. With the onset of colonial
rule and Western industrialization in the mid-19th century, families like the Tatas, Birlas,
Bajajs, and others became pioneers of CSR, motivated by philanthropy.

The second phase (1914-1960) was marked by India’s struggle for independence,
heavily influenced by Gandhi’s trusteeship model, which aimed to promote social
development. During this time, businesses actively participated in reform efforts, viewing the
country’s economic growth as a protest against colonialism and contributing to social and
institutional development.

In the third phase (1960-1980), the “mixed economy” paradigm emerged, characterized
by the rise of public sector undertakings (PSUs) and increased legislation on labor and
environmental standards. CSR shifted from corporate self-regulation to stringent legal and
public regulation. The public sector became the driving force of development, and strict
government controls through high taxes, quotas, and licensing led to increased corporate
malpractices. This era, known as the “command and control” period, saw corporate
 10

governance, labor, and environmental issues rise to prominence, resulting in new legislation.
The state also established PSUs to ensure wealth distribution to the underprivileged.

In the fourth phase (1980-2013), Indian companies began to move away from
traditional philanthropic activities and increasingly integrated CSR into sustainable business
strategies, adopting a multi-stakeholder approach. In the 1990s, economic reforms were
introduced to liberalize and deregulate the Indian market, which led to the abolition of many
controls and licenses, fueling economic growth that continues today.

Today, Indian companies are expected to balance their responsibilities to stakeholders

and society with their goal of maximizing shareholder wealth. There is a growing recognition
that businesses cannot thrive if society fails. In India, where there is a significant income gap,
living standards, and socio-economic status, CSR has ethical and philosophical dimensions.
India is now ranked among the top ten Asian countries prioritizing CSR disclosure norms. Both
public and private sector companies play a significant role in driving CSR initiatives.

Need for CSR in organizations

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is increasingly recognized as essential for
modern organizations, as it addresses a range of critical business needs. CSR not only enhances
a company’s reputation and brand image but also attracts and retains talent, fosters customer
loyalty, and aids in risk management. Moreover, it supports sustainability and aligns with
stakeholder expectations. The following are key reasons why CSR is indispensable for
organizations today.

Enhancing Reputation and Brand Image

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) plays a significant role in building a company's

reputation and brand image. When organizations engage in socially responsible activities, such
as supporting charitable causes or reducing their environmental impact, they project a positive
image to the public. These fosters trust and loyalty among customers, as people tend to favor
brands that contribute to society. Over time, this can strengthen the company's reputation and
help it stand out in a competitive market.
 11

Attracting and Retaining Talent

CSR is not just about external image; it also affects the internal workforce. Employees,
particularly younger generations, are increasingly drawn to companies with strong values and
ethical practices. When organizations invest in CSR, they create a more positive work
environment, which boosts morale and job satisfaction. This, in turn, helps attract top talent
and retain current employees, reducing turnover and improving overall productivity.

Customer Loyalty and Consumer Trust

Consumers today are more socially and environmentally conscious than ever before.
They often choose brands that align with their values, and companies with strong CSR
programs benefit from this shift. By demonstrating a commitment to social responsibility,
businesses build deeper connections with their customers. This leads to increased loyalty, as
customers are more likely to support companies they trust to act ethically and contribute
positively to the world.

Risk Management

Engaging in CSR helps organizations manage risks by building strong relationships

with the community, government, and regulators. Companies that prioritize ethical behavior
are less likely to face legal issues or public backlash. By proactively addressing potential
concerns through CSR initiatives, businesses can reduce the likelihood of reputational damage
or costly lawsuits, ultimately protecting their long-term interests.

Sustainability and Long-term Profitability

Many CSR initiatives focus on sustainability, which is essential for long-term business
success. Companies that take steps to reduce waste, conserve energy, and invest in sustainable
practices not only contribute to environmental well-being but also lower their operational costs.
In addition, focusing on sustainability helps businesses prepare for future regulations and
ensures that they can continue to thrive in an evolving market.

Meeting Stakeholder Expectations

In today's business environment, stakeholders including shareholders, investors, and

consumers expect companies to go beyond profit-making and contribute to social and
 12

environmental causes. By engaging in CSR, businesses meet these expectations, enhancing

their credibility and securing long-term success. Stakeholders are more likely to support
companies that demonstrate a commitment to ethical practices and social responsibility, which
can lead to greater investment and growth opportunities.

Different aspects of CSR

Environmental Responsibility
Companies focus on adopting eco-friendly practices to minimize their environmental
footprint. This involves waste reduction, energy efficiency, and the use of renewable resources.
Efforts also include promoting sustainability, conserving biodiversity, and ensuring that
products are made from sustainable materials (Carroll, 1991).

Ethical Responsibility:
Ethical CSR revolves around fair business practices, including fair labor standards,
supply chain integrity, and anti-corruption efforts. Companies focus on being transparent in
their operations and upholding ethical corporate governance (Crane & Matten, 2004). Ensuring
ethical treatment in the supply chain and preventing exploitation are also critical components.

Philanthropic Responsibility:
Philanthropy involves corporate donations, community engagement, and employee
volunteering. Companies contribute to social causes, such as education, healthcare, and disaster
relief, and engage with communities to promote well-being (Kotler & Lee, 2005).

Economic Responsibility:
Companies are responsible for ensuring sustainable profitability while contributing to
economic growth. This includes responsible investments, ensuring that projects or ventures are
ethical and have no negative societal impact, and promoting inclusive growth to support
marginalized groups (Carroll, 1999).

Legal Responsibility:
Corporate activities must comply with legal and regulatory frameworks. Companies are
expected to respect human rights, prevent exploitative labor practices, and adhere to labor,
environmental, and business laws (Crane & Matten, 2004).
 13

Workplace Responsibility:
Workplace responsibility emphasizes employee well-being, diversity, and inclusion.
Companies strive to create a positive work environment by offering fair wages, promoting
diversity, and ensuring health and safety standards (Carroll, 1991).

Evolutionary phases in the development of CSR in India

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in India was made mandatory under Section 135
of the Companies Act, 2013. This law requires companies with a net worth of ₹500 crore, a
turnover of ₹1,000 crore, or a net profit of ₹5 crore or more to spend 2% of their average net
profits from the past three years on CSR activities (Government of India, 2013). CSR efforts
focus on areas like education, healthcare, poverty alleviation, environmental sustainability, and
gender equality (Ministry of Corporate Affairs, 2014). Companies are required to form a CSR
Committee to develop and monitor their CSR policies. Leading firms such as Tata Group,
Infosys, and Reliance Industries have made significant contributions in areas like rural
development, healthcare, and education. In 2019, CSR spending in India totaled ₹18,655 crore
(KPMG, 2020). The Companies (Amendment) Act, 2020, introduced stricter compliance rules,
requiring companies to carry forward unspent CSR funds and penalizing non-compliance
(Ministry of Corporate Affairs, 2020). While CSR has had a positive impact, challenges
remain, including the concentration of activities in urban areas and concerns over transparency.

Schedule VII of the Companies Act, 2013 defines the permissible areas for companies
to focus their Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) initiatives. These include:
• Eradicating hunger, poverty, and malnutrition, and promoting health care, including
preventive health care and sanitation.
• Promoting education, including special education and vocational skills, especially among
children, women, elderly, and differently abled individuals.
• Promoting gender equality, empowering women, and supporting projects to reduce gender
inequality.
• Ensuring environmental sustainability, conservation of natural resources, and maintaining
ecological balance.
• Protection of national heritage, art, and culture, including restoration of monuments and
historical sites.
• Support for armed forces veterans, war widows, and their dependents.
• Promoting rural development and improving infrastructure in rural areas.
 14

• Slum area development to enhance living conditions in urban slums.

• Disaster relief and rehabilitation in areas affected by natural or man-made calamities.

The concept of the Virtuous Circle suggests that socially responsible companies tend
to perform better financially than those less focused on social responsibility. A study examining
companies listed in the “100 Best Corporate Citizens” from 2001 to 2009 compared their total
return on investments with a broader index of 1,000 companies. The findings revealed that
companies on the “100 Best” lists outperformed their counterparts by 26% (Smith, 2010). This
trend aligns with similar research indicating a strong link between social responsibility and
financial performance.

Figure 1: Virtuous Cycle

It has been suggested that socially responsible companies perform well financially
because they are supported by customers and investors. As a result, they become wealthier,
making it easier for them to become even more philanthropic. This is known as the virtuous
circle.
The Virtuous Circle is a two-way relationship where financial success and social
responsibility reinforce each other. When companies achieve financial success, they are often
able to invest in social causes, which boosts their reputation and public goodwill. In turn,
engaging in socially responsible practices can attract customers and investors who value these
efforts, leading to higher profitability (Jones, 2011).
Investors increasingly seek out mutual funds that focus on socially responsible
companies. Resources such as books and websites provide detailed information on companies’
social and environmental behaviors, helping consumers and investors make informed decisions
(Greenberg, 2012). This accessibility contributes to the financial well-being of socially
responsible companies by aligning their business practices with consumer values. ExxonMobil
exemplifies the Virtuous Circle. In 2008, ExxonMobil and its affiliates donated $189 million
worldwide, including $111 million in the U.S. and $78 million abroad (ExxonMobil, 2009).
 15

Such philanthropic efforts not only foster goodwill but may also contribute to the company’s
profitability, creating a cycle where financial success enables further charitable contributions.

Organizational Culture
Organizational culture is commonly defined as a set of shared beliefs, assumptions,
values, norms, artifacts, symbols, actions, and language patterns that unite all members of an
organization. This perspective views culture as an acquired body of knowledge that shapes the
organization's identity and fosters a collective sense of belonging among its members,
assuming clarity and consensus across the organization. However, organizational culture can
also be understood through different lenses. One alternative view focuses not on the entire
organization but on the consensus formed within its various subcultures, which often conflict.
Outside these subcultures, ambiguity and inconsistency may prevail, with members displaying
contradictory behavior. A third approach emphasizes ambiguity as a central feature of culture,
rejecting the notion of consensus and stability, and highlighting how agreement and
disagreement shift over time without forming a lasting organizational or subcultural consensus.

Interpreting and understanding organizational culture are crucial, as it influences

development, productivity, and learning at all levels. Cultural assumptions can both empower
and limit an organization’s actions. Key elements of culture include (1) its formal definition,
(2) the foundational characteristics, (3) the strength of the culture, (4) whether there is one
unified culture or multiple subcultures within the organization, (5) the role culture plays in
organizational functioning, and (6) the various forms culture can take.

Core cultural characteristics of organizational culture include:

Sensitivity to Others: This refers to the degree to which the organization values and
prioritizes the feelings, needs, and well-being of its members. A culture that promotes empathy
fosters collaboration and mutual respect.
Interest in New Ideas: Organizations with this characteristic are open to innovation and
encourage creative thinking. They are willing to explore new approaches and adapt to change.
Willingness to Take Risks: This reflects the organization’s openness to uncertainty and its
support for experimentation. A culture that encourages risk-taking is more likely to embrace
innovation and entrepreneurial initiatives.
 16

Value Placed on People: This highlights the importance the organization places on its
employees. Cultures that value people focus on employee development, well-being, and
satisfaction, viewing human capital as a key asset.
Openness of Available Communication Options: This refers to the transparency and
accessibility of communication within the organization. A culture that promotes open
communication encourages dialogue, feedback, and collaboration at all levels.
Friendliness and Congeniality: This characteristic reflects the overall positive, supportive,
and welcoming atmosphere in the organization, promoting camaraderie, cooperation, and a
sense of belonging among members.

An organization’s culture can be strong or weak, functional or dysfunctional. In

organizations with strong cultures, such as the military or those with long traditions, values are
deeply ingrained and reinforced through rituals, symbols, and behavioral expectations.
Members internalize these values throughout their time in the organization, enabling them to
make decisions aligned with the organization’s mission, even in uncertain situations. However,
strong cultures may also hinder adaptability when flexibility is needed in response to external
changes. Organizations vary in the strength of their culture and its impact on employees. In
those with strong cultures, there is widespread agreement on core values like sensitivity to
others and willingness to take risks, significantly influencing behavior. A strong culture is
characterized by a clear philosophy on business conduct, frequent communication of values,
explicit value statements, and a shared set of deeply rooted norms. New employees are
carefully selected to fit the culture.

Research indicates that stronger cultures are often found in newer, smaller companies,
as the influence of the founder may diminish in larger, older organizations. Additionally,
organizations tend to perform better when leadership is aligned with the organizational culture,
as misalignment can create confusion and mixed messages. Strong cultures, therefore, shape
employee behavior and drive organizational success.

People tend to share more similar attitudes and values with others in their specific work
units or fields than with those in other parts of the organization. These different groups can be
seen as having subcultures—distinct cultures within various parts of the organization.
Subcultures are often based on functional differences (the type of work) or geographic
separation (physical distance between people). Research shows that large organizations usually
have several subcultures linked to occupational, professional, or functional divisions.
 17

However, this does not mean that there isn’t also a dominant culture, which represents
the overall “personality” of the organization. The dominant culture reflects core values and
widely shared perceptions across the organization. Members of subcultures typically accept
these core values while holding additional sets of values specific to their group. Therefore,
subcultures are not completely independent, but rather "mini" cultures that operate within the
larger, overarching organizational culture.

The Role of Culture in Organizations-

Culture Provides a Sense of Identity: When an organization’s shared values and

perceptions are clearly defined, employees feel more connected to its mission and view
themselves as integral to it.

Culture Generates Commitment to an Organization’s Mission: It can be challenging

for individuals to look beyond their own self-interest. However, in organizations with a
strong, unified culture, employees feel part of something bigger than themselves and are
more committed to the organization’s overall mission. Culture helps remind people of the
organization's larger purpose.

Culture Clarifies and Reinforces Standards of Behavior: Culture provides guidance

on how employees should act or speak in various situations, which is particularly helpful for
new employees. It promotes consistent behavior both over time and across the workforce.

Organisational culture models are frameworks used to define, shape or influence the
culture of a company. They help understand and analyze the shared values, beliefs, and
behaviors within an organization. These models provide frameworks to assess and shape the
organizational culture to align with strategic objectives.

Edgar Schein’s Organizational Culture Triangle

Edgar Schein’s Organizational Culture triangle says that there are different layers to the
cultures within organizations. There are shallow layers that have some impact on an
organizations culture, or which may be some indication of what a culture is actually like. There
are also deeper layers which provide a much greater insight into what a culture is actually like.

The three key layers that Schein discusses are:

 18

Artifacts: The first level is the characteristics of the organization which can be easily
viewed, heard and felt by individuals collectively known as artifacts. The dress code of the
employees, office furniture, facilities, behavior of the employees, mission and vision of the
organization all come under artifacts and go a long way in deciding the culture of the
workplace.

For instance:
Organization A: No one in organization A is allowed to dress up casually. Employees
respect their superiors and avoid unnecessary disputes. The individuals are very particular
about the deadlines and ensure the tasks are accomplished within the stipulated time frame.
Organization B: The employees can wear whatever they feel like. Individuals in organization
B are least bothered about work and spend their maximum time loitering and gossiping around.
The employees use derogatory remarks at the workplace and pull each other into controversies.
In the above case, employees in organization A wear dresses that are not very
professional and strictly follow the policies of the organization. On the other hand, employees
in organization B have a laid-back attitude and do not take their work seriously. Organization
A follows a strict professional culture whereas Organization B follows a weak culture where
the employees do not accept things willingly.

Espoused Values: At the next level, comes the stated values and norms that are
officially propagated by the organization. These values are usually set out in mission statements
and official documents. These are the ideals and principles that the organization claims to
follow. An example could be the emphasis on ethics and sustainability, which is clearly
emphasized in corporate communications. However, there is often a discrepancy between
espoused values and actual practice, which is one of the challenges of analyzing corporate
culture.

Espoused values include things like organizational values and behaviors, company or
employee charters, team contracts, perhaps vision and mission statements and the types of
things promoted through newsletters and so on.

Underlying Beliefs: The deepest and most difficult level to grasp are the underlying
beliefs. These are the deeply rooted, often unconscious beliefs and values that significantly
influence the behavior of employees in the organization. These assumptions are so self-evident
that they are rarely questioned. They can relate to issues such as the way power and authority
 19

are perceived, how conflicts are handled or how decisions are made. For example, many
organizations espouse that remote working is a great thing, however employees may have
underlying beliefs that one needs to be physically present at work to be recognized by the
organization.

OCTAPACE MODEL- Udai Pareek and T.V Rao

The OCTAPACE model given by Udai Pareek and T.V Rao is characterized by the
occurrence of openness, confrontation, trust, authenticity, pro-activity, autonomy,
collaboration and experimentation.

Openness & Risk Taking: Employees feel free to express their ideas and the organisation
is willing to take risks and to experiment with new ideas and new ways of doing things. A study
conducted by Rohmetra (1998) on the banking sector of J & K space for determining the HRD
climate showed that the environment is less open for employees. Mangaraj (1999) in her study
of the HRD system in the Rourkela steel plant found that the employee’s opportunities to
express their viewpoints are quite successful.
Confrontation: Employees face the problems and work jointly with others concerned to
find a solution. They face the issues squarely without hiding them or avoiding them for fear of
hurting each other. Kumar and Patnaik (2002) conducted a study on postgraduate teachers of
the JNU and reported that the value of confrontation responded well among teachers.
Trust: The employee's department and groups trust each other and can be relied upon to
‘do’ whatever they say they will do. Rohmetra (1998) found that an intimate degree of trust
was enjoyed in the bank. Sharma and Purang (2000) showed that there exists a good degree of
trust among middle-level managers in an organisation in the engineering sector.
Authenticity: It is the value underlying trust. It is the willingness of a person to acknowledge
the feelings he/she has and to accept him/her as well as others who relate to him/her as persons.
Mufeed (2006) in his empirical study on the culture of hospitals found that the value of
authenticity had been well developed.
Pro-action: Employees are action–oriented, willing to take initiative and to show a high
degree of pro-activity. They anticipate the issues and act or respond to the needs of the future.
Mufeed and Gurkoo (2007) in their comparative study in the universities of Jammu & Kashmir
found the value of pro-activity as unfavorable.
 20

Autonomy: Autonomy is the willingness to use power without fear and help others to do
the same. Employees have some freedom to act independently within the boundaries imposed
by their role/job. Krishna and Rao (1997) surveyed the organisational and HRD climate in the
BHEL and reported that the value of autonomy responded poorly to employees.
Collaboration: This involves working together and using one another’s strengths for a
common cause. Individuals, instead of solving their problems by themselves, share their
concerns with one another and prepare strategies, work out plans of action, and implement
them together.
Experimentation: Experimentation as a value emphasizes the importance given to
innovation and trying out new ways of dealing with the problems in the organisation. Alphonsa
(2000) in his empirical study found that the employees were not encouraged when they
suggested new things or new ideas.

Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions Theory

Power distance index This refers to the degree to which less powerful members of the
organisation accept that power is distributed unequally. Where there is a large degree of power
distance, people generally accept there is a hierarchical culture, but where there is a low power
distance, people demand justification for inequalities in power.
Masculinity v femininity This concerns what values are considered more important.
‘Masculine’ values include achievement, heroism, competition, and assertiveness, while
‘feminine’ values include cooperation, modesty, consensus, and overall quality of life.
Individualism v collectivism This dimension relates to how an organisation treats individual
versus group interests. Those with a culture geared towards individualism expect individuals
to take care of only themselves, while collectivism focuses on collaboration and looking after
others.
Uncertainty avoidance index This refers to how comfortable employees feel about
uncertainty and ambiguity and whether the organization should try to control the future or see
what happens. Those who rank highly on the index maintain strict codes of conduct and are
less likely to tolerate unconventional ideas or behaviours.
Long-term orientation v short-term orientation:Organizations with a long-term orientation
behave in ways that help facilitate future rewards, while those on the short-term end of the
spectrum prefer to maintain culture and view change with suspicion.
 21

Indulgence v restraint:This index refers to how strictly a society regulates the fulfillment
of “human desires.” Those that allow indulgence give individuals the freedom to gratify those
desires, while their counterparts tend to restrict that behavior.

The Cameron and Quinn Competing Values Culture Model

The Competing Values Framework developed by Quinn and Cameron in 1983
classified organizational culture into four distinct types: Clan, Adhocracy, Market, and
Hierarchy. These cultures highlight different values and priorities within an organization,
influencing leadership styles, employee behaviors, and organizational goals.

Clan Culture:
The clan culture places a strong emphasis on collaboration and a people-oriented
approach. It fosters a family-like atmosphere where employees feel valued, supported, and
empowered. This culture encourages cohesiveness, and leadership is typically focused on
mentoring and nurturing the workforce. Employees are encouraged to work together, fostering
a sense of loyalty and commitment. In organizations with a clan culture, there is a deep concern
for employee satisfaction and development.
Companies like Costco exemplify this culture by prioritizing employee well-being and
offering competitive benefits that ensure job satisfaction and low turnover. Similarly, SAS
Institute is known for creating a nurturing and collaborative environment where employees feel
empowered to contribute creatively to the organization. In this type of culture, fairness,
teamwork, and employee involvement are central to the organization’s operations.

Adhocracy Culture:
This culture is driven by innovation, creativity, and risk-taking. It thrives in dynamic
environments where the organization needs to constantly adapt and innovate. It emphasizes
entrepreneurship, encouraging employees to take risks and experiment with new ideas. The
goal is to foster a creative and flexible work environment where failure is not punished, but
seen as a step toward innovation. Organizations that operate in fast-paced, rapidly changing
industries often embody adhocracy culture. For instance, Google encourages its employees to
spend 20% of their time working on personal projects, fostering an environment where
experimentation and innovation are rewarded. Similarly, 3M is known for allowing employees
to engage in creative problem-solving, resulting in breakthrough innovations like the Post-it
 22

note. These companies prioritize flexibility, creativity, and adaptability, making adhocracy
culture ideal for organizations that need to innovate continuously.

Market Culture:
It prioritizes competitiveness, goal achievement, and customer satisfaction. In this
culture, the focus is on external success, and organizations are driven by results, competition,
and performance. Leadership is results-oriented, focusing on achieving goals, increasing
market share, and outperforming competitors. Employees are expected to be highly driven,
with success measured by market performance and profitability. Organizations like Apple and
Salesforce embody market culture by focusing on aggressive growth strategies and prioritizing
customer satisfaction and market dominance. Apple’s continuous drive to stay ahead in the
tech industry exemplifies a market-oriented approach where innovation is coupled with an
intense focus on customer needs and staying ahead of the competition. Salesforce, with its
expansion strategies and competitive approach to software development, also demonstrates the
essence of market culture.

Hierarchy Culture:
This type of culture values structure, efficiency, stability, and consistency.
Organizations with this type of culture prioritize control and order, with a clear chain of
command and well-defined processes. These companies thrive on efficiency and standardized
procedures, aiming to minimize errors and maximize productivity. Leadership in hierarchical
organizations is focused on maintaining stability and ensuring that operations run smoothly
and predictably. Companies like Boeing and Walmart represent hierarchy culture. Boeing’s
emphasis on adhering to strict safety standards and regulatory compliance exemplifies the need
for structured processes and precision in operations. Walmart’s focus on operational efficiency
and consistency in delivering products to consumers further highlights the importance of
structure and control in this type of culture.

In conclusion, the Competing Values Framework illustrates that organizational cultures

are diverse and complex. Each culture type, clan, adhocracy, market, and hierarchy represents
a unique set of values and behaviors that shape how organizations function and achieve their
goals. Understanding these cultures can provide insights into how organizations can align their
strategies and operations with their core values, ultimately driving success in their respective
industries.
 23

A study by Martínez Costa, M. et al. (2023) investigated the impact of various

organizational culture types, using Cameron and Quinn's framework, on learning and
performance within the European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM) model. It also
explored whether "ambidexterity"—the ability to both explore new ideas and refine existing
ones—contributes to improved outcomes. The findings showed that adhocracy, hierarchy, and
market-oriented cultures enhance results. Specifically, a hierarchical culture strengthens the
use of existing knowledge, while a market-oriented culture encourages learning new concepts.
Both learning skills, exploration and exploitation, positively affect performance, with these
cultural types indirectly improving outcomes by fostering these skills. The study advises
managers implementing the EFQM model to recognize the influence of organizational culture
on learning and to prioritize market orientation and process control to boost performance.

Culture and CSR

The linkage between culture and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is an important
dynamic in shaping how businesses approach their social obligations. Organizational culture,
which refers to the shared values, norms, and practices within a company, directly influences
how CSR is integrated and perceived within the business model. When companies prioritize
values like transparency, accountability, and sustainability, they are more likely to adopt CSR
strategies that create meaningful, long-term impact rather than focusing solely on compliance
or public image. For example, firms with strong ethical cultures often see CSR as a core part
of their identity, driving actions that benefit both the community and the business over time.
Cultural dimensions on a societal level also shape CSR practices. In collectivist cultures
such as India and Japan, where the well-being of the community is prioritized, businesses tend
to focus on CSR initiatives that directly benefit society. This can include investments in
education, healthcare, and environmental sustainability, aligning corporate goals with broader
social objectives. Conversely, in individualistic cultures, where the focus might be more on
personal achievement and business success, CSR initiatives may take on a more strategic or
profit-driven approach.
Furthermore, the regulatory environment and societal expectations in a particular
region can amplify or diminish the emphasis on CSR. Companies operating in countries with
stringent environmental laws or a strong focus on social equity might feel compelled to develop
robust CSR frameworks to meet legal and ethical standards. However, even in regions with
less regulatory pressure, companies with a strong internal culture that values CSR can set
 24

themselves apart by creating meaningful social impact and enhancing their corporate
reputation.

The proposed model of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) integrates six key
dimensions that capture contemporary expectations from businesses.

Value Creation

It is centred around economic development. This means that organizations are expected
to generate value not just for their shareholders but also for the society in which they operate.
This includes creating jobs, promoting skills development, and contributing to social and
environmental goals.

Value creation emphasises economic responsibility, which he identified as the

foundation for all other CSR activities. By aligning profitability with positive societal impact,
businesses can sustain long-term success and contribute to the broader economy
(Carroll’s,1991).

Legal Compliance

This dimension highlights the importance of following laws and regulations in all
business activities.

The second most important responsibility after economic obligations is Legal

compliance which ensures that organizations operate within the framework of society's rules,
protecting stakeholder interests by adhering to statutory requirements such as employment
laws, safety regulations, and environmental laws.

This is essential in establishing trust and safeguarding both the organization and its
stakeholders from potential risks or legal violations. (Carroll ,1991)
 25

Philanthropic Engagement

This refers to the efforts of businesses to give back to society through charitable
activities, donations, and community programs. While Carroll (1991) included this as a
separate responsibility in his CSR pyramid, Visser (2010) grouped philanthropy under societal
contribution, which can sometimes obscure its importance. The proposed model differentiates
philanthropy from other CSR activities, emphasizing direct community engagement as an
essential way for businesses to support societal well-being.

Workplace Concerns

Workplace Concerns are also addressed as a distinct dimension in the proposed CSR
model. This recognizes that fair treatment of employees, including safe working conditions,
equal opportunities, and non-discrimination, is crucial for any organization's ethical
foundation. Bursa Malaysia's CSR framework particularly stresses the importance of
distinguishing workplace concerns from philanthropy, ensuring that employee welfare is
prioritized. In Carroll's and Visser's models, employee issues are not distinctly highlighted,
which the proposed model corrects.

Environmental Integrity

This focuses on sustainable practices, urging companies to protect ecosystems and

promote biodiversity. While not explicitly covered in Carroll’s original model, environmental
integrity is central to Visser’s (2010) CSR 2.0 model. The proposed framework advocates for
proactive environmental efforts, such as reducing waste and using renewable resources, as
crucial aspects of modern CSR practices. Businesses are expected to go beyond mere
compliance and take an active role in sustaining the environment.

Corporate culture refers to the beliefs, values, and practices shared within an
organization, often shaped by leadership. These values influence how the company conducts
itself, including its approach to CSR. In organizations where CSR is a core value, the corporate
culture encourages behaviors and actions that prioritize societal, environmental, and ethical
concerns. Corporate Culture (OC) serves as a foundation for CSR.

In the hospitality industry, for example, the manner in which CSR activities are
conducted is largely defined by the organization’s culture. Leaders instill CSR-driven values
 26

within the company, promoting practices like environmental sustainability, employee welfare,
and community engagement. A strong OC can thus enhance CSR efforts by ensuring that
ethical behavior and responsibility are ingrained throughout the business operations. CSR
initiatives can boost employee engagement and morale by giving employees a sense of purpose
and pride in their work. When employees see their company making a positive impact on
society or the environment, it creates a more motivated and loyal workforce. A strong CSR
approach fosters a corporate culture where people are more likely to stay, reducing staff
turnover and improving team cohesion.Beyond improving employee satisfaction and public
image, companies with robust CSR strategies enjoy lower operating costs, higher customer
loyalty, and stronger community support. For example, sustainable practices like reducing
waste or improving energy efficiency can lower costs, while socially conscious initiatives can
strengthen relationships with consumers.

CSR efforts can also mitigate risks associated with poor public relations or ethical
scandals, thereby protecting the company’s long-term viability. CSR involves the integration
of social, environmental, and ethical considerations into business operations to create value for
stakeholders beyond just profit generation. When corporate culture strongly emphasizes social
responsibility, the company is more likely to engage in meaningful CSR activities, such as
reducing carbon footprints, ethical sourcing, or supporting local communities.

The culture of the organization dictates how seriously CSR is taken and how it’s
implemented. For instance, a hotel with a strong culture of environmental responsibility will
adopt sustainable practices like water conservation, energy efficiency, and waste reduction,
demonstrating its commitment to CSR. Reputation plays a critical role in linking CSR and
corporate sustainability. A company with a positive reputation for strong CSR practices is seen
as trustworthy, reliable, and socially responsible. This positive reputation attracts customers,
investors, and employees, all of whom contribute to the company's long-term success and
sustainability.

In recent research, the impact of corporate culture on CSR and its role in enhancing
corporate sustainability has been explored (Siyal et al., 2022). The study highlights that CSR
initiatives help build a good reputation, and this reputation in turn boosts the company's
sustainability. For hotels, having a good reputation built on CSR can lead to increased customer
loyalty, brand distinction, and a competitive edge in the market.
 27

The research emphasizes the need for developing economies like Pakistan to focus on
CSR and OC, especially in sectors like hospitality. In Pakistan, the hospitality industry’s
growth potential is significant, but sustainability challenges remain, such as the impact of
COVID-19. By improving organizational culture, engaging in CSR, and maintaining a good
reputation, the hospitality industry can strengthen its sustainability. The research highlights
that CSR, when aligned with organizational culture, is not only about ethics but also about
strategic growth. In the competitive hospitality market, CSR can be a differentiator that attracts
guests and investors, thus ensuring long-term corporate sustainability.

Just as companies track financial performance, it’s important to measure the

effectiveness of corporate culture and CSR. Metrics such as employee turnover, customer
loyalty, and energy savings can provide insights into the success of CSR strategies.
Additionally, qualitative measures like employee surveys, stakeholder interviews, or focus
groups can help assess whether the corporate culture is aligned with CSR goals.

To create a lasting and effective CSR culture, a company's corporate culture must be
deeply rooted in its values and aligned with its business strategy. To sum up, corporate culture
and CSR are deeply interconnected. A healthy, socially responsible corporate culture enables
CSR initiatives to thrive, while well-executed CSR can strengthen and enhance corporate
culture. By embedding CSR values into their organizational DNA, companies can not only
enhance their reputation and public trust but also gain long-term business advantages such as
talent retention, lower risks, and improved financial performance. Both elements—culture and
CSR—must work together in harmony for sustainable corporate success.

Enock and Basavaraji (2013) conducted a comparative analysis of the corporate social
responsibility (CSR) practices of Tata and ITC, two prominent private companies in India. The
study underscores the increasing relevance of CSR in the corporate sector during the 21st
century. It highlights the Indian government’s efforts to formalize CSR practices through
guidelines that encourage companies to allocate a specific percentage of their resources to CSR
initiatives. The research evaluates the CSR activities of Tata and ITC in areas such as
environmental sustainability, social accountability, employee safety, promotion of human
rights, and healthcare. Additionally, it examines the methods employed by these companies to
report their CSR initiatives. The findings indicate that both Tata and ITC actively participate
in various CSR activities, demonstrating their commitment to addressing societal challenges.
These efforts span multiple domains, including innovations in agriculture, advancements in
 28

education, environmental conservation, and healthcare initiatives. The study concludes that the
primary CSR focus areas for both companies are environmental protection, education,
community engagement, and healthcare, reflecting their dedication to sustainable development
and social welfare (Nyameyio & Basavaraji, 2013).

Bhupender and Joshiya (2012) explored the evolving scope and challenges of corporate
social responsibility (CSR) in India. Over time, CSR has expanded to encompass both
economic and social objectives, reflecting a shift towards more inclusive and sustainable
business practices. Companies are increasingly transparent in their operations and engage in
public reporting due to rising pressures from various stakeholders, including consumers,
investors, and regulatory bodies. This research paper examines the current status of CSR in
India, identifies the challenges businesses face in implementing effective CSR policies, and
reviews existing CSR frameworks and regulations. The authors emphasize that while CSR has
become a critical element of the global business agenda, transitioning from theoretical
commitments to practical implementation remains a significant challenge. Despite these
obstacles, the adoption of CSR policies offers numerous potential benefits for businesses,
including improved stakeholder relationships and enhanced social impact. The study
underscores the need for companies to overcome barriers to fully integrate CSR into their
operational strategies (Bhupender & Joshiya, 2012).

Ghose (2012) examined the impact of globalization on corporate social responsibility

(CSR), with a particular focus on its implications for Indian markets. The study highlights the
extensive influence of CSR in emerging markets, where businesses integrate social and
environmental considerations into their operations. CSR practices discussed in the paper
include incorporating social attributes into products and production processes, such as using
environmentally friendly technologies and eliminating harmful substances like fluorocarbons
in aerosol products. The study also explores progressive human resource management
practices, such as promoting employee empowerment, and emphasizes the importance of
achieving superior environmental performance through recycling, pollution reduction, and
emission control. Additionally, the paper discusses CSR activities that support community
organizations, including collaborations with groups like United Way, to advance social welfare
goals. The research delves into the theoretical dimensions of CSR, covering frameworks such
as the Global Reporting Initiative and CSR legislation in India. It also examines the
globalization of CSR, illustrating its relevance and challenges in the Indian context. Specific
 29

cases of CSR initiatives and violations within India are analyzed to provide practical insights
into the implementation and shortcomings of CSR practices (Ghose, 2012).

Organizational culture, a central concept in organizational behavior, has been

extensively reviewed in literature, revealing a multitude of definitions (Cui & Hu, 2012;
Plakhotnik & Rocco, 2013). While scholars differ on certain aspects, there is a general
consensus that organizational culture is a combination of values, beliefs, and assumptions
shared by members of an organization to guide acceptable behavior (Hofstede, 2001; Huey &
Zaman, 2009; Cui & Hu, 2012). Schein (2010) defines organizational culture as "a pattern of
shared basic assumptions that the group learned as it solved its problems of external adaptation
and internal integration, that has worked well enough to be considered valid, and therefore, to
be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those
problems." This definition is foundational and widely recognized as it encapsulates key
elements of organizational culture (Belias & Koustelios, 2014). The study adopts Schein’s
(2010) framework due to its acceptance by numerous researchers (e.g., LaCasse, 2010; Al Saifi,
2015) and its incorporation of three core themes: observable artefacts, espoused values, and
basic assumptions. Observable artefacts include visible and tangible elements such as
organizational behaviors, architecture, technologies, publications, rituals, and myths. Espoused
values, as endorsed by leadership, reflect organizational priorities but may not always align
with employees' enacted behaviors. Basic assumptions represent deeply ingrained, unconscious
beliefs that shape organizational thought processes and behaviors, often operating as implicit
and unexamined guides. While basic assumptions are challenging to measure due to their
implicit nature, symbols are visible but require expert interpretation to decode cultural nuances.
On the other hand, shared values are widely accepted in organizational culture research because
they are meaningful and measurable. Thus, shared values are emphasized in this study as a
critical factor in understanding the relationship between organizational culture and
organizational effectiveness (Cui & Hu, 2012; Schein, 2010).

Setyawan and Nelson (2021) conducted a study to examine the impact of human
resource management (HRM) practices, knowledge management, and talent management on
organizational performance, with organizational culture serving as a mediating factor. The
research focused on the mining industry in East Kalimantan Province, Indonesia. A hypothesis-
testing design utilizing structural equation modelling (SEM) was employed. The study's
respondents were management-level employees from coal mining companies, with the sample
 30

selected using a purposive sampling method. The sample size consisted of 127 employees from
10 companies, chosen proportionally based on the companies' annual production capacity. The
findings revealed that three direct relationship hypotheses were supported, while four
hypotheses were rejected. Organizational culture was found to fully mediate the relationship
between HRM practices and talent management with organizational performance, while it
acted as a partial mediator in the relationship between knowledge management and
organizational performance. The researchers suggested that future studies could explore the
influence of social and environmental factors within the mining industry in Indonesia or other
regions.

Rationale

Organizational culture significantly impacts CSR by shaping how values, beliefs, and
norms are translated into actions. A positive culture fosters a sense of responsibility,
encouraging sustainable practices, community engagement, and ethical decision-making.
Conversely, a weak or misaligned culture can hinder the implementation of meaningful CSR
initiatives. By studying this interplay, we can better understand how cultural dynamics within
organizations influence the success and impact of CSR efforts. This exploration provides
valuable insights into the connection between societal values, individual behaviors, and
organizational practices

We have chosen Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) as the focus of our study
because it serves as a vital link between organizational practices and societal well-being. CSR
plays a crucial role in promoting ethical practices, sustainability, and social accountability,
reflecting an organization’s commitment to the greater good. Its relevance is deeply rooted in
the cultural values of a society, evolving alongside shifts in people's mindsets and
developmental trends.

Objectives

To study the now and future relationship between Market culture and all dimensions of CSR.

To study the now and future relationship between Clan culture and all dimensions of CSR.

To study the now and future relationship between Adhocracy culture and all dimensions of
CSR.
 31

To study the now and future relationship between Hierarchy culture and all dimensions of CSR.

To study the now and future impact of Market culture on all dimensions of CSR.

To study the now and future impact of Clan culture on all dimensions of CSR.

To study the now and future impact of Adhocracy culture on all dimensions of CSR.

To study the now and future impact of Hierarchy culture on all dimensions of CSR.

Method

Participants

A purposive sampling technique was utilized to draw the sample of 157 participants,
all of whom had over five years of experience within their respective companies. Purposive
sampling is a non-random sampling technique where researchers deliberately select
participants or cases that possess certain characteristics or experiences relevant to the research
question. An exploratory research approach was utilized to gather data, making it especially
useful for investigating topics that are not yet fully understood, as it allows for the discovery
of new insights.

Exclusion Criteria

Participants with fewer than five years of experience were excluded from the study, as
were individuals from companies with negligible or no Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)
contributions. Additionally, companies outside the IT sector, such as financial institutions,
were not considered, and the study did not focus on the financial aspects of the organizations.

Inclusion Criteria

To ensure participants possessed a deep understanding of company culture, only those

with more than five years of experience were included. The study focused on individuals from
companies with a CSR net profit margin exceeding 2 per cent, with the majority of participants
drawn from the IT sector.
 32

Design

A correlational study was designed to explore the influence of Organisational Culture

on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). The research design employed Pearson's correlation
and simple linear regression analyses to examine the relationship between these two variables.
These statistical methods were conducted to explore relationships and predict outcomes.
Moreover, the study adopts an exploratory stance to examine the influence of organisational
culture on CSR. Exploratory research allows us to uncover new insights and develop a deeper
understanding of the complex relationship between these variables. This approach is especially
relevant for CSR, which is inherently transitional. Historically, CSR was often perceived as
being deeply rooted in cultural norms and traditions. However, since its legalisation in 2013,
this perception has shifted significantly. The mandatory legal framework has diminished its
association with cultural practices, leading to a gradual shift in public perception. CSR is now
increasingly viewed as a formal, structured commitment rather than merely a cultural or
voluntary initiative. Moreover, the exploratory research helps to uncover the organisational
culture and how it can change the legalised environment and foster CSR. A Q-Q plot was
generated from the dataset, validating that the data conformed to a normal distribution in
relation to both organizational culture and CSR dimensions. Additionally, the use of simple
linear regression allowed for the exploration of the predictive power of organisational culture
on CSR practices, providing valuable insights into the potential impact of cultural factors on
the development and implementation of CSR initiatives within organisations.

Measures

The Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) scale proposed by Singh, Karpal. Abbasi.
A, Munir. Amran, Azlan. Ahmed, Essia. (2021) has been selected to assess CSR's impact on
organisational culture (OC). The final scale evaluated using a seven-point Likert scale ranging
from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree,” encompasses five key dimensions: Value
Creation, Legal Compliance, Philanthropic Engagements, Workplace Concerns, and
Environmental Integrity. The reliability of the scale is supported by high Cronbach’s alpha
values for each dimension—Value Creation (0.808), Legal Compliance (0.857), Philanthropic
Engagements (0.785), Workplace Concerns (0.713), and Environmental Integrity (0.757)—
indicating both its internal consistency and suitability as a tool for examining the relationship
between CSR and organisational culture.
 33

The Organisational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI) is a 6-item scale designed

to assess four distinct types of organisational culture: Clan Culture, Hierarchy Culture, Market
Culture, and Adhocracy Culture. Developed by Robert E. Quinn and Kim S. Cameron in 2005,
the OCAI serves as a valuable tool for both research and diagnostic purposes, particularly for
examining the relationship between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and organisational
culture (OC) within companies and used as a tool to assess an organisation's culture across six
key dimensions. First dimension is Flexibility, and the second dimension is Adaptability, which
is related to how an organisation responds to changes in the external environment and how it
adapts its strategies and operations accordingly. In terms of Flexibility and Adaptability,
organisations with a high score on this dimension would likely fall more towards Clan or
Adhocracy Cultures, emphasising openness to change and a flexible, decentralised decision-
making process. The reliability of the OCAI was confirmed through Cronbach’s alpha values,
with the following results: Clan Culture (.74), Adhocracy Culture (.79), Hierarchy Culture
(.73), and Market Culture (.71). These alpha coefficients indicate that respondents tended to
provide consistent ratings across the different items of the scale.

For data analysis, correlation analysis was performed using SPSS (version 29.0.2),
while regression analysis was conducted using Jamovi (version 2.6).

Procedure

The aim of this study was to explore the impact of organizational culture (OC) on
corporate social responsibility (CSR). This study adopted an exploratory approach and
refrained from forming formal hypotheses, acknowledging the transitional nature of CSR and
the evolving understanding of its dynamics. Data collection was conducted through Google
Sheets to corporate professionals across various organizations.

The CSR assessment utilized the scale developed by Singh et al. (2021), which
evaluated five dimensions: Environmental Integrity, Philanthropic Engagements, Legal
Compliance, Value Creation, and Workplace Concerns, using a 7-point Likert scale across 28
items. Participants were asked to rate the CSR statements in two contexts: how they perceive
it in the present (now) and how they envision it in the future. Given that CSR is still in a
transitional phase, the statements were framed to reflect its evolving nature and as a result,
people’s mindsets have yet to fully adapt to embracing the CSR framework. For the future
context, the statements were reframed to capture participants' perceptions and expectations of
 34

how CSR should evolve to align with organizational goals and societal demands.
Organizational culture was measured using the Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument
(OCAI) by Robert E. Quinn and Kim S. Cameron (1999), which evaluates four culture types:
Clan, Market, Hierarchy, and Adhocracy across 24 items. Similar to the CSR assessment,
participants rated their organization in two contexts: their perception of its current state (now)
and their view of how it should be structured in the future to achieve optimal success. This
dual-context approach provided a comprehensive comparison of their present and future
perceptions for both CSR and organizational culture. Participants were provided with clear and
concise instructions to ensure thoughtful and honest responses. The study included a total of
157 participants from various organizational settings. The data analysis employed SPSS
(version 29.0.2) to calculate Pearson's correlation and Jamovi (version 2.6) for simple linear
regression. These statistical techniques were utilized to examine the relationships and
predictive outcomes between organizational culture and CSR.

Result

Table 1: Correlation Matrix for Domains of OC and CSR

OCA(P) OCB(P) OCC(P) OCD(P) CSR1(P) CSR2(P) CSR3(P) CSR4(P) CSR5(P)

OCA (P) 1 .072 -.583** -.325** .130 .203* .071 .038 0.91

OCB (P) .072 1 -.147 -.334** -.102 -.068 -.109 -.112 .044

OCC(P) -583** -147 1 -.133 -.023 -.142 .052 .064 -.006

OCD(P) -.325** -.334** -.133 1 .010 .038 .067 .011 -.056

CSR1(P) .130 -.102 -.023 .010 1 .638** .575** .574** .5.49**

CSR2 (P) .203* -.068 -.142 .038 .638** 1 .599** .588** .532**

CSR3(P) .071 -.109 .052 .067 .575** .599** 1 .655** .546**

CSR4(P) .038 -.112 .064 .011 .574** .588** .655** 1 .438**

CSR5(P) .091 .044 -.006 -.056 .549** .532** .546** .438** 1

 35

OCA(F) OCB(F) OCC(F) OCD(F) CSR1(F) CSR2(F) CSR3(F) CSR4(F) CSR5(F)

OCA(F) 1 .033 -583** -.187* .115 .149 -.047 -.009 .047

OCB(F) .033 1 .059 -.453** .140 .049 .137 .214** .127

OCC(F) -.437** .059 1 -.179* .003 -.203* .132 -.064 -.003

OCD(F) -.187* -.453** -1.79* 1 .098 -.019 .020 -.123 -.043

CSRF1(F) .115 .140 -.003 .098 1 .697** .499** .618** .564**

CSRF2(F) .149 .049 -.205* -.019 .697** 1 .595** .600** .555**

CSRF3(F) -.047 .137 .132 .020 .499** .595** 1 .545** .565**

CSRF4(F) -.009 .214** -.064 -.123 .618** .600** .545** 1 .451**

CSRF5(F) .047 .127 -.003 -.043 .564** .555** .565** .451** 1

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)

Keywords-
OCA(P): Clan culture (Present), OCB(P): Adhocracy culture (Present),OCC(P): Market culture (Present), OCD(P):
Hierarchy culture (Present), OCA(F): Clan culture (Future), OCB(F): Adhocracy culture (Future), OCC(F): Market culture
(Future), OCD(F): Hierarchy culture (Future), CSR1(P): Environmental Integrity (Present), CSR2(P): Legal Compliance
(Present), CSR3(P): Value Creation (Present), CSR4(P): Workplace Concerns (Present), CSR5(P): Philanthropical
Engagements (Present), CSR1(F): Environmental Integrity (Future), CSR2(F): Legal Compliance (Future), CSR3(F): Value
Creation (Future), CSR4(F): Workplace Concerns (Future), CSR5(F): Philanthropical Engagements (Future)

Table 2
Mean, Standard Deviation And Intercorrelations between Clan Culture And
Perception of Philanthropical Engagements in the Present time

NOW*correlation is significant at the 0.05 level

Variables Mean Standard Clan Philanthropical

Deviation culture engagements

Clan culture 15.8847 3.6279 1 0.203 *

Philanthropical 22.6879 5.6677 0.203 *

1
engagements
 36

Table 3
Mean, Standard Deviation and Intercorrelations between Clan Culture And
Perception of Philanthropical Engagements in the Future

FUTURE
Variables Mean Standard Clan Philanthropical
Deviation culture engagements

Clan culture 16.5063 3.7279 1 0.149

Philanthropical 28.2675 4.5381 0.149 1

engagements

Table 4
Linear Regression of impact of Clan Culture on Philanthropical Engagements

Clan culture
Model R R 2
Adjusted R 2
F df1 df2 Sig.f change

1 .203 .0414 .0352 6.69 1 155 <0.001

Table 5
Mean, Standard Deviation and Intercorrelations Between Market Culture and
Perception of Value Creation in the Present Time

NOW
Variables Mean Standard Deviation Market Culture Value creation

Market culture 13.9503 2.5244 1 -0.112

Value creation 23.9713 5.4001 -0.112 1

Table 6
Mean, Standard Deviation and Intercorrelations between Market Culture and
Perception of Value Creation in the Future

FUTURE
Variables Mean Standard Deviation Market Culture Value creation

Market culture 15.0573 3.0493 1 0.214 **

Value creation 28.6815 4.8609 0.214 **

1
 37

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level

Table 7
Linear Regression of Impact of Market Culture on Value Creation

Market culture
Model R R2
Adjusted R 2
F df1 df2 Sig.f change

1 0.24 .0459 .0397 7.46 1 155 <.001

Table 8
Mean, Standard Deviations and Intercorrelations Between Hierarchy Culture and
Perception of Philanthropical Engagements in the Present Time

NOW
Variables Mean Standard Hierarchy Philanthropical
Deviation culture engagements

Hierarchy 14.6127 3.3238 1 -0.142

Philanthropical
Engagements 22.6879 5.6677 -0.142 1

Table 9
Mean, Standard Deviation and Intercorrelations between Hierarchy Culture and
Perception of Philanthropical Engagements in the Future

FUTURE
Variables Mean Standard Hierarchy Philanthropical
Deviation culture engagements

Hierarchy 14.379 3.5794 1 -0.205*

Philanthropical
Engagements 28.2675 4.5381 -0.205* 1
** correlation is significant at the 0.01 level

Table 10
Linear Regression of Impact of Hierarchy Culture on Philanthropical Engagements

Hierarchy

Model R R 2
Adjusted R 2
F df1 df2 Sig. f change

1 .205 .0419 .0357 6.77 1 155 <.001

 38

Discussion
This study aimed to explore the impact of Organizational Culture (OC) on Corporate
Social Responsibility (CSR). It aims to uncover OC and how it can foster a culture that
prioritises CSR. Organizational Culture (OC) refers to the shared values, beliefs, norms, and
practices that shape the social and psychological environment of an organization.
Organizational culture is crucial as it affects employee satisfaction, productivity, innovation,
and the organization’s adaptability to change. Common types of OC include Clan Culture
(collaborative), Adhocracy Culture (innovative), Market Culture (competitive), and Hierarchy
Culture (structured). Leaders play a vital role in shaping and sustaining organizational culture,
ensuring it aligns with the organization's goals and external environment.

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) refers to a company’s commitment to operate

ethically, contribute to economic development, and improve the quality of life for its
employees, local communities, and society at large. Key dimensions of CSR include
environmental responsibility, which involves reducing carbon footprints, adopting sustainable
practices, and addressing climate change; social responsibility, which focuses on supporting
community development, promoting diversity and inclusion, and ensuring fair labour practices;
and economic responsibility, which entails contributing to economic growth while ensuring
ethical business practices.

Despite CSR's growing importance, limited studies have examined the OC-CSR
relationship. Adopting an exploratory stance, the research assumes that OC can fundamentally
change and improve CSR practices. The study investigates how different OC dimensions
influence CSR engagement and priorities, providing insights for organizations seeking to
enhance their CSR initiatives. Key findings indicate Clan Culture (OCB), Market Culture
(OCC), and Hierarchy Culture (OCD) are negatively related to certain CSR dimensions. These
results suggest that specific OC dimensions play a significant role in shaping an organization’s
CSR engagement and priorities. The results were statistically significant at p < 0.01. Key
dimensions of CSR include environmental responsibility, social responsibility, and economic
responsibility. The findings revealed that Clan Culture (OCB) is associated with philanthropic
engagements, Market Culture (OCC) is linked to value creation and hierarchy Culture(OCD)
is associated with philanthropic engagements.
 39

Table 1 shows the inter-correlation matrix amongst the various dimensions of OC and
CSR. The significant relationships between OC and CSR dimensions are presented in the tables
that follow. These are going to be discussed in what follows.

Table 2 presents the mean, standard deviation, and intercorrelations between clan
culture and philanthropical engagements (the second dimension of CSR) in the present context.
Clan culture, also known as collaborative culture, is an organizational structure where
employees share close, family-like relationships, and decisions are made through consensus.
Representing the collaborative aspect of organizational culture, the mean score for clan culture
is 15.8847 (SD = 3.6279), indicating a moderate to strong prevalence of collaboration and
teamwork within the organizations studied. On the other hand, philanthropic engagements,
which refer to an organization’s philanthropic responsibility, involve giving back to the
community through activities such as charity drives, volunteer work, and other initiatives.
These efforts can drive positive changes in areas like education, healthcare, and social welfare.
The mean score for this dimension of CSR is 22.6879 (SD = 5.6677), indicating a relatively
high level of commitment among organizations to contribute to societal well-being through
such initiatives. The intercorrelations between the clan culture and philanthropical
engagements are found to be significant with the Pearson Correlation coefficient, r(155)=0.203,
p<.001. As clan culture increases, it brings increasing changes in philanthropic engagements.
The positive correlation between clan culture and philanthropic engagements suggests that
organizations fostering a family-like, collaborative work environment are more likely to
engage in community-focused CSR activities. In a clan culture, where values such as trust,
teamwork, and mutual support are prioritized, the sense of responsibility often extends beyond
the workplace to the broader community. This alignment likely motivates organizations to
support philanthropic initiatives like charity drives, education programs, and healthcare
improvements. By fostering empathy and shared purpose, clan culture creates an environment
where giving back becomes a natural extension of organizational values, driving meaningful
social impact.

Lee and Kim (2017), in their study Exploring the Organizational Culture’s Moderating
Role of Effects of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) on Firm Performance: Focused on
Corporate Contributions in Korea, investigated the moderating effect of organizational culture
on the relationship between CSR and firm performance. They hypothesized that a strong clan
culture would enhance the positive impact of CSR on firm performance. The results supported
 40

this hypothesis, showing that CSR positively influenced firm performance (γ = 0.124, p < 0.01)
and that the interaction between CSR and clan culture was significant (γ = 0.196, p < 0.05).
This indicates that organizations with strong clan cultures—characterized by shared goals,
community spirit, employee consideration, teamwork, and participatory values—experienced
higher firm performance through CSR activities. Conversely, in organizations with weak clan
culture, CSR activities had no significant impact. Drawing on Donaldson and Preston
stakeholder theory (1995), which underscores the importance of addressing stakeholder
interests through cooperative and communal relationships, the study explains that clan cultures
align organizational practices with CSR goals. This alignment amplifies CSR’s effectiveness,
as both CSR activities and clan culture emphasize shared values and collaborative efforts,
leading to enhanced firm performance.

In the present, clan culture and philanthropical engagement exhibit a natural symbiosis,
meaning these two aspects of organizational behavior are strongly interconnected, with
collaborative and family-like workplace values driving meaningful contributions to community
welfare. This mutually reinforcing relationship highlights how a culture of trust and teamwork
within organizations aligns seamlessly with the principles of corporate social responsibility,
fostering active participation in initiatives like charity drives and social welfare programs.
However, future results, as shown in Table 3, reveal that this connection weakens and becomes
statistically insignificant. Table 3 presents the mean, standard deviation, and intercorrelations
between clan culture and philanthropic engagements projected for the future. The mean score
for clan culture is 16.5063 (SD = 3.7279), indicating a slight increase in collaborative practices
within organizations. The mean for philanthropic engagements is 28.2675 (SD = 4.5381),
indicating a relatively high level of organizational involvement in community-oriented
activities such as charitable initiatives, volunteer work, and efforts to improve education,
healthcare, and social welfare in the projected future. The Pearson correlation coefficient
between clan culture and philanthropic engagements in the future is found to be r(155) = 0.149,
p<.001. This shift to an insignificant relationship in the future can be attributed to several
reasons. Firstly, managers may no longer prioritize sustaining these engagements, focusing
instead on self-interest and other organizational goals. Secondly, the perception of CSR has
evolved from being an externally imposed obligation to a virtuous cycle of generating positive
impacts on productivity and performance. Organizations increasingly view CSR as integral to
their core operations rather than as a compliance-driven activity. This shift in mindset may
weaken the direct link between a collaborative culture and philanthropic efforts. Additionally,
 41

as CSR becomes mainstream and ingrained in organizational practices, its execution appears
less tied to specific cultural attributes like clan culture and more to a broader strategic vision
for sustainable impact.

Table 4 presents the linear regression of impact of clan culture on philanthropical

engagements. It shows the r² value is .0414 i.e. 4.14% of the variance in the level of
philanthropic engagements in Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is accounted for by Clan
culture of organizational culture. Using the conceptualisations of the variables used by present
tools, only 4% of culture has been conceptualized, the rest of 96% remains unexplained. Xu
and Guo (2024) examine the link between clan culture and corporate social responsibility
(CSR) in Chinese family firms, finding that stronger clan cultures, measured by the genealogy
density of chairpersons' native regions, lead to greater engagement in internal CSR activities.
This relationship is influenced by imprinting theory, with clan culture shaping the ethical
values of chairpersons and promoting mutual assistance within firms. The study highlights that
the impact of clan culture is stronger when entrepreneurs are deeply embedded in local
environments or come from large family clans, though factors like population mobility, formal
institutions, and gender weaken this effect. The authors argue for a more nuanced, multi-
dimensional approach to CSR, noting that focusing on internal CSR and regional cultural
factors offers deeper insights than previous aggregated measures (Wang et al., 2016; Zhang et
al., 2023).

Rabiul et al. (2021) explored how clan culture, characterized by trust, shared values,
and a family-like atmosphere, impacts Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), particularly
philanthropic efforts. This culture fosters a strong sense of belonging and collaboration,
motivating employees to actively engage in socially responsible activities beyond their formal
roles. Such engagement reflects organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), where employees
voluntarily contribute to initiatives that align with the organization’s ethical commitments. The
study highlighted that trust and shared values in clan culture enhance the authenticity of CSR
efforts, ensuring they are perceived as genuine rather than superficial. This cultural alignment
strengthens the firm’s reputation, as stakeholders view CSR initiatives as credible and
meaningful. By creating a harmonious link between internal culture and external
responsibilities, clan culture enables sustainable and impactful CSR practices, benefiting both
the organization and its broader community. This study aligns with Table 4 in demonstrating
that clan culture can influence organizational practices, though the degree of influence varies
 42

across domains. While Table 4 presents a 4.14% variance in philanthropical engagements

explained by clan culture, the present study extends this by showing a more measurable effect
on earnings management, where clan culture reduces opportunistic financial behavior by a
1.7% reduction. This comparison highlights that clan culture, though a small but significant
factor, has the potential to influence not only corporate social responsibility (CSR) efforts, as
seen in Table 4, but also more formal aspects like accounting practices. Conversely, the study
discusses how cultural shocks—such as exposure to foreign values or a history of treaty port
status—can weaken the influence of clan culture. This idea is particularly relevant to the
findings in Table 4, where cultural shifts and external influences may similarly reduce the
impact of clan culture on philanthropical activities. For example, senior executives with
experience abroad might introduce foreign values that disrupt the continuity of clan cultural
norms, potentially weakening the connection between clan culture and philanthropic behavior.

Table 5 represents the Mean, Standard Deviation and Correlation Between Market
Culture and Perception of Value Creation (dimension of CSR) in the present time. Market
culture refers to an organizational culture that prioritizes competitiveness, goal achievement,
and productivity to meet market demands. The mean for Market Culture is 13.9503
(SD=2.5244), indicating relatively consistent perceptions of market culture among
respondents. Value Creation represents the generation of benefits that provide value to
stakeholders, including economic, social, and environmental contributions. For Value
Creation, the mean is 23.9713 (SD=5.4001) suggesting more variability in how value creation
is perceived in the present. The Pearson Correlation coefficient between Market Culture and
Value Creation in the present is negative, suggesting a slight inverse relationship with r(155)=
-0.112, p<.001. This slight negative relationship could be due to the prioritization of short-term
profit goals over broader societal responsibilities, such as environmental sustainability or
stakeholder welfare resulting in significant reputational and financial losses, prioritizing
market culture over ethical practices and CSR commitments, companies may inadvertently
overlook the long-term implications of their decisions, leading to significant reputational
damage and financial losses. By focusing too heavily on immediate market gains, businesses
may neglect the importance of ethical practices, corporate social responsibility (CSR), and
broader stakeholder interests. Treviño, Weaver, and Reynolds(2006) discuss how market-
driven organizational cultures focused on short-term profits can undermine ethical decision-
making and stakeholder trust. They argue that prioritizing immediate gains over ethical
considerations leads to reputational damage and financial losses, echoing the interpretation
 43

provided. The Satyam scam highlighted a lack of corporate governance, auditing standards,
regulatory monitoring, and ethical behavior at one of India's largest IT firms. It also damaged
the faith and confidence of Indian IT sector investors, consumers, workers, and stakeholders.

Table 6 represents the Mean, Standard Deviation And correlation Between Market
Culture and Perception of Value Creation in the anticipated future, the mean for market culture
has increased 15.0573 (SD=3.0493), suggesting that market culture is expected to grow in
importance while maintaining relatively consistent perceptions among stakeholders, for value
creation in future the mean increases to 28.6815 with (SD= 4.8609), this reflects optimistic
expectations of increased value creation in the future. The Pearson correlation coefficient
between Market Culture and Value Creation in the future is found to be a significant correlation
with r(155)=0.214, p<001. This shift suggests that organizations are likely to integrate CSR
and stakeholder engagement into their market-driven strategies. As businesses adopt
sustainable practices and prioritize stakeholder welfare, they may find that competitive
strategies and value creation are no longer in conflict but instead mutually reinforcing.For
instance, the adoption of CSR practices like reducing carbon emissions, improving labor
conditions, and fostering community development may enhance long-term profitability and
reputation. Theories like Carroll’s CSR Pyramid and Freeman’s Stakeholder Theory emphasize
this alignment, arguing that addressing stakeholder needs and societal concerns can contribute
to competitive advantage and increased value creation. Carroll’s framework(1991) emphasizes
the integration of economic, legal, ethical, and philanthropic responsibilities into business
strategies, suggesting that CSR initiatives, such as reducing carbon footprints and improving
labor conditions, enhance value creation and reputation. Freeman’s Stakeholder Theory further
supports this by advocating that addressing stakeholder concerns contributes to long-term
profitability

Table 7 represents linear regression of impact of market culture on value creation. It

shows the r² value is .0459 i.e. 4.59% of the variance in the level of Value Creation in Corporate
Social Responsibility(CSR) is accounted for by Market culture of organizational culture. Using
the conceptualisations of the variables used by present tools, only 3.97% of culture has been
conceptualized, the rest of 96.03% remains unexplained. Holmqvist, Guest, and Grönroos
(2015) explored the psychological processes in value creation, emphasizing how understanding
customer-specific perceptions can clarify variances in service interactions. This connects to the
discussion of unexplained variance in value creation through market culture.
 44

Table 8 presents the mean, standard deviation, and intercorrelations between Hierarchy
Culture and Perception of Philanthropical Engagements in the present context. Hierarchy
Culture refers to an organizational structure characterized by formalized procedures,
centralized authority, and well-defined roles and responsibilities. Representing the control-
oriented aspect of organizational culture, the mean score for Hierarchy Culture is 14.6127 (SD
= 3.3238), indicating a moderate presence of formal structures and procedures within the
organizations studied. On the other hand, Philanthropical Engagements, which involve an
organization’s efforts to contribute to societal well-being through activities such as community
service, donations, and other CSR initiatives, show a mean score of 22.6879 (SD = 5.6677).
This indicates a relatively high level of commitment among organizations to give back to
society through such endeavors. The intercorrelation between Hierarchy Culture and
Philanthropical Engagements is negative, with a Pearson Correlation coefficient of r(155)=-
0.142, p<.001. This negative correlation suggests that as Hierarchy Culture increases, there is
a slight decrease in the perception of Philanthropical Engagements. The findings imply that
organizations with a higher emphasis on formal structures and rigid controls may exhibit less
engagement or focus on community-oriented CSR activities. In hierarchical cultures, the
prioritization of rules and procedures over flexibility and collaboration might limit the
organization’s ability to foster the shared purpose and empathy often required for impactful
philanthropic initiatives. This alignment indicates that such cultures may view CSR activities
as secondary to operational efficiency, thereby potentially reducing the level of community-
focused engagements.

In the present, hierarchy culture and philanthropic engagements show a weak but
significant negative correlation, indicating that rigid, rule-oriented workplace structures tend
to limit engagement in community welfare initiatives. However, future results, as shown in
Table 9, reveal that this negative correlation persists and becomes slightly stronger. Table 9
presents the mean, standard deviation, and intercorrelations between Hierarchy Culture and
Perception of Philanthropical Engagements projected for the future. The mean score for
Hierarchy Culture is 14.379 (SD = 3.5794), indicating a consistent presence of formalized
processes and control-oriented practices within organizations. The mean score for
philanthropic engagements is 28.2675 (SD = 4.5381), suggesting an increase in organizational
involvement in community-oriented activities such as charity drives, volunteer work, and
initiatives aimed at improving education, healthcare, and social welfare in the future. The
 45

Pearson correlation coefficient between Hierarchy Culture and philanthropic engagements in

the future is r (155) = -0.205, p<.001, indicating statistically significant negative correlation.
This suggests that as Hierarchy Culture strengthens, organizations may demonstrate a slight
decrease in their perception of philanthropic engagements. This sustained negative correlation
can be attributed to several factors. Firstly, hierarchy-oriented organizations prioritize
formalized processes and efficiency, potentially sidelining the flexible, empathetic approaches
often required for impactful CSR initiatives. Secondly, as CSR becomes more deeply
embedded in organizational strategies, its execution may rely more on strategic goals than on
cultural dimensions like hierarchy. Organizations might shift their focus toward meeting
compliance standards and enhancing their reputation, rather than fostering meaningful
community impacts. Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions Theory (1980) highlights how
hierarchical organizations often view CSR through a compliance-driven lens, which can limit
broader philanthropic contributions. Similarly, Wang and Qian (2011) demonstrate that rigid
organizational cultures align philanthropic efforts with strategic goals, often prioritizing
operational efficiency over community engagement. Together, these studies underscore how
hierarchy culture may restrict the flexibility and innovation needed to sustain meaningful
philanthropic efforts, even as CSR becomes increasingly integral to business practices.

Table 10 presents the linear regression of the impact of Hierarchy Culture on

Philanthropical Engagements. It shows the R² value is 0.0419, i.e., 4.19% of the variance in
the level of philanthropical engagements is accounted for by Hierarchy Culture. Using the
conceptualizations of the variables used by the present tools, only 4.19% of Hierarchy Culture
has been conceptualized, while the remaining 95.81% remains unexplained.

In conclusion, the study highlights the critical role of Organizational Culture (OC) in
shaping Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). One key factor contributing to the lack of
significant correlations between OC and CSR dimensions is organizational transition.
Organizational transition refers to a period of significant change within an organization, such
as changes in leadership, restructuring, or shifts in business strategy. During these periods,
organizational cultures and values may be in flux, leading to inconsistencies and unclear
relationships between OC and CSR practices. This disconnection often results in ineffective
CSR efforts and missed growth opportunities.
 46

Another factor is the neutrality in employee perceptions, indicating a balanced

viewpoint without extremities in opinion. This neutrality suggests that employees do not
perceive a strong connection between OC and CSR initiatives. It also highlights the possibility
of response bias, where employees mask their true opinions due to social desirability biases.
To address this, organizations must explicitly communicate the link between their culture and
CSR efforts, making it clear how their initiatives align with core values and long-term goals.

A significant barrier to effective CSR is the presence of a rigid mindset. Many

individuals still adhere to traditional views of CSR, seeing it as a compliance-driven obligation
rather than a purpose-driven initiative. Historically, CSR has been closely tied to philanthropic
engagements, and since the 2013 legalization of CSR mandates in India, it has often been
perceived as an imposed burden rather than a strategic opportunity. Although CSR was
voluntary for a long time and associated with community and cultural engagements, the legal
imposition created a perception of rigidity, reducing its effectiveness as a tool for strategic and
cultural enhancement.

This resistance stems from varying motivations. When individuals are internally
motivated, external motivations such as CSR mandates enhance their enthusiasm and drive.
However, when internal motivation is absent, external impositions may lead to reduced
enthusiasm and disengagement. Modern CSR, which aligns organizational goals with societal
values, fosters intrinsic motivation, innovation, and sustained engagement. This approach
appeals to younger generations, driving innovation, commitment, and stronger correlations
between CSR and intrinsic motivation. By shifting from traditional compliance-driven
approaches to modern, purpose-driven ones, organizations can overcome these barriers.

To maximize the strategic and cultural benefits of CSR, organizations must promote a
more inclusive and purpose-driven approach. Embedding CSR into core values, providing
training, and incentivizing participation are essential steps. Leaders should lead by example,
communicate the CSR vision effectively, and empower employees to actively participate in
initiatives. They must also recognize that CSR provides strategic advantages, strengthening
organizational culture and fostering collective engagement. By doing so, businesses can
transform CSR from a perceived burden into a tool for sustained growth and innovation.
 47

Conclusion
In conclusion, the study highlights the critical role of Organizational Culture (OC) in
shaping Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). One key factor contributing to the lack of
significant correlations between OC and CSR dimensions is organizational transition.
Organizational transition refers to a period of significant change within an organization, such
as changes in leadership, restructuring, or shifts in business strategy. During these periods,
organizational cultures and values may be in flux, leading to inconsistencies and unclear
relationships between OC and CSR practices. This disconnection often results in ineffective
CSR efforts and missed opportunities for growth.
Another factor is the neutrality in employee perceptions, indicating a balanced
viewpoint without extremities in opinion. This neutrality suggests that employees do not
perceive a strong connection between OC and CSR initiatives. It also highlights the possibility
of response bias, where employees mask their true opinions due to social desirability biases.
To address this, organizations must explicitly communicate the link between their culture and
CSR efforts, making it clear how their initiatives align with core values and long-term goals.
A significant barrier to effective CSR is the presence of a rigid mindset. Many
individuals still adhere to traditional views of CSR, seeing it as a compliance-driven obligation
rather than a purpose-driven initiative. Historically, CSR has been closely tied to philanthropic
engagements, and since the 2013 legalization of CSR mandates in India, it has often been
perceived as an imposed burden rather than a strategic opportunity. Although CSR was
voluntary for a long time and associated with community and cultural engagements, the legal
imposition created a perception of rigidity, reducing its effectiveness as a tool for strategic and
cultural enhancement.
This resistance stems from varying motivations. When individuals are internally
motivated, external motivations such as CSR mandates enhance their enthusiasm and drive.
However, when internal motivation is absent, external impositions may lead to reduced
enthusiasm and disengagement. Modern CSR, which aligns organizational goals with societal
values, fosters intrinsic motivation, innovation, and sustained engagement. This approach
appeals to younger generations, driving innovation, commitment, and stronger correlations
between CSR and intrinsic motivation. By shifting from traditional compliance-driven
approaches to modern, purpose-driven ones, organizations can overcome these barriers.
To maximize the strategic and cultural benefits of CSR, organizations must promote a
more inclusive and purpose-driven approach. Embedding CSR into core values, providing
training, and incentivizing participation are essential steps. Leaders should lead by example,
 48

communicate the CSR vision effectively, and empower employees to actively participate in
initiatives. They must also recognize that CSR provides strategic advantages, strengthening
organizational culture and fostering collective engagement. By doing so, businesses can
transform CSR from a perceived burden into a tool for sustained growth and innovation.

Implications
The study highlights the crucial role of organisational culture in fostering effective and
sustainable Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) practices. For CSR to have lasting impact,
it must align with stakeholder expectations and integrate seamlessly into the organisation’s
values and identity. This requires clear communication of CSR goals, leadership support,
regular training, and employee involvement at all levels, ensuring it is seen as more than just a
compliance measure.

Resistance to CSR often stems from its shift from voluntary, community-driven efforts
to a legally mandated framework in 2013, leading to reduced enthusiasm and internal
motivation. The lack of strategic advantages and disconnect from genuine community
engagement further contribute to disengagement. To overcome this, organisations should focus
on transparent communication, demonstrate CSR’s tangible benefits, and involve employees
in initiatives. Fostering shared ownership strengthens commitment and ensures CSR becomes
a meaningful part of the organisation’s culture and long-term goals.

Limitations
One major limitation of this study is the inability to perform multiple stepwise
regression analyses due to curricular constraints. While regression analysis was conducted, we
limited ourselves from using more advanced multiple regressions. As a result, the analysis was
focused on examining correlations between organizational culture and corporate social
responsibility (CSR), which restricted the depth of the findings. Using more advanced
statistical methods could have provided a more detailed understanding of the relationship
between the variables.

Additionally, the study did not divide the sample into age groups, such as younger and
older employees. This omission limits understanding of potential differences in how different
generations perceive the influence of organizational culture on CSR practices in a legalised
environment. Another limitation concerns the evolving nature of CSR. In the past, CSR was
 49

often driven by goodwill, whereas it is now a compulsory practice for many organizations. This
shift may have affected how employees view CSR, potentially skewing the study’s findings by
focusing more on compliance than genuine engagement.

Lastly, mandatory engagement with CSR is still in a transitional phase, where many
organizations view it as primarily a compliance requirement. This evolving status of CSR limits
the study, as the full integration of CSR into core organizational values may not yet have
occurred in many workplaces.

Future Directions

Future research should aim to use more advanced statistical techniques, such as multiple
stepwise regression, to provide deeper insights into how organizational culture influences CSR.
Overcoming the current limitations in analysis methods would allow for more robust findings.
In addition, future studies should consider stratifying samples by age to better understand
generational differences in how CSR is perceived. This would provide a more comprehensive
view of organizational culture's influence on CSR across different age groups.

Given that CSR is now compulsory, future research should explore how organizational
culture can still foster genuine engagement with CSR without employees viewing it as an
imposed burden. It would be valuable to understand how culture can help frame CSR activities
as meaningful, beyond mere compliance, promoting intrinsic motivation for CSR in this
regulatory environment.

Moreover, it is important for organizations to associate the strategic value of CSR with
long-term productivity and performance. Future studies should examine how this alignment
contributes to creating authenticity in the organizational cultural fabric, where CSR is seen as
integral to both ethical values and sustained organizational success. Finally, as CSR continues
to evolve, future research should track how organizations integrate CSR into their cultures over
time. It will be important to monitor whether CSR transitions from a compliance-based
approach to one that reflects deeper organizational values, providing insights into its long-term
impact.
 50

References

Al Saifi, S. A. (2015). Positioning organizational culture in knowledge management

research. Journal of Knowledge Management, 19(2), 164–189. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-
07-2014-0287

Baumrind, D. (1973). The development of instrumental competence through

socialization. In A. D. Pick (Ed.), Minnesota Symposium on Child Psychology (Vol. 7, pp. 3–
46). University of Minnesota Press.

Belias, D., & Koustelios, A. (2014). Organizational culture and job satisfaction: A
review. International Review of Management and Marketing, 4(2), 132–149.

Bowen, H. R. (1953). Social responsibilities of the businessman. Harper & Row.

Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral
management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(4), 39–48.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0007-6813(91)90005-G

Crane, A., & Matten, D. (2004). Business ethics: A European perspective: Managing
corporate citizenship and sustainability in the age of globalization. Oxford University Press.

Elkington, J. (1994). Towards the sustainable corporation: Win-win-win business

strategies for sustainable development. California Management Review, 36(2), 90–100.

Forbes. (2010). The role of CSR in building brand loyalty and increasing demand for
services. Forbes Media.

Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Cambridge

University Press.

Friedman, M. (1970, September 13). The social responsibility of business is to increase

its profits. The New York Times Magazine.

Greenberg, P. (2012). CRM at the speed of light: Social CRM strategies, tools, and
techniques for engaging your customers. McGraw Hill Professional.
 51

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related

values. SAGE Publications.

Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors,

institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.

Huey, Y. L., & Zaman, M. D. (2009). The influence of organizational culture on job
satisfaction and performance of employees. International Journal of Management, 6(1), 20–
25.

Jones, T. M. (2011). The virtuous circle of CSR: A synthesis of corporate social

responsibility research. Academy of Management Review.

Kotler, P., & Lee, N. (2005). Corporate social responsibility: Doing the most good for
your company and your cause. Wiley.

LaCasse, J. (2010). Leadership and organizational culture: A study of the relationship

in higher education institutions. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 6(1), 41–52.

Lee, J., & Kim, Y. (2017). Exploring the organizational culture’s moderating role of
effects of corporate social responsibility (CSR) on firm performance: Focused on corporate
contributions in Korea. Journal of Business Ethics.

Murthy, N. R. N. (2013). Reflections on business ethics and corporate responsibility.

Economic Times.

Quinn, R. E., & Cameron, K. S. (1983). Organizational life cycles and shifting criteria
of effectiveness: Some preliminary evidence. Management Science, 29(1), 33–51.

Quinn, R. E., & Cameron, K. S. (1999). Diagnosing and changing organizational

culture: Based on the competing values framework. Jossey-Bass.

Rabiul, M. K., Rahman, M. A., & Islam, M. T. (2021). Clan culture and its impact on
corporate social responsibility: A focus on philanthropic efforts and organizational citizenship
behavior. Journal of Business Ethics and Corporate Governance, 23(2), 45–61.

Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.

 52

Singh, S., Sharma, R., Gupta, N., & Kaur, J. (2021). Developing and validating the
competing values culture assessment scale. Indian Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15(3),
45–67.

Smith, N. C. (2010). Corporate social responsibility: Whether or how? California

Management Review, 45(4), 52–76.

Treviño, L. K., Weaver, G. R., & Reynolds, S. J. (2006). Behavioral ethics in

organizations: A review. Journal of Management, 32(6), 951–990.

Visser, W. (2010). CSR 2.0: Transforming corporate sustainability and responsibility.

Springer.

Wang, H., & Qian, C. (2011). Corporate philanthropy and corporate financial
performance: The roles of stakeholder response and political access. Academy of Management
Journal, 54(6), 1159–1181.