The impact of corporate social responsibility on the reputation of universities within developing countries: Evidence from Jordan
Abstract
This paper aims to investigate the impact of corporate social responsibility on organizational reputation in Jordanian universities. Quantitative approach was adopted; electronic survey was employed wherein there was distribution of questionnaires to a sample of employees selected through a simple random approach. The sample was made up of a total of 340 employees based within both private and public universities in Jordan. This current study was founded upon the assumption that the commitment of organizations to social responsibility leads to increases in their abilities to achieve an organizational reputation that is good. The findings showed that all social responsibility practices (ethical, philanthropic and legal) have a significant and positive impact upon improving organizational reputation. In addition, the findings found that the legal responsibility is considered most practiced in Jordanian universities followed by ethical responsibility. Finally, there no significant impact for economic responsibility on organizational reputation. This paper can provide theoretical and practical contribution to social corporate responsibility and organizational reputation knowledge through explored the role of social responsibility in organizational reputation in new context in general and universities in particular.
1 INTRODUCTION
The system of education is seen as a key central issue for all nations across the world since it is the bedrock to every aspect of social and economic development. So that success can be ensured within such a competitive, international environment, there is a need for institutions of higher education to meet expectations held by various stakeholders. Interests ought to extend to various employees and their families, the environment, and numerous societal groups so that charitable, health and developmental purposes can be served as well as the achievement of profits for the associated shareholders (Fombrun et al., 2015). Processes for evaluation of institutions need to look beyond just evaluation of financial matters and profits accrued; instead, suitable evaluations require consideration of social responsibilities, the reputation of the organization in question and the ability for provision of an appropriate work environment that can deal with rapid societal change and development. It was emphasized by Altbach (2012) that universities offer an ideal setting for ecosystems involving thinkers willing to work hard to search for fresh ideas to contribute toward the development and advancement of society. For a university to more fully play out its role, it has to have sound awareness of the importance of its part in interacting with the community. As an integral part of society, universities have reciprocal relationships within which they are affected by society and vice versa, and the reputation of the organization is a key consideration since stakeholders base their decision making upon the status of that reputation (Carpenter, 2010).
Most of the universities within Jordan tend to focus upon the process of teaching primarily with less of a focus upon scientific research; there is a tendency for a holistic sense of community service to be neglected. Also, disparities exist between the understanding of administrative leaders with regard to the social responsibility concept with it tending to be limited to seminars and lectures and simple forms of aid for local community members. Taken from that perspective, the universities in Jordan are still lacking a sufficiently clear vision of the roles they could be playing within society that have appreciation of the importance of social responsibilities and awareness of associated consequences. As Eneizan et al. (2021) observed, the connection between organizational reputation and corporate social responsibility (CSR) forms the backbone of a service-profit cycle.
Building and maintaining the reputation of the organization helps in its survival and preservation in crisis conditions (Marcellis & Teodoresco, 2018). The reputation of the organization helps in sustaining the relationship with customers and enhances the organization's ability to recruit talented employees (Scott et al., 2019). Recently, there is evidence that there is good value for the reputation as asses to attract the staff with high quality and providing the excellent services and gain high returns (Aladwan & Alshami, 2021b).
- To what degree do the universities of Jordan have concern for CSR?
- What is the organizational reputation level for Jordanian universities?
- What role does CSR play in support of corporate reputation for the universities of Jordan?
2 THE LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Corporate social responsibility
As a concept, CSR is now given considerable attention among lots of different researchers and writers. Lake (2011) note that the social responsibility concept has been employed within numerous fields, such as management and economics, as a general, value-oriented expression of the stimulation of ethical and positive behavior within relationships with other people. The European Commission argued that the form has responsibility for social responsibility with integration of ethical, social, human rights, client and environmental concerns within corporate strategies and action plans in ways that cooperate with the relevant stakeholders (Gazzola, 2014). CSR was defined by Barnett (2007) as being the distribution of corporate fortunes toward the development of social utility to serve as a way for relationships with key stakeholders to be reinforced. Within that context, social responsibility can be considered as a strategic tool in response to multiple stakeholder expectations (Lai et al., 2010). Within stakeholder theory, a firm ought to not be satisfied with just concern for its shareholders but should reach out to impact upon its primary stakeholders (Asif & Bashir, 2020). This aligns with the World Business Council for Sustainable Development definition which clearly notes that social responsibility refers to a commitment that institutions have toward improvement of the circumstances of their employees and families (Aoad, 2014).
It ought to be noted that there is no growth in social responsibility unless the social and cultural environment is one that is characterized by flexibility, freedom, understanding, tolerance, interest and participation (Baron, 2007). As such, many institutions across the world have made social responsibility a key aspect of their business strategies to their advantage. Such firms aim to raise living standards for societal members while, simultaneously, seeking to improve firm profitability (Griseri & Seppala, 2010; Hopkins, 2004). Firms tend to undertake two different kinds of social responsibility practice. First, the proactive kind could involve measures such as toxic emission reductions and charitable contributions. Second, there can be reactive practice such as reshaping of the firm image after unethical actions or solely adhering to instructions (Du et al., 2007; Groza et al., 2011). Clearly, a proactive strategy appears the better of the two kinds since CSR is implicated and supported prior to stakeholders providing negative feedback.
The various dimensions that make up social responsibility can be identified. Indeed, CSR can be considered as having five key dimensions, that is, voluntariness, the stakeholders and the social, the economic and the environmental kinds of dimension (Dahlsrud, 2006). Numerous scholars indicated the CSR concept as having four dimensions; see Carroll (1991) and Nguyen and LeBlanc (2001). Those four dimensions can be considered as follows: a) an economic dimension including provision of services required by society at good quality and moderate cost with the achievement of highest levels of return for shareholders and stakeholders (Alasraj, 2014); b) a legal dimension pertaining to provision of job opportunities for members of the community in a non-discriminatory way, with the firm adhering to all regulations and laws of the state and operations conducted in ways that has consistency with the law and governmental expectations (Fallaq, 2013); c) an ethical dimension that involves respect for societal moral standards with ethical considerations taken into account rather than a narrow focus upon achievement of economic gain. Such a dimension would also involve avoidance of damage wherever possible (Goetsch & Davis, 2014); and d) a philanthropic dimension that would involve provision of aid to cultural and educational institutions, along with participation in charitable and humanitarian projects and activities that assist in providing society with some form of welfare.
2.2 Reputation
While there have been lots of studies that have considered the reputation concept, it is still a contested one among scholars. Differentiation is made by such scholars of four kinds of reputation, as follows. First, the skills and technical ability of an organization to undertake its work refers to the technical reputation (Maor, 2020). Second, the flexibility, responsiveness and honesty of the organization with the aim of protecting stakeholder interests refers to the ethical reputation (Carpenter, 2010). The ethical reputation also is a reflection of the commitment of the organization to ethics (Mulki & Jaramillo, 2011); so, the characterization of that dimension is the addition of social responsibility to the activities of the institution in question (Aladwan & Alshami, 2021a, 2022). The third kind of dimension is performative reputation which refers to organizational ability to undertake its tasks effectively and efficiently (Maor, 2018). Last, the fourth kind is organizational reputation which is seen as being an umbrella for those other three aforementioned types. In simple terms, this umbrella term of organizational reputation is the set of beliefs, symbolically, with regard to the intentions, unique abilities, commitments, roles, mission and history of the organization; it forms an integral aspect of the network of the multiple audience (Christensen & Gornitzka, 2017).
Another scholar has added a further dimension to the consideration of reputation, that is, concentration upon a dimension concerned with procedural and legal matters; see Overman et al. (2020). That dimension highlights the degree of relevance in following the accepted procedures in undertaking regulatory tasks that could range from regulatory processes of decision-making to risk assessment. It is noteworthy that if an institution acquires a reputation that is high with regard to the legal-procedural dimension, students or customers do not perceive the decisions of the institution as being arbitrary with it following all the legal procedures required away from conflicts of interest that could have harmed the reputation (Overman et al., 2020). In the context of higher education, reputation is believed to be a critical success factor for attracting and retaining students, particularly within the modern day dynamic and competitive environment (Plewa et al., 2016). As such, the institutions of higher education of today, such as both private and public universities, have to have awareness of the role played by reputation and the strategies required for goals to be achieved. Nowadays, institutions of higher education are socially embedded to a greater extent than ever before, that is, there has been an increase in the interactions they have with stakeholders within their external contexts (Christensen et al., 2020). Reputation is considered an intangible asset within universities and they can enable them to provide high quality services, improve upon capacities in response to students or customers in a sound manner, enhance the processes of decision-making and reduce uncertainty and complexity (Del-Castillo-Feito et al., 2020). In short, for an institution of higher education, a good reputation leads to good competitiveness, supremacy and survival (Alves & Raposo, 2010).
2.3 Hypotheses development
2.3.1 Corporate reputation and CSR
Rashid and Ziyadi undertook a study to discover the degree to which social responsibility was practiced by managers in Iraq working in Al-Qadisiyah University and the role that it was playing in enhancement of reputation of that educational institution. Their study showed that the interest shown in social responsibility dimensions was acceptable, and that those practices were playing a key role in building up and strengthening the reputation of the university. In another study undertaken with respect to Algerian cellular telecommunications companies in regard to identification of the impact of application of social responsibility practices for enhancement of reputation, it was shown that there were moderate levels of practice related to social responsibility. The study also showed there to be significant impacts of the practices upon company reputation; see Fallaq and Hedo (2016). Another study undertaken in regard to Libyan companies that were operating within the insurance, service and industrial sectors demonstrated that high social responsibility disclosure levels can improve company reputation; seeBayoud et al. (2010). Within the study undertaken by Hillenbrand and Money (2007) in relation to UK banking companies, it was shown that there is an intertwining relationship between stakeholders that have dealings with the organization in question, and the two concepts of corporate reputation and social responsibility. Both concepts serve to encourage the kinds of action that result in a good and positive image for dealers. In that context, in a further study undertaken within several Indian institutions showed that development and adherence to social responsibility and the establishment of good relationships with the local community helps to give a firm institutional character within the perceptions of the community; those investments are successful in enhancing reputation (Hillenbrand & Money, 2007).
Within research into activities for social responsibility within Korean companies undertaken by Mukasa et al. (2015), the results showed that activity related to toxic emissions related negatively to shareholder returns, that is, lack of environmental concern can lead to damage to reputation. Their findings also explored charitable initiatives that served as a social responsibility proxy and found them to be related positively to corporate reputation. Through review of scientific literature published by peers and use of the theory of reputation building and a multi-economy approach, it was made clear by Antonio (2018) that better corporate reputation does result from good environmental management. His explorations, by way of the work of Konar and Cohen (2001) and Dell'Atti et al. (2017), showed that the reputation of the bank is related positively to performance in accounting, while it is related negatively to environmental performance and risks. All of those are a reflection of good organizational reputation for banks since the variables serve as proxies for activities related to CSR.
Recently, Asif and Bashir (2020) argued that the legal aspect of CSR in developing countries or economics could not prove to be fruitful in this particular context. The legal aspect of CSR is to comply with the laws and regulations of such country. For example, Aladwan and Alshami (2021a) found that the rule of law as a main dimension for legal responsibility can be contribute to enhance the organizational reputation in the Jordanian public sector organizations. In addition, Wnag and Berense (2015) found that the legal aspect as a main pillar of CSR positively impact on financial performance and its effect is mediated by reputation among public and financial stakeholders. In similar context, Ahmad et al. (2020) suggested that the CSR considered as main indicator of academic's attitudes and behavior in such universities.
Based upon the discussions above, Figure 1 shows a model for the research and associated hypotheses that are put forward.
2.3.2 Hypotheses
Based on reviewing the literature and related previous studies as shown above, the following hypotheses can be proposed
H01.CSR has no significant affect upon organizational reputation.
H01.1.Legal responsibility has no significant affect upon organizational reputation.
H01.2.Ethical responsibility has no significant affect upon organizational reputation.
H01.3.Economic responsibility has no significant affect upon organizational reputation.
H01.4.Philanthropic responsibility has no significant affect upon organizational reputation.
3 METHODOLOGY
This study was undertaken through the adoption of a quantitative approach. A survey was employed wherein there was distribution of questionnaires to a sample of employees selected through a simple random approach in 29 Jordanian universities. The sample was withdrawn from the study population (11233) individual depending on the size of the total population and the (p ≥ 0.05) (Sekaran & Bougie, 2016). The sample was made up of a total of 340 employees based within both private and public universities in Jordan.
The questionnaire was composed with three sections, with the first including questions related to the demographic characteristics of the respondents. The second section measured application of the practices for social responsibility, and the third section served to measure the organizational reputation level. The constructs were measured using the 5-point Likert scale. For the analysis of the data collected in the study, there was employment of a structural equation model (SEM) by way of SmartPLS 2.0. First, the reliability of the measures was confirmed using Cronbach's alpha as well as composite reliability as there were five constructs included within the model. In addition, it was considered important for the psychometric scale properties to be confirmed; as such, there was estimation of the values for convergent validity in addition to discriminate validity for all of the constructs (Hair et al., 2010). The results, as laid out within Table 1, demonstrated that all Cronbach's alpha values and composite reliability had values over 0.77, that is, greater than the 0.70 accepted value (Sekaran & Bougie, 2016). So, the indication was that acceptable reliability was achieved for all of the scales. Moreover, all of the scales demonstrated convergent validity as all mean variance values were greater than the 0.5 threshold. All of the weights of the items also had values over 0.61 (Hair et al., 2010).
| Construct | Cronbach's alpha | CR | AVE | Item | Weights |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Legal responsibility | 0.854 | 0.861 | 0.521 | Q13 | 0.715 |
| Q14 | 0.751 | ||||
| Q15 | 0.613 | ||||
| Q16 | 0.615 | ||||
| Q17 | 0.785 | ||||
| Ethical responsibility | 0.772 | 0.773 | 0.563 | Q7 | 0.750 |
| Q8 | 0.760 | ||||
| Q9 | 0.651 | ||||
| Q10 | 0.617 | ||||
| Q11 | 0.681 | ||||
| Q12 | 0.659 | ||||
| Economic responsibility | 0.866 | 0.874 | 0.671 | Q18 | 0.727 |
| Q19 | 0.629 | ||||
| Q20 | 0.718 | ||||
| Q21 | 0.623 | ||||
| Q22 | 0.661 | ||||
| Q23 | 0.746 | ||||
| Philanthropic responsibility | 0.902 | 0.905 | 0.549 | Q1 | 0.642 |
| Q2 | 0.725 | ||||
| Q3 | 0.634 | ||||
| Q4 | 0.704 | ||||
| Q5 | 0.729 | ||||
| Q6 | 0.663 | ||||
| Organizational reputation | 0.936 | 0.936 | 0.614 | Q24 | 0.776 |
| Q25 | 0.837 | ||||
| Q26 | 0.886 | ||||
| Q27 | 0.872 | ||||
| Q28 | 0.887 | ||||
| Q29 | 0.865 | ||||
| Q30 | 0.840 |
Most sample members were males by (67.6%) compared to (32.4%) of the females. As for the largest percentage of the sample, it represented the lecturers by (56.9%) noting that more than half of the sample had a doctorate (62.8%), and the majority of the sample was more than 10 years old (56.3%). However, the second part measured the application of the social responsibility practices by the surveyed universities, as it was measured through 23 items. As for the third part of the questionnaire, it measured the level of the organizational reputation of the Jordanian universities through 10 items. Five-point Likert scale was used to measure the constructs.
There was also confirmation of discriminant validity by employing confirmatory factor analysis wherein two different models (unconstrained and constrained) were employed with comparison made of two potential construct pairs within the model and extraction of the Chi-square difference values. The chi-square difference was significant for the comparisons as can be seen in Table 2; this shows that each construct pair did not have full correlation with each other. As such, the scale discriminatory validity is confirmed (Savalei & Kolenikov, 2008).
| Model (pair of constructs) | Chi-square differences | p Value |
|---|---|---|
| Organizational reputation—Legal responsibility | 199.865 | 0.000 |
| Organizational reputation—Ethical responsibility | 154.028 | 0.000 |
| Organizational reputation—Economic responsibility | 127.879 | 0.000 |
| Organizational reputation—Philanthropic responsibility | 111.280 | 0.000 |
| Legal responsibility—Ethical responsibility | 223.773 | 0.000 |
| Legal responsibility—Economic responsibility | 157.761 | 0.000 |
| Legal responsibility—Philanthropic responsibility | 109.701 | 0.000 |
| Ethical responsibility—Economic responsibility | 171.260 | 0.000 |
| Ethical responsibility—Philanthropic responsibility | 121.791 | 0.000 |
| Economic responsibility—Philanthropic responsibility | 167.553 | 0.000 |
So that it can be ensured that no strong correlation exists among the independent variables that could result in bias for out estimations that affect accuracy, it was confirmed that there was no such strong correlation was present among the variables by extraction of the correlation matrix. Table 3 demonstrates that the correlation values for the independent variables were in the range from a value of 0.479 to one of 0.689, that is, they were all below the threshold of 0.8; when correlation values are below that threshold, that provides confirmation that no strong correlation exists among those independent variables which could have affected the estimation accuracy (Hair et al., 2017).
| Variables | Legal responsibility | Ethical responsibility | Economic responsibility | Philanthropic responsibility | Organizational reputation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Legal responsibility | 1 | ||||
| Ethical responsibility | 0.689** | 1 | |||
| Economic responsibility | 0.514** | 0.509** | 1 | ||
| Philanthropic responsibility | 0.479** | 0.582** | 0.524** | 1 | |
| Organizational reputation | 0.588** | 0.572** | 0.456** | 0.535** | 1 |
There was examination of model fit prior to testing of hypotheses by employing the five indices. Values of those indices show good fit for the model and data of the study as shown in Table 4. CMIN/DF had a value of 1.85, that is, below the threshold value of 2. With regard to the RMSEA, it had a value of 0.04, that is, below the 0.08 threshold value and so that indicated that the convergence error was acceptable. Values for AGFI (0.930), GFI (0.944), and CFI (0.960) were all greater than the threshold value of 0.90 (Hair et al., 2017). As such, it was indicated that the model had validity and could be used in the testing of the hypotheses.
| The indices | The indices values | Acceptance criteria | The result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chi-square/degrees of freedom (CMIN/DF) | 1.85 | Less than 2 | Accepted |
| Goodness of fit index (GFI) | 0.944 | More than 0.90 | Accepted |
| Adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI) | 0.930 | More than 0.90 | Accepted |
| The comparative fit index (CFI) | 0.960 | More than 0.90 | Accepted |
| Root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) | 0.04 | Less than 0.08 | Accepted |
3.1 Data analysis
3.1.1 Descriptive analysis
In order to ascertain the social responsibility level, the questionnaire questions focused on level of conducting social responsibility through examination of the universities along with their associated organizational reputation levels. The findings showed that respondent answer mean with regard to commitment in the universities researched toward social responsibility had, as revealed in Table 5, had a value of 3.81 through a high approval level. Respondent approval level for organizational reputation level for the universities examined also had a high value with the respondent answer mean for the variable measuring items having a value of 3.91.
| Variables | Means | Practicing level |
|---|---|---|
| Legal responsibility | 4.24 | High |
| Ethical responsibility | 4.00 | High |
| Economic responsibility | 3.82 | High |
| Philanthropic responsibility | 3.26 | Moderate |
| Social responsibility | 3.81 | High |
| Organizational reputation | 3.91 | High |
3.1.2 Hypotheses testing
In order for the study hypotheses validity to be tested, there was use of a SEM as such a type of statistical test is able to test complex models, testing both latent and observed variables simultaneously, as well as control measurement error while the relationship is evaluated (Bagozzi & Yi, 2012).
H01: CSR has no significant affect upon organizational reputation
So that this hypothesis could be analyzed, there was use of path analysis as shown in Table 6.
| The path | Standardized coefficient | t Value | p Value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Social responsibility | 
|
Organizational reputation | 0.655 | 15.918 | 0.001 |
Figure 2 illustrates that there is a positive effect of social responsibility upon organizational reputation (at p < 0.01, path coefficient is 0.655). A total of 43% of the organizational reputation variance was explained by social responsibility (at p < 0.01, R2 is 0.429). So, the higher the level of commitment that organizations have with regard to practice of social responsibility then the greater is acquisition of an organizational reputation that is better; that is inconsistent to the hypotheses H01.
H01.1: Legal responsibility has no significant affect upon organizational reputation
The results for the test for this hypothesis showed that there was a significant and positive effect of legal responsibility upon organizational reputation (with p < 0.01, path coefficient is 0.31). That kind of social responsibility, as shown within Table 7, did explain 9% of variance within organizational reputation (with p < 0.01, R2 is 0.096). As such, the greater the organizational commitment to practice of legal responsibility then the greater is their ability for acquiring an organizational reputation that is good; this is not supporting the hypothesis H01.1.
| The path | Standardized coefficient | t value | p value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Legal responsibility | 
|
Organizational reputation | 0.31 | 5.28 | 0.00 |
| Ethical responsibility | 
|
Organizational reputation | 0.18 | 2.90 | 0.00 |
| Economic responsibility | 
|
Organizational reputation | 0.08 | 1.58 | 0.00 |
| Philanthropic responsibility | 
|
Organizational reputation | 0.24 | 4.57 | 0.00 |
- ** p < 0.01.
H01.2: Ethical responsibility has no significant affect upon organizational reputation
It is also shown in Table 7 that ethical responsibility has an effect upon organizational reputation that is significant and positive (with p < 0.01, R2 is 0.032). As such, the greater the organizational commitment toward ethical responsibility, then the better is the acquisition of an organizational reputation that is better; so, hypothesis H01.2 is not supported.
H01.3: Economic responsibility has no significant affect upon organizational reputation
It is also shown by Table 7 that economic responsibility did not have an impact upon organizational reputation (with p = 0.11, the path coefficient is 0.08); this is in support of the hypothesis H01.3.
H01.4: Philanthropic responsibility has no significant affect upon organizational reputation
The results from the testing for this hypothesis revealed there to be a positive and significant effect from philanthropic responsibility upon organizational reputation (with p < 0.01, path coefficient is 0.24). As shown in Table 7, philanthropic responsibility in organizations explained 5% of variance within organizational reputation (with p < 0.01, R2 is 0.057). As such, the greater the commitment of the organization to philanthropic responsibility then the greater is the ability for better organizational reputation to be acquired; so, the hypothesis H01.4 is not supported here.
4 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
The current study was based on assuming that the organizations' commitment to the social responsibility increases their ability to achieve a good organizational reputation. The results showed that all the (legal, ethical, and philanthropic) practices of the social responsibility have a positive and significant effect on improving the organizational reputation. This may be attributed to the fact that the activities of the social responsibility help organizations improve their relationships with stakeholders, including the shareholders, employees, suppliers, investors, or the community. This in turn contributes in creating a good impression among stakeholders about the organization and improves its organizational reputation. Brammer and Millington (2005), Brammer and Pavelin (2006), Donaldson and Preston (1995), and Rowley and Berman (2000) confirmed that the social responsibility is one of the main factors contributing to the formation of the organizational reputation as it positively affects the managements of the stakeholders, thereby establishing the trust and goodwill of the organization. This conclusion is supported by the theory of the stakeholder by Freeman, 1984, which claimed that the activities of the social responsibility are likely to result in a better organizational reputation. Therefore, the organizations should not only take care of the interests of the shareholders, but they also should attempt to determine and try to achieve the demands of all the stakeholders as this strengthens their relationship, creates a good impression on the organization and its activities and improves its organizational reputation (Basuony et al., 2014; Mukasa et al., 2015). Unerman (2008) also stated that the main factor that best achieve the best reputation to the organization is the stakeholder's awareness of the organization's social responsibility activities and whether the organization's actions and initiatives meet the social expectations of the stakeholders and whether they are in line with the environmental laws that prevent the toxic emissions. Greening and Turban (2000) concluded that the organizations' commitment to their environmental responsibilities affects its attractiveness among the stakeholders. He stated that the organization's ability to attract the required quality of employees depends on its reputation for the environmentally friendly activities. The study conclusions are in line with Park et al. (2014) regarding the effect of the social responsibility activities, particularly the ethical and philanthropic responsibility on the organizational reputation. They said that practicing the activities of the ethical and philanthropic responsibility by the organization creates the impression that the organization is commitment to the high ethical standards among customers. This includes the impression of caring in enhancing the level of the social well-being of citizens, which in turn positively affects their evaluation of the organization's reputation. The study conclusions also supported by the Spence's signaling theory. The signaling theory claims that the activities of the social responsibility done by organizations might work as signals sent to the community that would contribute in developing the positive impressions of the organization (Spence, 1973). The strong environmental performance, building good relations with employees and the community and doing varied initiatives contribute to developing the organization's reputation among shareholders and strengthen its legitimacy (Maden et al., 2012). These conclusions are consistent with Adekoya et al. (2020), and Lorena (2018) on the effect of the social responsibility activities on the organizational reputation.
The results also indicated that there is no effect for the economic responsibility on the organizational reputation of the organization, which might be attributed to the greater importance of the rest of the social responsibility practices for the stakeholders compared to the economic responsibility. This is supported as we have previously indicated by the theory of stakeholders, which claimed that the ability of the organization to achieve a better organizational reputation goes to its interest in the expectations of all stakeholders not only those of the shareholders (Freeman, 1984). Mukasa et al. (2015) stated that the organizations benefit more in improving their organizational reputation through participating the social responsibility activities that important for non-financial stakeholders such as the community and the environmental groups via the philanthropic activities. Organizations also try to be committed to the laws that help control the toxic emissions that affect the society and the natural environment. This conclusion was consistent with Blajer-Gołębiewska (2014) on the weak effect of the organization's economic performance on the organizational reputation. Within the higher education institutions like universities, such universities have strategic concentration on the social responsibility rather than economic return in order to enhance such behaviors like citizenship (Ahmad et al., 2020; Islam et al., 2016) and good image and overall reputation.
5 MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS
Given the fact that the social responsibility practices have become one of the most important sources of achieving the competitive advantages, of which the organizational reputation is the most important. The organizations must continuously participate in the social responsibility activities and they must not make such activities optional but a part of its strategic visions. To enhance their organizational reputation, the organizations can resort to show high levels of transparency, credibility and integrity as this increases the community's confidence in the organization's commitment to sustainability. This contributes to reducing the level of suspicion among the stakeholders on the organization's involvement in social responsibility activities. Furthermore, the managers can ask other organizations to support their interactive efforts to increase the stakeholders' confidence in their organizations which supports the organizations' benefit of the activities of the social responsibility.
Another means that might benefit managers in improving the organizational reputation of their organizations is to publish their social responsibility activities through their websites as this helps them to better identify stakeholders and their expectations. Giving the employees the opportunity to choose the philanthropic activities that might be carried out by the organization may play a role in improving its organizational reputation as they are not only stakeholders but also part of the community. Therefore, they in directly announce the social responsibility activities carried out by the organizations. Increasing the investment in the philanthropic activities and the environmental sustainability activities in not being limited to the community where the organization works but to other communities can help improve the organizational reputation of the organizations. The organizations' increased interest in research, development and access to technologically innovative contributes to reducing the negative effect of the company's activities on the environment which enables it to achieve a better organizational reputation.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
Literature review and methodology: Mohammad Taamneh. Data analysis and presentation: Rokaya Albadareen. Literature review, editing and scale development and abstract: Shaker A. Aladwan. Data analysis and presentation: Abdallah Taamneh.
Biographies
Mohammad M. Taamneh is a professor of human resource management at Jadara University. From 2010 until 2015, he served as president of Jadara University and as dean of economic and administrative sciences at Yarmouk University (2016-2019). He is now the vice president and dean of Jadara University's Business School.
Dr. Rokaya Albdareen is associate professor and currently works at the human resources management, Jadara University. Her research spans into organization behavior, human resources management and business administration domain. Her most recent publication is “Innovations in Knowledge Management Perspectives” and “the effect of strategic human resources management (SHRM) on organizational excellence”.
Dr. Aladwan received his BA and MSc degrees in Public administration from the University of Jordan in 2002 and 2006 respectively and received his Ph.D. in Management (TQM and Business Excellence in 2016 from University of Birmingham- UK). Dr. Aladwan has more than 15 years' experience in public and private sector in Jordan and United Kingdom, UAE, and KSA focusing in the fields of TQM, Strategic Management, mentoring and evaluation (M&E) and performance management. currently Dr. Aladwan is a chairman of Public Administration Dep at Yarmouk University. Dr. Aladwan has several publications in refereed journals and conference proceedings. His main research interests include; TQM, Business Excellence, Service Quality, Leadership, HRM, Strategic Management, and organisational reputation, and governance.
Dr. Abdallah Taamneh is an Assistant Professor in the HRM department at City University College of Ajman. Dr. Taamneh holds a Ph.D. in Business administration from Girne American University. His current research involves talent management, job design, corporate social responsibility implications, and the adoption of information technology.
Open Research
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.
