Preview text

Article
Workplace Health Promotion, Employee Wellbeing and Loyalty during Covid-19 PandemicLarge Scale Empirical Evidence
from Hungary
Eva Gorgenyi-Hegyes 1 ,
*, Robert Jeyakumar Nathan 2 and Maria Fekete-Farkas
3Citation:
Gorgenyi-Hegyes, Eva,
Robert Jeyakumar Nathan, and Maria
Fekete-Farkas. 2021. Workplace
Health Promotion, Employee
Wellbeing and Loyalty during Covid-19 PandemicLarge Scale
Empirical Evidence from Hungary.
Economies 9: 55.https://doi.org/
10.3390/economies9020055
Academic Editor: Helmi Hamdi
Received: 26 February 2021
Accepted: 1 April 2021
Published: 9 April 2021
Publisher ‘s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional afl- iations. Copyright:
2021 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/). 1Doctoral School of Economic and Regional Sciences, Hungarian University of Agricultural and Life Sciences,
H-2100 Gdll o, Hungary
2 Academic Innovation and Product Intelligence, Multimedia University, Cyberjaya 63100, Malaysia;
[email protected]
3 Institute of Economic Sciences, Hungarian University of Agricultural and Life Sciences,
H-2100 Gdll o, Hungary; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]
Abstract:
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) has become an innovative strategic management
tool of socially and environmentally conscious business organizations in the 21st century. Although
external CSR activities are better researched, rms’ internal CSR activities such as workplace health
promotion and its impact on employee wellbeing are less understood, especially during a pandemic
where job security is relatively lower in many sectors of employment. Additionally, wellbeing and
good health have been recognized as important targets to achieve as part of the United Nation’s
Sustainable Development Goal 3. Therefore, this study investigates the relationship between health-
related work benets and employee wellbeing, satisfaction and loyalty to their workplace. Large scale
survey research was performed with responses from 537 employees in Hungary and 16 hypotheses
were tested. Data analysis and path modelling using PLS-SEM (Partial Least Squares Structural
Equation Modelling) reveal two-layers of factors that impact employee wellbeing, satisfaction and
loyalty. We term this as `internal locus of control’ and `external locus of control’ variables. Internal
locus of control variables such as mental and emotional health leads to wellbeing at the workplace but
do not directly impact employee satisfaction and loyalty. In contrast, external locus of control factors
such as healthcare support leads to wellbeing, satisfaction and loyalty. Employer commitment to
healthcare support system is found pertinent especially during the pandemic. We discover wellbeing
as a unique standalone construct in this study, which is vital as is it formed by mental and emotional
wellbeing of employees, albeit not a determinant of employee workplace satisfaction and loyalty.
We theorize workers’ self-reliance and preservation as possible explanations to the disassociation
between employee wellbeing and loyalty to workplace during times of crisis and the pandemic.
Keywords:
workplace health promotion; CSR; social sustainability; PLS-SEM; self-reliance and
preservation; employee wellbeing; employee satisfaction; SDG Goal 3; COVID-19 1. Introduction
In recent decades, the concept of sustainable development has changed signicantly, in
addition to the issue of the optimal use of production and resources, attention is increasingly
focused on social welfare, its preservation and enhancement. The key to wellbeing is health
itself, and hence, the health-conscious consumer behavior. Therefore, some of these special
areas of sustainable development have become central to governmental policy decision
makers in order to respond to different social and environmental problems effectively, but
this need has also appeared and been discussed at corporate and consumer levels. The
development of health awareness as a social sustainability factor can be implemented on
the following three levels:
Economies
2021,9, 55.https://doi.org/10.3390/economies9020055https://www.mdpi.com/journal/economieseconomies
Economies
2021,9, 55 2 of 22
1.State or governmental levelthrough the networks within the healthcare system,
health policy and measures;
2.
Corporate levelthrough human resource management, primarily based on internal
CSR activities such as workplace health promotion;
3.Consumer level (attitudes, motives, habits) (Toussaint et al.2021).
The inclusion of sustainability at the company level is usually identied as CSR activi-
ties. CSR as an innovative part of continuously improving human resource management
has become a common practice in socially and environmentally friendly business orga-
nizations. Related literature primarily identies it with environmental awareness and
environmental protection but there are many other aspects of it. External CSR activities
or CSR activities (without grouping) are better researched (Hameed et al.2016;Mihai and
Bakkenist2018), however more and more attention has recently been directed towards
internal CSR activities such as workplace healthcare promotion due to the current social
and economic challenges, such as labor shortages, emigration of qualied workforce and
the pandemic situation such as the recent COVID-19 outbreak that caused widespread
lockdowns across the world.
The amount of empirical research and results related to internal CSRespecially to
the eld of workplace health promotionis limited but continuously increasing, both on
national and international levels. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that the pressure on
companies to engage in CSR has signicantly increased (McWilliams and Siegel2000).
Therefore, the implementation of CSR activities into business practice is not only a modern
phenomenon, but a necessity for all companies enhancing them towards sustainable and
effective operation (Thao et al.2019). More and more companies and managers recognize
not only the necessity of social responsibility but its usefulness at the corporate level as well.
A socially responsible company has advantages over its competitors with increased pro-
ductivity and competitiveness, improved corporate reputation and image and signicant
cost savings due to the loyalty and motivation of their external and internal stakeholders.
One of the most important internal stakeholders of enterprises are their employees. Em-
ployee loyalty has become a key issue of strategic human resource management; hence the
focus has shifted to employee retention. With an effective retention plan, companies can
reduce their long-term losses derived from the continuous uctuation and labor shortages
(Cloutier et al.2015;Hong et al.2012;Lee et al.2018). While in recent years employee
turnover and labor shortages have posed challenges for companies (Gorgenyi Hegyes and
Farkas2019), they now have to deal with factors that are linked to employee wellbeing.
Nowadays home ofce, exible working hours and work/life balance are highly appreci-
ated by the employees because of the pandemic. Therefore, emotional health has become
especially important. Nevertheless, due to the lockdown, the risk caused by COVID-19 and
the compulsion of the home ofce, uncertainty is very high now; thus, nancial benets
are presumably appreciated more than non-nancial benets as employees think in shorter
term.
There is an increasing need to understand how the employer ‘s effort to promote
workplace health and wellbeing has impacted their workers’ real wellbeing, satisfaction
and loyalty to the employer. Following an extensive literature review, exploratory sec-
ondary research (via content analysis of corporate CSR and sustainability reports) and
expert consultations (via in-depth interviews) performed by the Authors, a conceptual
framework was developed that includes all the benets and issues (as factors) related
to health preservation and health promotion that can affect employee loyalty through
employee satisfaction and wellbeing. A healthy and satised employee can turn into a
loyal employee, and this results in lower labor turnover, a better corporate culture, a more
cohesive community and thus better corporate performance, productivity and increased
competitiveness. Furthermore, there is a real threat of migration of qualied employees,
especially from Central and Eastern Europe (Bite et al.2020). Moreover, the focus of the
transforming strategic human resource management has now completely shifted from
Economies
2021,9, 55 3 of 22recruitment to retaining valuable employees, therefore, this research eld is also becoming
more and more valuable to corporations (Lee et al.2018).
The primary goal of this study is to identify and measure the most important health
related factors and indicators which play an important role in employee wellbeing and
loyalty. The research article is organized in the following structure. Introduction is followed
by an extensive literature review in Section2, synthesizing the most relevant previous
seminal studies and works related to corporate social responsibility with a special focus
on workplace health promotion, employee satisfaction and loyalty. Section3presents the
research methodology where research framework is illustrated and data collection and
analysis procedures are discussed. Section4includes relevant research ndings and the
results of hypotheses testing. Section5highlights the main conclusions of the study and
emphasize its contribution to the research eld not only in academic level, but also through
its practical implication. In addition, recommendations for further research are presented
in this nal section.
2. Literature Review
2.1. Importance of Health and Health Awareness as a Social Sustainability Factor
Based on the Brundtland report, sustainable development is a development that
meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations
to meet their own needs (WCED1987). Similar to the original concept, a signicant
proportion of researchers start from the production and resource use side when assessing
sustainability. Nevertheless, a much more practical and detailed approach has become
popular in last few years, according to which sustainability is the ability to pursue a
well-dened behavior indenitely without the deterioration of natural, human, and in-
tellectual resources (Crittenden et al.2011). Despite the many different denitions, it can
be clearly identied that we can primarily evaluate sustainability along the well-known
three basic dimensionsenvironmental, economic and social aspects. However, more
recently, research have also been conducted from a consumption perspective. As a result,
Figure1demonstrates we can interpret and analyze the common sections of the basic
dimensionssocio-economic (e.g., job creation, skills development, business ethics, etc.),
socio-environmental (e.g., health and wellbeing, global environmental change, crisis man-
agement, etc.) and eco-efciency (e.g., life cycle management, resource management, etc.)
subdimensions (ConocoPhillips Company2006;Barcan2016). Figure 1.
Basic pillars and subdimensions of sustainability. Source: Authors’ own compilation based
on ConocoPhillipsConocoPhillips Company(2006) andBarcan(2016).
Since more and more economies have recognized that our current consumer patterns
and habits are no more sustainable long term and sustainable development has become aEconomies 2021, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 23
especially from Central and Eastern Europe (Bite et al. 2020). Moreover, the focus of the
transforming strategic human resource management has now completely shifted from re-
cruitment to retaining valuable employees, therefore, this research field is also becoming
more and more valuable to corporations (Lee et al. 2018).
The primary goal of this study is to identify and measure the most important health
related factors and indicators which play an important role in employee wellbeing and
loyalty. The research article is organized in the following structure. Introduction is fol-
lowed by an extensive literature review in Section 2, synthesizing the most relevant pre-
vious seminal studies and works related to corporate social responsibility with a special
focus on workplace health promotion, employee satisfaction and loyalty. Section 3 pre-
sents the research methodology where research framework is illustrated and data collec-
tion and analysis procedures are discussed. Section 4 includes relevant research findings
and the results of hypotheses testing. Section 5 highlights the main conclusions of the
study and emphasize its contribution to the research field not only in academic level, but
also through its practical implication. In addition, recommendations for further research
are presented in this final section.
2. Literature Review
2.1. Importance of Health and Health Awareness as a Social Sustainability Factor
Based on the Brundtland report, sustainable development is a development that
meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to
meet their own needs (WCED 1987). Similar to the original concept, a significant propor-
tion of researchers start from the production and resource use side when assessing sus-
tainability. Nevertheless, a much more practical and detailed approach has become pop-
ular in last few years, according to which sustainability is the ability to pursue a well-
defined behavior indefinitely without the deterioration of natural, human, and intellectual
resources (Crittenden et al. 2011). Despite the many different definitions, it can be clearly
identified that we can primarily evaluate sustainability along the well-known three basic
dimensionsenvironmental, economic and social aspects. However, more recently, re-
search have also been conducted from a consumption perspective. As a result, Figure 1
demonstrates we can interpret and analyze the common sections of the basic dimen-
sionssocio-economic (e.g., job creation, skills development, business ethics, etc.), socio-
environmental (e.g., health and wellbeing, global environmental change, crisis manage-
ment, etc.) and eco-efficiency (e.g., life cycle management, resource management, etc.)
subdimensions (ConocoPhillips Company 2006; Barcan 2016).
Figure 1. Basic pillars and subdimensions of sustainability. Source: Authors own compilation based
on ConocoPhillips Company (2006) and Barcan (2016).
Economies
2021,9, 55 4 of 22key issue in the level of policy decision makers both in international and national level,
sustainable development goals were redened and reformulated by United Nations in
2015. Good health condition and wellbeing can be connected directly to SDG 3 (Good
health and wellbeing), however indirectly to SDG 8 (Decent work and economic growth)
through satised and healthy employeesand SDG 12 (Responsible consumption and
production)through healthy nutrition and sustainable consumption (UN2020).
The most commonly used and accepted concept of health was dened by the World
Health Organization (WHO) in 1948. According to the Preamble to the Constitution of
the WHO: Health is a state of total physical, mental and social wellbeing and not merely
the absence of disease or inrmity. (WHO1948). The approach that maintaining and
improving health requires not only scientic developments and various health services,
but also the lifestyles represented by individual consumers and also the whole society,
is becoming increasingly accepted. Furthermore, in the last decade WHO has placed
increasing emphasis on the social and economic environmental aspect of health (McMichael
2006). Consequently, our health is affected not only by genetics and basic sociodemographic
characteristics such as gender or age, but also by income and social status, educational level,
cultural diversities, physical environment, working conditions, social support networks,
healthcare system and personal behavior (WHO2017). Several previous studies present
relations between individual behavioral risk factorssuch as physical inactivity, smoking,
risky alcohol consumption and obesity or overweightand noncommunicable chronic
diseases and disabilities (Loef and Walach2012;Fine et al.2004;Li et al.2007;Pharr and
Bungum2012;Linardakis et al.2015). The study focuses on working environment through
health-related work benets.
2.2. Workplace Health Promotion as an Internal CSR Activity
Researchers and practitioners interpret social responsibility in several different ways.
In the literature, it is primarily identied with environmental awareness and environmental
protection, however, it also has various other aspects today. Often, companies are not
familiar with all aspects of this relatively new eld, however, there is a growing tendency
and willingness to try to nd and apply CSR in practice. Social responsibility is undoubt-
edly one of the outstanding concepts of our economy today, which is briey about how
individuals, nations, and different companies can behave responsibly during their activities.
Social responsibility and sustainability very often occur together in academic research, as in
this situation the organization’s traditional, short-term market-oriented interest is pushed
into the background and other longer-term plans come to the fore even if its interest may
not be directly measurable (Dos2017). Moreover,Kot and Brzezinski(2015) emphasized in
their research that a well-structured, organized and implemented, strongly enforced policy
is crucial to facilitate the sustainable development. Furthermore,Grabara et al.(2016)
stated that social responsibility itself has become a signicant dimension of development
at domestic and international level, in addition at micro and macroeconomic level. While
most research agree that social responsibility is a strong business requirement, there is little
consensus on what constitutes and how to implement it into corporate operations. The
problem is that knowledge develops in parallel in different business disciplines, therefore
opinions, ideas and feasibility intentions appear in many different ways. In addition, there
are the cultural differences found in the global business environment (Kashyap et al.2011).
Similarly,Taras et al.(2011) stated that many researchers have veried that national culture
values signicantly inuence the attitudes over the organizational culture.
The term of corporate social responsibility (CSR) has become dominant in the life of
organizations nowadays, though there are also opponents of this concept (e.g.,Chwistecka-
Dudek2016). Due to the many different denitions and approaches of CSR, it is often
misunderstood and misinterpreted; or hardly understood its role in sustainable business
models (Dahlsrud2006;Doh et al.2015;Ling2019). The rst formal denition derived
fromBowen(1953) who stated that companies have a decision-making power which may
have an impact on their actions and inuence also the society as a whole. Although there
Economies
2021,9, 55 5 of 22is not a unied denition of CSR, the most accepted and most frequently cited version is
determined by the European Commission: CSR is the responsibility of enterprises for
their impact on society (European Commission2010). In order to meet their corporate
social responsibility requirements, enterprises should have in place a process to integrate
social, environmental, ethical and human rights concerns into their business operations
and core strategy in close collaboration with their stakeholders (Macassa et al.2017). This
denition of CSR places the responsibility of enterprises on the three main above-mentioned
pillars of sustainability, of which CSR and workplace health promotion are in the social
pillar (Cochran2007;Stawicka2018). One of the leading paradigms of corporate social
responsibility is Carroll’s CSR Pyramid framework which determines four dimensions
(economic, legal, ethical and philanthropic) (Carroll1979;Carroll2016). Friedman stated
that CSR activities represent an unnecessary investment of shareholders, and that social
responsibility should be the personal choice of individuals, not a business issue (Friedman
1970;Thao et al.2019). Furthermore,Szegedi et al.(2020) developed a CSR index in
accordance with stakeholder theory and examined the relationships between CSR and
nancial performance.
Based on the groups of stakeholders, two different areas of CSR activities can be
distinguishedexternal activities related to external stakeholders (consumers, competi-
tors, government and suppliers), and internal activities related to internal stakeholders
(employees and other shareholders) as Figure2illustrates.
Figure 2.
Areas of corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities based on company’s stakeholders.
Source: Authors’ own edition based onKerekes and Wetzker(2007) andWitek-Crabb(2019).
Despite the fact that most research still focuses on external CSR activities (Lichtenstein
et al.2004;Sen et al.2006), some recent studies assess the impact of companies’ CSR
activities on employee attitudes and behaviors (Brammer et al.2007;Turker2009;Zhu et al.
2014). Studies found a signicant, positive and long-term impact of CSR on community
health, especially in developing countries and among socially excluded groups of popula-
tion (Werner2009). In Hungary, some companies already have started to introduce CSR
activities, however it is mainly typical in life of multinational companies and even less easy
and effective at the SME level.
The WHO has been working on occupational health since 1950, emphasizing that
not only work and the workplace affect the physical and mental health of employees, but
also the health of employees affects the company and its business performance (Szabo
and Juhasz2019). Based on the Ottawa Charter (WHO1986), health promotion is the
process of enabling people to increase control over, and to improve, their health. To reach
a state of complete physical, mental and social wellbeing, an individual or group must
be able to identify and to realize aspirations, to satisfy needs, and to change or cope
with the environment (WHO1986). If we talk about occupational health, it is necessary
to properly determine the denition of workplace health promotion (WHP). The mostEconomies 2021, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 23
business models (Dahlsrud 2006; Doh et al. 2015; Ling 2019). The first formal definition
derived from Bowen (1953) who stated that companies have a decision-making power
which may have an impact on their actions and influence also the society as a whole. Alt-
hough there is not a unified definition of CSR, the most accepted and most frequently
cited version is determined by the European Commission: CSR is the responsibility of
enterprises for their impact on society (European Commission 2010). In order to meet
their corporate social responsibility requirements, enterprises should have in place a pro-
cess to integrate social, environmental, ethical and human rights concerns into their busi-
ness operations and core strategy in close collaboration with their stakeholders (Macassa
et al. 2017). This definition of CSR places the responsibility of enterprises on the three main
above-mentioned pillars of sustainability, of which CSR and workplace health promotion
are in the social pillar (Cochran 2007; Stawicka 2018). One of the leading paradigms of
corporate social responsibility is Carrolls CSR Pyramid framework which determines
four dimensions (economic, legal, ethical and philanthropic) (Carroll 1979; Carroll 2016).
Friedman stated that CSR activities represent an unnecessary investment of shareholders,
and that social responsibility should be the personal choice of individuals, not a business
issue (Friedman 1970; Thao et al. 2019). Furthermore, Szegedi et al. (2020) developed a
CSR index in accordance with stakeholder theory and examined the relationships between
CSR and financial performance.
Based on the groups of stakeholders, two different areas of CSR activities can be dis-
tinguishedexternal activities related to external stakeholders (consumers, competitors,
government and suppliers), and internal activities related to internal stakeholders (em-
ployees and other shareholders) as Figure 2 illustrates.
Figure 2. Areas of corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities based on companys stakehold-
ers. Source: Authors own edition based on Kerekes and Wetzker (2007) and Witek-Crabb (2019).
Despite the fact that most research still focuses on external CSR activities (Lichten-
stein et al. 2004; Sen et al. 2006), some recent studies assess the impact of companies CSR
activities on employee attitudes and behaviors (Brammer et al. 2007; Turker 2009; Zhu et
al. 2014. Studies found a significant, positive and long-term impact of CSR on community
health, especially in developing countries and among socially excluded groups of popu-
lation (Werner 2009). In Hungary, some companies already have started to introduce CSR
activities, however it is mainly typical in life of multinational companies and even less
easy and effective at the SME level.
The WHO has been working on occupational health since 1950, emphasizing that not
only work and the workplace affect the physical and mental health of employees, but also
the health of employees affects the company and its business performance (Szabo and
Juhasz 2019). Based on the Ottawa Charter (WHO 1986), health promotion is the process
of enabling people to increase control over, and to improve, their health. To reach a state
of complete physical, mental and social wellbeing, an individual or group must be able to
Economies
2021,9, 55 6 of 22integrated and widely cited meaning is described by the European Network for Workplace
Health Promotion (ENWHP) as a modern corporate strategy which aims at preventing ill-
health at work (including work-related diseases, accidents, injuries, occupational diseases
and stress) and enhancing health-promoting potentials and wellbeing in the workforce
(ENWHP2007). According to theENWHP(2007), the most important areas where various
measures and/or activities can be taken related to health promotion consist of lifestyles,
ageing, corporate culture including leadership, development of employees, work-life
balance, mental health and stress management, wellness, nutrition and physical health,
corporate social responsibility (CSR). In contrast, few research show that CSR activities can
motivate employees to initiate commitment, however, CSR performance does not result
increasing job performance (Houghton et al.2009;Vlachos et al.2014).
Due to the market and prot-oriented approaches, it can be easily forgotten that corpo-
rate image and performance should not be evaluated only through nancial performance
or prot (Stojanovic et al.2020;De Roeck et al.2016).Kot(2014), for example, examined the
research eld by distinguishing ve main areas of CSR business benets: a positive effect
on company image and reputation, a positive effect on employee motivation, retention
and recruitment, cost saving, revenue increases from higher sales and market share, CSR-
related risk reduction and management. Other research shows that healthier employees are
already able to perform better physically and mentally in the short term, and they become
more health-conscious, more efcient, more productive, more satised, more motivated
and more loyal (Szabo and Juhasz2019;Ozminkowski et al.2016;Hendriksen et al.2016;
Gubler et al.2017). In addition,Dumitrescu and Simionescu(2015) conducted empirical
analyses based on accounting measures to determine company nancial performance
related to CSR. Besides increasing revenues, other nancial benets of CSR have been
observed through costs of production and equity reduction (Matthiesen and Salzmann
2017). Moreover,Fehr and Reich(2020) veried in their research that workplace health
management has a signicant positive impact on the attractiveness of the workplace and
employer. In addition, it may improve also the image of the company. Table1summarizes
the most relevant benets of WHP in short, middle and long term.
Table 1. Corporate benets from workplace health promotion. In Few Months After 12 Years After 35 Years
Closer engagement
Higher productivity and
performance Less workplace injuries Better workplace morale
Increased labor retention and
attractiveness Less disease and absence Stronger team spirit,
community building Positive image Less presenteeism Better individual health
awareness
Improving returns on training
and development Greater (increased)
satisfaction Source: Own edition based onSzabo and Juhasz(2019) andTasmania(2012).
2.3. Employee Wellbeing, Satisfaction and Loyalty
As previous researchers have stated, the concept or issue of wellness is usually exam-
ined and discussed in terms of multiple dimensions. Most of them distinguish vesix
dimensions (Roscoe2009;Harari et al.2005;Hettler1984;Adams et al.1997). One of
the most well-known and cited methods to measure wellness is the Perceived Wellness
Survey which include six following dimensions of wellness: physical, emotional, social,
psychological, intellectual and spiritual (Adams et al.1997). The criticism of this method is
the excessive fragmentation of the psychological dimension into emotional, intellectual,
psychological, social and spiritual parts; however, these concepts can be easy to confuse.
Economies
2021,9, 55 7 of 22Similarly, Hettler ‘s Wellness Hexagon consists of six different dimensions: physical, emo-
tional, social, intellectual, spiritual and occupational. Wellbeing is a multidimensional and
conceptually similar concept to wellness. For example,Hooker et al.(2021) examined eight
dimensions of wellbeing in their model. Based onLinton et al.(2016) wellbeing includes
several dimensions related to mental wellbeing (happiness and emotional quality of life),
social wellbeing (social relationships and communities), spiritual wellbeing, activities and
functioning (having activities to ll one’s time), physical wellbeing (quality of physical
performance and functioning); and personal circumstances (environmental and socioe-
conomic pressures and concerns). Summarizing the related literature sources physical
health can be connected to the current psychical status of the people, mental health can be
dened through the cognitive abilities and mental confusionit is determined by various
biological, environmental and socioeconomic factors. Social and emotional health is closely
linked to the wellbeing and happiness arising from recognition, social relationships and
activities (WHO2018;Soo You and Lee2006). The following model with eight dimensions
of wellbeingillustrated by Figure3can be divided by internal and external factors and
includes both personal satisfaction (as spiritual harmony) and employee satisfaction (as
occupational harmony).
Figure 3.
Dimensions of wellbeing. Source: Authors’ own compilation based onRoscoe(2009);
Meiselman(2016) andAdams et al.(1997).
Knowledge economy and knowledge-based society have become more important
phenomenon today and therefore employee satisfaction and loyalty have become critical
issues (Matzler et al.2003;Renzl2003). Employee motivation and retention are important
determinants here as in the case of lean thinking and implementation of lean management
system (Olah et al.2017). There is no doubt that employee satisfaction is an important
variable which is able to provide a general view about general emotion and feelings of
employees about their job and workplace. However, it is difcult to measure due to its
latent determinants. Employee satisfaction is measured and evaluated in several empirical
studies either as an overall feeling about the work itself, or as a related set of attitudes about
various aspects of the work (Spector1997). Some researchers started to observe this area
at the beginning of the last century.Taylor(1911), for example, recognized the economic
importance of employee satisfaction, that employees work harder for cash rewards and
higher pay.Locke(1976) have collected nearly 3000 studies that address some aspect of
employee satisfaction. These surveys are mostly about the measure of the relationships
between satisfaction and some other factor such as task management, leadership, reward
system, group processes and so on. According toLocke(1976), employee satisfaction is
a pleasant, positive feeling that results from an appreciation of work-related experiences
which denition is closely correlated to Tayler ‘s original concept. According toHoppock
(1935) employee satisfaction can be determined as a mix of cognitive, physiologic andEconomies 2021, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 23
most well-known and cited methods to measure wellness is the Perceived Wellness Sur-
vey which include six following dimensions of wellness: physical, emotional, social, psy-
chological, intellectual and spiritual (Adams et al. 1997). The criticism of this method is
the excessive fragmentation of the psychological dimension into emotional, intellectual,
psychological, social and spiritual parts; however, these concepts can be easy to confuse.
Similarly, Hettlers Wellness Hexagon consists of six different dimensions: physical, emo-
tional, social, intellectual, spiritual and occupational. Wellbeing is a multidimensional and
conceptually similar concept to wellness. For example, Hooker et al. (2021) examined eight
dimensions of wellbeing in their model. Based on Linton et al. (2016) wellbeing includes
several dimensions related to mental wellbeing (happiness and emotional quality of life),
social wellbeing (social relationships and communities), spiritual wellbeing, activities and
functioning (having activities to fill ones time), physical wellbeing (quality of physical
performance and functioning); and personal circumstances (environmental and socioeco-
nomic pressures and concerns). Summarizing the related literature sources physical
health can be connected to the current psychical status of the people, mental health can be
defined through the cognitive abilities and mental confusionit is determined by various
biological, environmental and socioeconomic factors. Social and emotional health is
closely linked to the wellbeing and happiness arising from recognition, social relation-
ships and activities (WHO 2018; Soo You and Lee 2006). The following model with eight
dimensions of wellbeingillustrated by Figure 3can be divided by internal and external
factors and includes both personal satisfaction (as spiritual harmony) and employee sat-
isfaction (as occupational harmony).
Figure 3. Dimensions of wellbeing. Source: Authors own compilation based on Roscoe (2009);
Meiselman (2016) and Adams et al. (1997).
Knowledge economy and knowledge-based society have become more important
phenomenon today and therefore employee satisfaction and loyalty have become critical
issues (Matzler et al. 2003; Renzl 2003). Employee motivation and retention are important
determinants here as in the case of lean thinking and implementation of lean management
system (Olah et al. 2017). There is no doubt that employee satisfaction is an important
variable which is able to provide a general view about general emotion and feelings of
employees about their job and workplace. However, it is difficult to measure due to its
latent determinants. Employee satisfaction is measured and evaluated in several empirical
studies either as an overall feeling about the work itself, or as a related set of attitudes
about various aspects of the work (Spector 1997). Some researchers started to observe this
area at the beginning of the last century. Taylor (1911), for example, recognized the eco-
nomic importance of employee satisfaction, that employees work harder for cash rewards
and higher pay. Locke (1976) have collected nearly 3000 studies that address some aspect
Economies
2021,9, 55 8 of 22environmental factors that make the employees satised or dissatised with their work.
Once employees are satised with their work, they will have a positive attitude towards
it, and this is true in the opposite direction (Armstrong2006).Herzberg’s (1966) two-
factor theory distinguishes between job characteristics: satisfaction can be caused by
internal (motivating) factors such as responsibility, promotion, development opportunity,
recognition, content and signicance of the task; and external (so-called hygiene) factors not
directly related to work: corporate policy and administration, management style, working
conditions, personal relationships with the manager, employees and subordinates, position,
job security, salary, remuneration system (Tietjen and Myers1998).
Several empirical studies have found strong relationships between employee satis-
faction, organizational commitment and loyalty (e.g.,Mak and Sockel2001;Martensen
and Gronholdt2001). Some of them also stated that employee satisfaction is negatively
related to turnover (e.g.,Tekleab et al.2005;Ward1988) and absenteeism (e.g.,Muchinsky
1977). By creating joint values and socially responsible engagement enterprises can gain
such competitive advantages as increasing competitiveness, image building or a satised
and loyal workforce (Shpak et al.2018). So called fringe benet is suck a work benet as
the material and nonmaterial incentives the company offer and provide to its employees
to commit them to the company. Employees received these benets in addition to their
wages or salaries, in some cases also after retirement (Khuong and Tien2013). According
to the result ofArtz(2010) work benets have signicant and positive impact on employee
satisfaction, and it is likely to have a profound impact on employee loyalty. It plays as
a motivator factor helping to improve employee performance and to reduce employee
turnover (Kasper et al.2012).
Empirical studies started to deal with also the effects of COVID-19 pandemic on
CSR activities, workplaces and work itself. Health sensitivity has signicantly increased;
important health factors have to be emphasized by not only policy decision makers but
also employers. The workplaces can be redesigned, and work can be reimagined in
response to the current health challenge. For example, currently empty workplaces can
be changed creating and building opportunities for standing desks, healthy snacks or
workplace activity/exercise programs. Furthermore, it can be clearly seen that companies
especially from legal, nancial or technology sectorswhere employees can work from
homeremain as productive and competitive with the transition to home ofce (Duffy
et al.2021;Zhang et al.2021;O’Brien et al.2021). Table2summarizes all health-related
work benets (as independent variables) which may have signicant effects on employee
wellbeing, satisfaction and through of them on loyalty (as dependent variables) based on
our assumption. Table2includes also the relevant scientic literature sources related to
each variable and offer a brief description about them.
Based on the above-discussed literature sources, and previous studies performed by
Authors, indicators of exogenous variables and items connected to employee wellbeing
are newly established and tested through exploratory factor analysis. Indicators related
to employee satisfaction and loyalty are adapted fromHomburg and Stock(2000,2004),
respectively. The following hypotheses were formulated for testing in this research by
using the PLSstructural equation modelling (SEM) path modelling. A corresponding
research framework highlighting the path and hypotheses are presented in Figure4.
Economies
2021,9, 55 9 of 22
Table 2.
Literature sources and empirical studies related to exogenous and endogenous variables. Variables Factors/Constructs
Short Description of
Indicators/Measures as
Potential Work Benets Literature Sources Related to FactorsExogenous variables
Physical health
Promoting sport activities,
ofce exercises, corporate
sport events, bike-sharing
program organizing sport classes, providing suitable
physical working conditions. Turkyilmaz et al.(2011);Waqas et al.
(2014);Roscoe(2009);Aazami et al.
(2015);Brown et al.(2011) Emotional and social health
Promoting work/life balance
and appreciation/recognition;
prohibiting discrimination, bullying, harassment;
supporting exible working
hours and home ofce. Bataineh(2019);Rahman and Haleem
(2018);Turkyilmaz et al.(2011); Strenitzerov and Achimsk (2019);
Waqas et al.(2014);Roscoe(2009); Yaseen(2020);Rani et al.(2011); Giovanis(2019);Han et al.(2021) Mental health
Stress management,
organizing psychological
counseling, coaching,
mediation, relaxation, ofce
massage, becoming family
friendly workplace. Aazami et al.(2015);Lee et al.(2009);
Mansoor et al.(2011);Duraisingam
et al.(2009);Mcdaid et al.(2009);
Khuong and Linh(2020);O’Brien et al.
(2021);Han et al.(2021) Healthy nutrition
Opportunity for fresh
vegetable and fruit consumption, water ltration
and fresh water, organizing
healthy nutrition cooking
courses and dietary
counselling. Turen et al.(2017);Andersen et al.(2017);Proper and van Mechelen(2007);
Maldoy et al.(2021) Preventive care
Providing screening tests,
vaccination, rst aid trainings,
supporting cessation
programs. Arocena et al.(2008);Warner et al.
(2004);Smedslund et al.(2004);Warner et al.(2004);Asfar et al.(2019) Healthcare support
Providing health fund
contribution, supporting
recovery, regenerative holiday.
Skagen and Collins(2016);Kuoppala
et al.(2008) Insurance
Providing nancial support in
case of illness, accident or
death through health
insurance. Sears et al.(2014);O’Brien(2003)Endogenous
variables Employee wellbeing
Positive feeling of employees
related to their workplace,
employer and work itself. Roscoe(2009);Linton et al.(2016);
Adams et al.(1997);Meiselman(2016); Baptiste(2008);Krekel Christian et al.
(2019) Employee satisfaction
Satisfaction of employees with
their work, workplace,
employer; they like their job
and do not intend to work for
a different company. Homburg and Stock(2004);Matzler
and Renzl(2006);Turkyilmaz et al.
(2011);Strenitzerov and Achimsk
(2019);Hassan et al.(2013);Khuong and Linh(2020);Rani et al.(2011);
Giovanis(2019) Employee loyalty
Employees speak positively
about their company,
recommend their
products/services; and would
like to stay there in long term. Homburg and Stock(2000);Matzler
and Renzl(2006);Turkyilmaz et al.
(2011);Strenitzerov and Achimsk
(2019);Murali et al.(2017);Hassan et al.
(2013);Khuong and Linh(2020);
Khuong et al.(2020);Giovanis(2019) Source: Authors’ own edition.
Economies
2021,9, 55 10 of 22
Figure 4.
Research framework with corresponding hypotheses. Source: Authors’ own edition.
The hypotheses are presented as below:
Hypothesis 1 (H1). There is a positive impact of emotional health towards employee loyalty.
Hypothesis 2 (H2). There is a positive impact of emotional health towards employee satisfaction.
Hypothesis 3 (H3). There is a positive impact of emotional health towards employee wellbeing.
Hypothesis 4 (H4). There is a positive impact of healthcare support towards employee loyalty.
Hypothesis 5 (H5).There is a positive impact of healthcare support towards employee satisfaction.
Hypothesis 6 (H6). There is a positive impact of healthcare support towards employee wellbeing.
Hypothesis 7 (H7). There is a positive impact of healthy nutrition towards employee mental health.
Hypothesis 8 (H8).
There is a positive impact of healthy nutrition towards employee physical health.
Hypothesis 9 (H9). There is a positive impact of Insurance towards healthcare support.
Hypothesis 10 (H10).
There is a positive impact of mental health towards employee emotional health.
Hypothesis 11 (H11). There is a positive impact of physical health towards employee loyalty.
Hypothesis 12 (H12).
There is a positive impact of physical health towards employee satisfaction.
Hypothesis 13 (H13). There is a positive impact of physical health towards employee wellbeing.
Hypothesis 14 (H14). There is a positive impact of preventive care towards healthcare support.
Hypothesis 15 (H15).
There is a positive impact of employee satisfaction towards employee loyalty.
Hypothesis 16 (H16).There is a positive impact of employee wellbeing towards employee loyalty.Economies 2021, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 23
Employee
satisfaction Satisfaction of employees
with their work, workplace,
employer; they like their job
and do not intend to work for
a different company. Homburg and Stock (2004);
Matzler and Renzl (2006); Turky-
ilmaz et al. (2011); Strenitzerov
and Achimsk (2019); Hassan et
al. (2013); Khuong and Linh
(2020); Rani et al. (2011); Giovanis
(2019)
Employee
loyalty Employees speak positively
about their company, recom-
mend their products/services;
and would like to stay there
in long term. Homburg and Stock (2000);
Matzler and Renzl (2006); Turky-
ilmaz et al. (2011); Strenitzerov
and Achimsk (2019); Murali et
al. (2017); Hassan et al. (2013);
Khuong and Linh (2020); Khuong
et al. (2020); Giovanis (2019)
Source: Authors own edition.
Based on the above-discussed literature sources, and previous studies performed by
Authors, indicators of exogenous variables and items connected to employee wellbeing
are newly established and tested through exploratory factor analysis. Indicators related to
employee satisfaction and loyalty are adapted from Homburg and Stock (2000, 2004), re-
spectively. The following hypotheses were formulated for testing in this research by using
the PLSstructural equation modelling (SEM) path modelling. A corresponding research
framework highlighting the path and hypotheses are presented in Figure 4.
Figure 4. Research framework with corresponding hypotheses. Source: Authors own edition.
The hypotheses are presented as below:
Hypothesis 1 (H1). There is a positive impact of emotional health towards employee loyalty.
Hypothesis 2 (H2). There is a positive impact of emotional health towards employee satisfaction.
Hypothesis 3 (H3). There is a positive impact of emotional health towards employee wellbeing.
Hypothesis 4 (H4). There is a positive impact of healthcare support towards employee loyalty.
Hypothesis 5 (H5). There is a positive impact of healthcare support towards employee satisfaction.
Hypothesis 6 (H6). There is a positive impact of healthcare support towards employee wellbeing.
Hypothesis 7 (H7). There is a positive impact of healthy nutrition towards employee mental health.
Hypothesis 8 (H8). There is a positive impact of healthy nutrition towards employee physical health.
Hypothesis 9 (H9). There is a positive impact of Insurance towards healthcare support.
Economies
2021,9, 55 11 of 22
3. MethodologyThe main approach for this research is quantitative or structured approach. The
design of this study follows survey research framework, and it is conducted by using a
questionnaire. In order to design the questionnaire, different related scientic research
articles and other literature sources were analyzed systematically. Based on literature
review, content analysis of related CSR reports, 2 focus groups and exploratory in-depth
interviews, above-mentioned hypotheses were formulated via the conceptual framework.
Due to the pandemic situation questionnaire survey was completely online and it was
distributed via e-mails and also shared in social media. For data collection judgmental and
snowball sampling technique was used. After data collection 537 completely lled surveys
were received back for data analysis.
The structure of the questionnaire survey was the following. The rst section of the
questionnaire contains 8 questions and deals with current consumer habits and behaviors,
the current health status and level of health-conscious behavior of the respondents. It
was followed by the second major section including 5 questions which is related to social
media usage habits. Since almost every multinational company and corporation today has
a social media interface where they can also reach their own employees, Authors would
like to explore whether social media can be a suitable tool to improve the relationship with
employees, and to develop their health awareness. In third section the health-related work
benets are detected and measured by using ve-point Likert scales. These 47 questions
served as indicator questions for the factors of the structural model. The nal section
consists of 6 questions was related to demographic characteristics in order to present the
sample. The target population of the study were adult employees with relevant work
experience, the sampling location was in Hungary. The period of data collection was
between December 2020 and January 2021.
Based on the available database from 537 respondents, data analysis was performed
by using the partial least square (PLS-SEM) method, which is a statistical method that
combines factor analysis, correlation and regression analysis to analyze the collected data.
Literature sources suggest using the method of sample size is too small, applications do not
have available theory, predictive accuracy is paramount and/or correct model specication
cannot be ensured (Bacon1999;Hwang et al.2010;Wong2013). The greatest advantage of
this method is that also indirect effects can be examined in addition to the direct effects
between the variables. Therefore, it was possible to observe and analyze how variables
exert their effect on the target variables through other (mediator) variables. SEM was
modelled with SmartPLS version 3.2.8 software (SMARTPLS GMBH2019;Sarstedt et al.
2014;Sarstedt et al.2011;Ringle et al.2013;Nathan et al.2019;Victor et al.2019;Gonda
et al.2020). Furthermore, Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 21 was used
to perform descriptive statistical analysis.
4. Results and Discussion
This section presents the result of the empirical study by rstly presenting the de-
scriptive statistics, followed by the hypothesis testing results and path model result of
PLS-SEM.
4.1. Descriptive Statistics for Demographic Characteristics of Respondents
Before describing the demographic characteristics, it is essential to notice that re-
spondents cannot be characterized by a representative sample with national coverage.
Respondents must be adults and they must have relevant work experienceno other
inclusion and exclusion criteria were set up during data collection. Most respondents were
women, with exactly 338 women (62.9%) and 199 men (37.1%) completing the questionnaire.
The vast majority of respondents were in age groups of 3039 (32.4%) and 4049 (37.8%).
This can be evaluated as a normal distribution, regarding the rate of these two groups in
active population. The largest proportion of the respondents have higher education level
(27.7% of them have BSc degree, more than 40% of them have MSc degree and 8.4% of them
Economies
2021,9, 55 12 of 22have postgraduate, doctoral degree), which may determine and correlate with their income
status. Based on their self-evaluation the net income per capita in their family is above the
average (50.8%) or much higher than average (17.1%) in Hungary. In terms of industry
where respondents work, they represent almost every group in a similar proportion.
4.2. Factors and Indicators in the Structural Model Independent variables where factor indicators can be used to measure:
Factor 1: physical health (PH)
Factor 2: mental health (MH))
Factor 3: healthy nutrition (HN)
Factor 4: preventive care (PC)
Factor 5: healthcare support (HS)
Factor 6: insurance (INS)
Factor 7: emotional health (EH)
Dependent latent variables can be seen in the following list:
Factor 8: employee wellbeing (WELL)
Factor 9: employee satisfaction (SATIS)
Factor 10: employee loyalty (LOY)
According to the assumption of the authors (deriving from the descriptive statistics of
independent and dependent variables), the variables should be evaluated in three layers
the rst layer variables have an impact on second layer and subsequently the third layer.
Different categories of variables can be seen in Table3.
Table 3. Structure of variables. First Layer Second Layer Third Layer
Insurance Healthcare support Employee wellbeing
Preventive care Physical health Employee satisfaction
Healthy nutrition Emotional health Employee loyalty
Mental health Source: Authors’ own edition.
4.3. PLS-SEMMeasurement Model Results
Data analysis should be started by assessing the construct validity and consistency
reliability of the measurement model (Hair et al.2016). According to the rule dened
byHair et al.(2016), all the outer loadings should above the threshold value of 0.70 to
measure the individual item reliability and composite reliability (CR) should be higher
than 0.7 thresholds (0.60 to 0.70 is considered acceptable) to measure the construct internal
consistency in PLS (Khuong and Linh2020). There were some indicators with outer
loadings’ Cronbach Alpha values under 0.7, therefore, all of them were removed from
nal model. Overall, ve items were removed from scale measurementone item from
healthy nutrition, three items from mental health and one item from physical health were
eliminated from the scale. Construct validity is determined by convergent validity and
discriminant validity. Average variance extracted (AVE) is used to examine convergent
validity. According toFornell and Larcker(1981), AVE values should be above 0.5. AVE
values of all indicators exceeded 0.5 and the composite reliability of the factor model
was higher than 0.7 in all cases. AVE value indicated that constructs achieve adequate
convergent validity. Table4demonstrates all values of composite reliability and convergent
validity related to the model.
Economies
2021,9, 55 13 of 22
Table 4.
Reliability and convergent validity. Cronbach’s
Alpha rho_AComposite
Reliability (CR) Average Variance
Extracted (AVE) Emotional health
0.881 0.884 0.913 0.680
Healthcare support 0.841 0.847 0.894 0.680
Healthy nutrition 0.805 0.809 0.885 0.720
Insurance 0.891 0.907 0.917 0.649
Employee loyalty 0.893 0.903 0.926 0.758
Mental health 0.787 0.787 0.864 0.615
Physical health 0.759 0.758 0.847 0.582
Preventive care 0.737 0.765 0.834 0.558
Employee
satisfaction 0.902 0.91 0.925 0.672
Employee wellbeing 0.769 0.777 0.867 0.685 Source: Authors’ own calculation.Multicollinearity analysis was performed using the Heterotrait-Monotrait ratio of
correlations (HTMT) criteria. It is recommended that HTMT values should be ideally be
below 0.85 (Henseler et al.2015). All the values of HTMT in Table5achieve this, with the
exception of employee satisfaction and employee loyalty where there HTMT value is 0.941.
This is due to the close similarity between the item measures for both variables, although
they are not identical. Moreover, both these variable items are adopted from previous
empirical studies which validates the criterion validity. Additionally, referring to (Hair et al.
2017), HTMT values above 0.9 is not desirable while 0.95 is the threshold that will make
it denitely undesirable. Hence the value in this result is below 0.95, while taking into
account these variables (satisfaction and loyalty) were using items previously tested and
validated in former empirical research and having met composite reliability high scores
and passed the AVE threshold test, this study retains the variables for hypothesis testing.
Table 5. The Heterotrait-Monotrait ratio of correlations (HTMT) result. EH HS HN INS LOY MH PH PC SATIS
Emotional health
Healthcare support
0.398
Healthy nutrition0.237 0.489
Insurance0.465 0.742 0.448
Employee loyalty0.112 0.0650.050.047
Mental health0.392 0.417 0.670 0.405 0.055
Physical health0.185 0.4090.590.339 0.090 0.564
Preventive care0.289 0.610 0.673 0.645 0.041 0.5470.560
Employee Satisfaction0.127 0.0580.060.056 0.941 0.0510.138 0.045
Employee wellbeing 0.780.461 0.407 0.576 0.137 0.4960.456 0.5150.133 Source: Authors’ own calculation.
4.4. PLS-SEMStructural Model Results
This section presents the results of the PLS path model analysis which is used to test
the research hypotheses. Table6presents the path coefcient results, t-stats and r-square
values for endogenous factors.
Based on the result, this study supports H3, H5, H6, H7, H8, H9, H10, H12, H13, H14
and H15 (eleven hypotheses supported); while H1, H2, H4, H11 and H16 (ve hypotheses)
are not supported. Based on the ndings, Figure5is formed as below to highlight the
signicant paths based on the supported hypotheses which depicts the impact of the
research independent variables (layer 1 and layer 2 variables) towards the dependent
variables (layer 3 variables).
Economies
2021,9, 55 14 of 22
Table 6.
Results of PLS Path Modelling and Hypotheses Testing. Hyp. Relationship Path Coef. t-Stats
p-Value r-Square H1
Emotional health -> loyalty 0.011 0.311 0.756 0.737
H2 Emotional health -> satisfaction 0.101 1.557 0.120 0.034
H3 Emotional health -> wellbeing 0.584 9.405 0.000 * 0.488
H4 Healthcare support -> loyalty 0.016 0.61 0.542
H5 Healthcare support -> satisfaction 0.139 2.666 0.008 *
H6 Healthcare support -> wellbeing 0.1 2.044 0.042 *
H7 Healthy nutrition -> mental health 0.535 15.853 0.000 * 0.287
H8 Healthy nutrition -> physical health 0.461 11.44 0.000 * 0.212
H9 Insurance -> healthcare support 0.551 11.98 0.000 * 0.458
H10 Mental health -> emotional health 0.327 7.857 0.000 * 0.107
H11 Physical health -> loyalty 0.035 1.629 0.104
H12 Physical health -> satisfaction 0.117 2.611 0.009 *
H13 Physical health -> wellbeing 0.215 5.066 0.000 *
H14 Preventive care -> healthcare support 0.198 3.937 0.000 *
H15 Satisfaction -> loyalty 0.858 53.416 0.000 *
H16 Wellbeing -> loyalty 0.039 1.046 0.296 Note: * path is signicant at
p-value below 0.05. Source: Authors’ own calculation. Figure 5.
Relationships among variables and direct effects in the model. Source: Authors’ own edition.Economies 2021, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 23
Figure 5. Relationships among variables and direct effects in the model. Source: Authors own edition.
The findings seem to suggest the invisible layers of internal locus of control and
external locus of control in this study. The internal locus of control factors i.e., HN, MH,
PH and EH are self-managed and hence these factors lead to their wellbeing, but do not
lead to workplace satisfaction and loyalty. On the contrary, facilities that are provided by
the organization external locus of control i.e., PC, INS and HS have a twin-role in im-
pacting employee wellbeing and satisfaction with their workplace. It shows that funda-
mental HC support systems such as PC and INS must be in place in a workplace to ensure
employee satisfaction and eventually their loyalty. These are considered hygiene factors.
Employee wellbeing appears as a standalone endogenous construct, which is largely im-
pacted by employee self-initiatives factors, hence although organizations may be advo-
cating wellbeing as an organization-driven initiative at the workplace, employees still
perceive wellbeing as their own locus of control and do not attribute it towards their sat-
isfaction and loyalty towards the organization. This is a peculiar finding in this study as
previous literatures in organization development have often supported strong linkages
between organizational initiative to employee wellbeing to their productivity and reten-
tion.
Based on these findings, we theorize that during times of crisis, employees become
more self-reliant and think about self-preservation. During this process, perhaps they dis-
Economies
2021,9, 55 15 of 22The workplace employee wellbeing, satisfaction and loyalty dynamics from the per-
spective of employees seem to be explained in 3 major dimensions. They seem to be
centered around three major categories of determinants that impacts wellbeing, satisfaction
and loyalty uniquely. This study nds, (1) healthcare support (2) physical health and (3)
emotional health are important pre-determinants to employee wellbeing (Figure5).
Healthcare support (HS) seem to be perceived as the external locus of control
here, where facilities such as insurance and preventive care (tangible facilities) are perhaps
perceived as purely at the control and responsibility of employer. Both are very important to
complete a functional HS system of an organization. HS is also an important determination
of employee wellbeing and satisfaction at workplace. However, it does not directly lead
to Loyalty of employees to workplace, probably because it is viewed as Hygiene Factor
and not a motivating factor for employees.
Healthy nutrition (HL) shows a strong impact towards physical health (PH) and also
towards mental health (MH). Therefore, having HN is understood by participants as vital
to support their PH and MH; and these (PH and MH) are perhaps seen by participants
as within their internal locus of control, which they have direct control. MH further
strengthens their emotional health (EH) and eventually their wellbeing. These factors that
are perceived as within employees’ own internal locus of control strongly predicts their
wellbeing, but do not impact their Loyalty to their workplace. Employees feel that these
internal locus control factors such as having healthy nutrition, managing own mental
and physical health as well as their emotional health, as perhaps own responsibility and
since they are responsible for them, so too is their wellbeing at the workplace.
The ndings seem to suggest the invisible layers of internal locus of control and
external locus of control in this study. The internal locus of control factors i.e., HN, MH,
PH and EH are self-managed and hence these factors lead to their wellbeing, but do not
lead to workplace satisfaction and loyalty. On the contrary, facilities that are provided
by the organization external locus of control i.e., PC, INS and HS have a twin-role
in impacting employee wellbeing and satisfaction with their workplace. It shows that
fundamental HC support systems such as PC and INS must be in place in a workplace to
ensure employee satisfaction and eventually their loyalty. These are considered hygiene
factors. Employee wellbeing appears as a standalone endogenous construct, which is
largely impacted by employee self-initiatives factors, hence although organizations may
be advocating wellbeing as an organization-driven initiative at the workplace, employees
still perceive wellbeing as their own locus of control and do not attribute it towards their
satisfaction and loyalty towards the organization. This is a peculiar nding in this study
as previous literatures in organization development have often supported strong linkages
between organizational initiative to employee wellbeing to their productivity and retention.
Based on these ndings, we theorize that during times of crisis, employees become
more self-reliant and think about self-preservation. During this process, perhaps they disas-
sociate the promotion of wellbeing at workplace and their loyalty to workplace. Especially
during this recent COVID-19 pandemic, most employees were working from home and did
not have physical presence in the ofce or work premises. As such, they would have felt
less physical protection from workplace and hence resort to self preservation and reliance
in order to cope with the new norm. As this is a new phenomenon observed through the
ndings of this empirical research, we theorize this behavior as workers’ self-reliance and
preservation. It is a condition where workers become more conscious of their own role
and become self-dependent for their own wellbeing. Although employee wellbeing efforts
are also promoted by their employer, employees seem to view it as their internal locus of
control during pandemic. This can be viewed as an act of self-preservation and survival
during times of crisis and pandemic.
4.5. Limitations and Directions for Future Study
Despite this research provides a better and broader understanding of the impacts
of health-related work benets (and thus, workplace health promotion) on employee
Economies
2021,9, 55 16 of 22wellbeing, satisfactions and loyalty, it also has several limitations listed as followings. The
survey was conducted in Hungary. The empirical study is based on the results derived
from this country, and respondents cannot be characterized by a representative sample with
national coverage. Nevertheless, PLS-SEM is suitable to observe and examine the impact
of latent variables in smaller sample as well. In addition, the validity of conclusions need
not be restricted only to Hungary, since theoretical and empirical results have relevance
also in international environment.
Due to the current COVID-19 pandemic situation it would be worth and useful to
conduct a repeated research with a much larger sample size and deeper diversication
in order to examine if physical and mental health are considered to be such important
factors also after pandemic. Due to this situation, in these days, employees cannot take
advantage of certain health related work benets. Furthermore, some benets can seem
like compulsion now, not a real work benet (for example home ofce).
This study could not use probability sampling methodology due to difculty in
obtaining reliable sampling frame of all employees from all sectors in Hungary during
the time of the data collection. This could be an agenda for future research in this area
of research. Furthermore, the research is planned to extend internationally and make
comparative analysis between countries. It would be necessary to test the self-reliance and
Preservation theory in workplace settings of other cultures and country. Future study could
also harness the power of social media data to capture employees’ habits and behaviors
related to the development of their health awareness and its impact to their wellbeing and
loyalty to workplace.
5. Conclusions
The research paper explains the different health-related work benets as key factors
which play an important role not only in employee wellbeing but also in employee satisfac-
tion and loyalty. Studying the relevant literature sources, it can be clearly seen that there
is not a comprehensive study on these specic factors. The knowledge of non-nancial
motivating factors is crucial for employers, especially nowadays, when health is more
appreciated by the employees. This research discovers new relationships among employee
workplace wellbeing, satisfaction and loyalty variables. Data analysis derived from re-
sponses of large number of employees in Hungary reveal new insights to explain employee
wellbeing at workplace. Based on the results, eemployee wellbeing, satisfaction and loyalty
dynamics from employees’ point of view seem to be explained and evaluated in three
major dimensions: physical health, emotional health and healthcare support which led to
employee wellbeing. The importance of physical health, mental health and thus emotional
health has increased likely due to the COVID-19 pandemic. We found disassociation
between wellbeing and loyalty which is peculiar, and we explain this by theorising workers
self-reliance and preservation behaviour during times of crisis.
Nowadays with home ofce arrangement, exible working hours and work/life
balance are highly appreciated by the employees, therefore emotional health has become
especially important. However, the respondents considered these factors as their own
responsibilities and hence physical and emotional health lead to wellbeing but do not affect
neither their satisfaction nor their loyalty at workplace. This outcome could be a reason due
to the pandemic situation. In contrast, external locus of control variables or factors such as
healthcare support can be considered as important determination of employee wellbeing
and satisfaction. However, it does not directly cause loyalty, probably because it is viewed
as Hygiene Factor and not a motivating factor for employees. Further ndings highlight
that health sensitivity has increased since the willingness to respond was signicantly
above normal. This nding shows that health concerns arouse greater interest among
employees during the pandemic.
Author Contributions:
Conceptualization, E.G.-H.; methodology, E.G.-H. and R.J.N.; software, E.G.-
H. and R.J.N.; validation, E.G.-H. and R.J.N.; formal analysis, E.G.-H. and R.J.N.; investigation,
E.G.-H.; resources, E.G.-H., R.J.N. and M.F.-F.; data curation, E.G.-H. and R.J.N.; writingoriginal
Economies
2021,9, 55 17 of 22draft preparation, E.G.-H.; writingreview and editing, E.G.-H., R.J.N. and M.F.-F.; visualization,
E.G.-H.; supervision, M.F.-F.; project administration, E.G.-H.; funding acquisition, M.F.-F. All the
authors discussed the results, and implications and commented on the manuscript at all stages. All
authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conicts of Interest: The authors declare no conict of interest.
References
Aazami, Sanaz, Khadijah Shamsuddin, Syaqirah Akmal, and Golnaz Azami. 2015. The Relationship Between Job Satisfaction and
Psychological/Physical Health among Malaysian Working Women. The Malaysian Journal of Medical Sciences22: 4046.
Adams, Troy, Janet Bezner, and Mary Steinhardt. 1997. The conceptualization and measurement of perceived wellness: Integrating
balance across and within dimensions.American Journal of Health Promotion11: 20818. [CrossRef]
Andersen, Lars L., David Fishwick, Edward Robinson, Nortjee M. Wiezer, Zoa Mockao, and Vincent Grosjean. 2017. Job satisfaction
is more than a fruit basket, health checks and free exercise: Cross-sectional study among 10,000 wage earners.Scandinavian
Journal of Public Health45: 47684. [CrossRef]
Armstrong, Michael. 2006. A Handbook of Human Resource Management Practice , 10th ed. London: Kogan Page Publishing.
Arocena, Pablo, Imanol Nnez, and Mikel Villanueva. 2008. The impact of prevention measures and organizational factors on
occupational injuries.Safety Science46: 136984. [CrossRef]
Artz, Benjamin. 2010. Fringe benets and job satisfaction. International Journal of Manpower31: 62644. [CrossRef]
Asfar, Taghrid, Laura A. McClure , and Kristopher L. Arheart. 2019. Integrating Worksite Smoking Cessation Services into the
Construction Sector: Opportunities and Challenges. Health Education & Behavior46. [CrossRef]
Bacon, Larry D. 1999. Using LISREL and PLS to Measure Customer Satisfaction. Paper present at the Sawtooth Software Conference
Proceedings, La Jolla, CA, USA, February 25; pp. 3056.
Baptiste, Nicole Renee. 2008. Tightening the link between employee wellbeing at work and performance: A new dimension for HRM.
Management Decision46: 284309. [CrossRef]
Barcan, Cristain. 2016. How to Identify Your Brand’s Sustainable Pathway. Available online:http://www.vinylinfo.org/news/how-
identify- your- brand%E2%80%99s- sustainable- pathway(accessed on 5 March 2018).
Bataineh, Khaled Adnan. 2019. Impact of Work-Life Balance, Happiness at Work, on Employee Performance.International Business
Research 12: 99112. [CrossRef]
Bite, Pal, Marta Konczos Szombathelyi, and Laszlo Vasa. 2020. The concept of labour migration from the perspective of Central and
Eastern Europe. Economics and Sociology 13: 197216. [CrossRef]
Bowen, Howard R. 1953. Social Responsibility and Accountabilities of the Businessman . New York: Harper & Row.
Brammer, Stephen, Andrew Millington, and Bruce Rayton. 2007. The contribution of corporate social responsibility to organizational
commitment.The International Journal of Human Resource Management 18: 170119. [CrossRef]
Brown, Helen E., Nicholas D. Gilson, Nicola W. Burton, and Wendy J. Brown. 2011. Does Physical Activity Impact on Presenteeism and
Other Indicators of Workplace Well-Being?Sports Medicine41: 24962. [CrossRef]
Carroll, Archie B. 1979. A Three-Dimensional Conceptual Model of Corporate Performance.The Academy of Management Review4:
479505. [CrossRef]
Carroll, Archie B. 2016. Carroll’s pyramid of CSR: Taking another look.International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility1: 18.
[CrossRef]
Chwistecka-Dudek, Halina. 2016. Corporate Social Responsibility: Supporters vs. opponents of the concept.Forum Scientiae Oeconomia
4: 17179.
Cloutier, Omer, Laura Felusiak, Calvin Hill, and Enda Jean Pemberton-Jones. 2015. The importance of developing strategies for
employee retention. Journal of Leadership, Accountability and Ethics 12: 11929.
Cochran, Philip L. 2007. The evolution of corporate social responsibility. Business Horizons50: 44954. [CrossRef]
ConocoPhillips Company. 2006. Sustainable Development Report. p. 5. Available online:http://www.sgcc.com.cn/csr/gwqy/
images/20071227/7236.pdf(accessed on 30 March 2016).
Crittenden, Victoria L., William F. Crittenden, Linda K. Ferrell, Ferrell O. C, and Christopher C. Pinney. 2011. Market-Oriented
Sustainability: A Conceptual Framework and Propositions. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science39: 7185. [CrossRef]
Dahlsrud, Alexander. 2006. How Corporate Social Responsibility is dened: An analysis of 37 denitions.Corporate Social Responsibility
and Environmental Management15: 113. [CrossRef]
De Roeck, Kenneth, Assaad El Akremic, and Swaen V. 2016. Consistency Matters! How and When Does Corporate Social Responsibility
Affect Employees’ Organizational Identication? Journal of Management Studies53: 114168. [CrossRef]
Doh, P. J., Benjamin Littell, and Narda R. Quigley. 2015. CSR and sustainability in emerging markets: Societal, institutional, and
organizational inuences.Organizational Dynamics44: 11220. [CrossRef]
Economies
2021,9, 55 18 of 22Dos, Anna. 2017. Multi-criteria decision methods for CSR managementLiterature review.Managerial Economics18: 6386. [CrossRef]
Duffy, Eamon Y., Pranoti G. Hiremath, Pablo Martinez-Amezcua, Richard Safeer, Jennifer A. Schrack, Michael J. Blaha, Erin D. Michos,
Roger S. Blumenthal, Seth S. Martin, and Miguel Cainzos-Achirica. 2021. Opportunities to improve cardiovascular health in the
new American workplace.
American Journal of Preventive Cardiology 5: 100136. [CrossRef]
Dumitrescu, Dalina, and Liliana Nicoleta Simionescu. 2015. Empirical research regarding the inuence of corporate social responsibility
(CSR) activities on companies’ employees and nancial performance.Economic Computation & Economic Cybernetics Studies &
Research49: 5771.
Duraisingam, Vinta, Ken Pidd, and Ann M. Roche. 2009. The impact of work stress and job satisfaction on turnover intentions: A study
of Australian specialist alcohol and other drug workers. Drugs: Education Prevention and Policy16: 21731. [CrossRef]
ENWHP. 2007. Luxembourg Declaration on Workplace Health Promotion in the European Union . Perugia: ENWHP.
European Commission. 2010. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). Available online:https://ec.europa.eu/info/business- economy-
euro/doing- business- eu/corporate- social- responsibility- csr_en(accessed on 20 December 2020).
Fehr, Jnos, and Matthias Reich. 2020. Perceived Impacts of Company Workplace Health Promotion on Employment Relationship.
Journal of Eastern European and Central Asian Research7: 23854.
Fine, Lawrence J., Stephane G. Philogene, Robert Gramling, Elliot J. Coups, and Sarbajit Sinha. 2004. Prevalence of multiple chronic
disease risk factors.American Journal of Preventive Medicine 27: 1824. [CrossRef]
Fornell, Claes, and David F. Larcker. 1981. Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement
Error.Journal of Marketing Research 18: 3950. [CrossRef]
Friedman, Milton. 1970. The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Prots. The New York Times Magazine, September 13.
Giovanis, Eleftherios. 2019. Do the exible employment arrangements increase job satisfaction and employee loyalty? Evidence
from Bayesian networks and instrumental variables.International Journal of Computational Economics and Econometrics9: 84115.
[CrossRef]
Gonda, Gyorgy, Eva Gorgenyi-Hegyes, Robert Jeyakumar Nathan, and Maria Fekete-Farkas. 2020. Competitive Factors of Fashion
Retail Sector with Special Focus on SMEs. Economies8: 95. [CrossRef]
Gorgenyi Hegyes, Eva, and Maria Fekete Farkas. 2019. Internal CSR as a Strategic Management Tool in Reduction of Labour Shortages.
Polish Journal of Management Studies 19: 16781. [CrossRef]
Grabara, Janusz, Codruta Dura, and Imola Driga. 2016. Corporate social responsibility awareness in Romania and Poland: A
comparative analysis.Economics and Sociology 9: 34459. [CrossRef]
Gubler, Timothy, Ian Larkin, and Lamar Perce. 2017. Doing Well by Making Well: The Impact of Corporate Wellness Programs on
Employee Productivity. Management Science64. [CrossRef]
Hair, Joseph, Tomas M. Hult, Christian M. Ringle, and Marko Sarstedt M. 2016.A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation
Modeling (PLS-SEM) . Kennesaw: Kennesaw State University.
Hair, Joseph, Tomas M. Hult, Christian M. Ringle, and Marko Sarstedt. 2017.A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation
Modeling (PLS-SEM). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
Hameed, Imran, Zahid Riaz, Arain A. Ghulam, and Omer Farooq. 2016. How Do Internal and External CSR Affect Employees’
Organizational Identication? A Perspective from the Group Engagement Model. Frontiers in Psychology7: 788. [CrossRef]
Han, Qing, Bang Zheng, Maximillian Agostini, Jocelyn B’elanger, Ben Gtzkow, Jannis Kreienkamp, Anne Margit Reitsema, Jolien A.
van Breen, PsyCorona Collaboration, and N. Pontus Leander. 2021. Associations of risk perception of COVID-19 with emotion
and mental health during the pandemic. Journal of Affective Disorders284: 24755. [CrossRef]
Harari, Marc J., Charles A. Waehler, and James R. Rogers. 2005. An Empirical Investigation of a Theoretically Based Measure of
Perceived Wellness.Journal of Counseling Psychology 52: 93103. [CrossRef]
Hassan, Mohamad, Saad Hassan, M. F. A. Khan , and A. Iqbal. 2013. Impact of HR Practices on Employee Satisfaction and Employee
Loyalty: An Empirical Study of Government Owned Public Sector Banks of Pakistan.Middle-East Journal of Scientic Research16:
18.
Hendriksen, Ingrid J.M., Mirjam Snoijer, Brenda P.H. de Kok, Jeroen van Vilsteren, and Hedwig Hofstetter. 2016. Effectiveness of a
Multilevel Workplace Health Promotion Program on Vitality, Health, and Work-Related Outcomes.Journal of Occupational and
Environmental Medicine58: 57583. [CrossRef]
Henseler, Jrg, Christian M. Ringle, and Marko Sarstedt. 2015. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based
structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 43: 11535. [CrossRef]
Herzberg, Frederick. 1966. Work and the Nature of Man. New York: World Publishing.
Hettler, Bill. 1984. Wellness: Encouraging a lifetime pursuit of excellence. Health Values8: 1317.
Homburg, Christian, and Ruth Stock. 2000. Der kundenorientierte Mitarbeiter. Wiesbaden: Gabler.
Homburg, Christian, and Ruth Stock. 2004. The Link between Salespeople’s Job Satisfaction and Customer Satisfaction in a Business-
to-Business Context: A Dyadic Analysis. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 32: 14458. [CrossRef]
Hong, Eric N. Chee, Lam Zheng Hao, Ramesh Kumar, Charles Ramendran, and Vimala Kadiresan. 2012. An Effectiveness of Human
Resource Management Practices on Employee Retention in Institute of Higher learning: A Regression Analysis.International
Journal of Business Research and Management 3: 6079.
Economies
2021,9, 55 19 of 22Hooker, Stephanie A., Kevin S. Masters, Kaile M. Ross, Kristina Harris Jackson, and John C. Peters. 2021. Multiple Dimensions of
Wellness: Development and Psychometric Properties of the Anschutz Wellness Evaluation 360 (AWE 360).Journal of Well-Being
Assessment
4: 95119. [CrossRef]
Hoppock, Robert. 1935. Job Satisfaction. New York: Harper & Brothers.
Houghton, Susan M., Joan T.A. Gabel, and David W. Williams. 2009. Connecting the Two Faces of CSR: Does Employee Volunteerism
Improve Compliance? Journal of Business Ethics 87: 47794. [CrossRef]
Hwang, Heungsun, Naresh K. Malhotra, Youngchan Kim, Marc A. Tomiuk, and Sungjin Hong. 2010. A comparative study on
parameter recovery of three approaches to structural equation modeling. Journal of Marketing Research47: 699712. [CrossRef]
Kashyap, Rajiv, Raza Mir, and Ali Mir. 2011. Corporate Social Responsibility: A Call for Multidisciplinary Inquiry.Journal of Business &
Economics Research2: 5158.
Kasper, Helmut, Jurgen Muehlbacher, Georg Kodydek, and Liping Zhang. 2012. Fringe benets and loyalty on the Chinese labor
market a trend towards higher individual and performance-orientation a case study focusing on technology companies in the
shanghai region.Journal of Technology Management in China 7: 16476. [CrossRef]
Kerekes, Sandor, and Konrad Wetzker. 2007.The Concept of a Socially Responsible Company Is Heading East (In Hungarian). Working
Paper. Budapest: Budapesti Corvinus Egyetem.
Khuong, Mai Ngoc, and Ung Doan Thuy Linh. 2020. Inuence of work-related stress on employee motivation, job satisfaction and
employee loyalty in hospitality industry.Management Science Letters10: 327990. [CrossRef]
Khuong, Mai Ngoc, and Bui Diem Tien. 2013. Factors inuencing employee loyalty directly and indirectly through job satisfactionA
study of banking sector in Ho Chi Minh City. International Journal of Current Research and Academic Review 1: 8195.
Khuong, Mai Ngoc, Tran Phuong Mai, and Thi Minh Phuong. 2020. The impacts of human resource management practices on
employees’ motivation and loyalty.Management Science Letters10: 267382. [CrossRef]
Kot, Sebastian. 2014. Knowledge and Understanding of Corporate Social Responsibility.Journal of Advanced Research in Law and
Economics2: 10919.
Kot, Sebastian, and Stanislaw Brzezinski. 2015. Market Orientation Factors in Sustainable Development and Corporate Social
Responsibility. Asian Journal of Applied Sciences 8: 10112. [CrossRef]
Krekel Christian, George Ward, Jan-Emmanuel De Neve, and Council Members. 2019. Employee Well-being, Productivity, and Firm
Performance: Evidence and Case Studies. InGlobal Happiness and Wellbeing Policy Report, by Global Council for Happiness and
Wellbeing. New York: Sustainable Development Solutions Network, Chapter 5, pp. 7294.
Kuoppala, Jaana, Anne Lamminp, Juha Liira, and Harri Vainio. 2008. Leadership, Job Well-Being, and Health EffectsA Systematic
Review and a Meta-Analysis. American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 50: 90415. [CrossRef]
Lee, Mo Siu-Mei, Ming-Been Lee, Shih-Cheng Liao, and Fu-Tien Chiang. 2009. Relationship Between Mental Health and Job Satisfaction
Among Employees in a Medical Center Department of Laboratory Medicine.Journal of the Formosan Medical Association108:
14654. [CrossRef]
Lee, Thomas W., Peter Hom, Marion Eberly, and Junchao Li J. 2018. Managing employee retention and turnover with 21st century
ideas.Organizational Dynamics 47: 8898. [CrossRef]
Li, Yichong, Mei Zhang, Yong Jiang, and Fan Wu. 2007. Co-variations and Clustering of Chronic Disease Behavioral Risk Factors in
China: China Chronic Disease and Risk Factor Surveillance. PLoS ONE7: e33881. [CrossRef]
Lichtenstein, Donald, Drumwright E, and Bridgette M. Braig. 2004. The Effect of Corporate Social Responsibility on Customer
Donations to Corporate-Supported Nonprots. Journal of Marketing68: 1632. [CrossRef]
Linardakis, Manolis, Angeliki Papadaki, Emmanouil Smpokos, Katerina Micheli, Maria Vozikaki, and Anastas Philalithis. 2015.
Association of Behavioral Risk Factors for Chronic Diseases with Physical and Mental Health in European Adults Aged 50 Years
or Older, 20042005. Preventing Chronic DiseasePublic Health Research, Practice, and Policy 12: 150134. [CrossRef]
Ling, Y. 2019. Cultural and contextual inuences on corporate social responsibility.Cross Cultural & Strategic Management26: 290310.
Linton, Myles-Jay, Paul Dieppe, and Antonieta Medina Lara. 2016. Review of 99 self-report measures for assessing well-being in adults:
Exploring dimensions of well-being and developments over time.BMJ Open6: e010641. [CrossRef]
Locke, Edwin A. 1976. The Nature and Causes of Job Satisfaction. InHandbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Edited by
Marvin D. Dunnette. Chicago: Rand McNally, pp. 1297350.
Loef, Martin, and Harald Walach. 2012. The combined effects of healthy lifestyle behaviors on all cause mortality: A systematic review
and meta-analysis. Preventive Medicine55: 163170. [CrossRef]
Macassa, Gloria, Jose Da Cruz Francisco, and Cormac McGrath. 2017. Corporate Social Responsibility and Population Health.Health
Science Journal11: 528. [CrossRef]
Mak, Brenda, and Hy Sockel. 2001. A Conrmatory Factor Analysis of IS Employee Motivation and Retention.Information &
Management38: 26576.
Maldoy, Katrien, Charlotte J. De Backer, and Karolien Poels. 2021. The pleasure of sharing: Can social context make healthy food more
appealing?Psychology & Marketing 38: 35970. [CrossRef]
Mansoor, Muhammad, Sabtain Fida, Saima Nasir, and Zubair Ahmad. 2011. The Impact of Job Stress on Employee Job Satisfaction A
Study on Telecommunication Sector of Pakistan. Journal of Business Studies Quarterly2: 5056.
Martensen, Anne, and Lars Gronholdt. 2001. Internal marketing: A study of employee loyalty, its determinants and consequences.
Innovative Marketing2: 92116.
Economies
2021,9, 55 20 of 22Matthiesen, Marie-Louise, and Astrid Juliane Salzmann. 2017. Corporate social responsibility and rms’ cost of equity: How does
culture matter?
Cross Cultural & Strategic Management 24: 10524.
Matzler, Kurt, and Birgit Renzl. 2006. The relationship between interpersonal trust, employee satisfaction and employee loyalty.Total
Quality Management and Business Excellence 17: 126171. [CrossRef]
Matzler, Kurt, Elmar Sauerwein, and Kenneth A. Heischmidt. 2003. ImportancePerformance Analysis revisited: The role of the factor
structure of customer satisfaction.The Service Industries Journal23: 11230. [CrossRef]
Mcdaid, David, A-La Park, and Kristian Wahlbreck. 2009. Annual Review of Public Health40. [CrossRef]
McMichael, Anthony J. 2006. Population health as the `bottom line’ of sustainability: A contemporary challenge for public health
researchers.European Journal of Public Health 16: 57982. [CrossRef]
McWilliams, Abagail, and Donald Siegel. 2000. Corporate Social Responsibility: A Theory of the Firm Perspective.The Academy of
Management Review26: 11727. [CrossRef]
Meiselman, Herbert L. 2016. Quality of life, well-being and wellness: Measuring subjective health for foods and other products.Food
Quality and Preference 54: 1019. [CrossRef]
Mihai, Eliza-Gabriela, and Jean-Paul Bakkenist. 2018.The Impact of External CSR Practices on Employees: Exploring the Organizational
Activities That Inuence Employee Engagement within CSR . Jonkoping: Jnkping University Business School.
Muchinsky, Paul M. 1977. Organizational communication: Relationships to organizational climate and job satisfaction.Academy of
Management Journal20: 592607.
Murali, Sachin, Aayush Poddar, and A. Seema. 2017. Employee Loyalty, Organizational Performance & Performance EvaluationA
Critical Survey.IOSR Journal of Business and Management (IOSR-JBM) 19: 6274.
Nathan, Robert Jeyakumar, Vijay Victor, Chin Lay Gan, and Sebastian Kot. 2019. Electronic commerce for home-based businesses in
emerging and developed economy.Eurasian Business Review9: 46383. [CrossRef]
O’Brien, Ellen. 2003. Employers’ Benets from Workers’ Health Insurance. The Milbank Quarterly81: 543. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
O’Brien, William H., Shan Wang, Huanzhen Xu, Shiwei Wang, Zaiying Yang, Joy Ting Yang, Qinwanxian Liu, Xin Zhang, Lingi Tang,
Aniko V. Varga, and et al. 2021. Psychological reactions to COVID-19: Survey data assessing perceived susceptibility, distress,
mindfulness, and preventive health behaviors. Data in Brief34: 106687. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Olah, Judit, Adam Szolnok, Gyula Nagy, Peter Lengyel, and Jozsef Popp. 2017. The Impact of Lean Thinking on Workforce Motivation:
A Success Factor at LEGO Manufacturing Ltd. Journal of Competitiveness9: 93109. [CrossRef]
Ozminkowski, Ronald J., Seth Serxner, Karen Marlo, Rohit Kichlu, Erin Ratelis, and Jennifer Van de Meulebroecke. 2016. Beyond ROI:
Using Value of Investment to Measure Employee Health and Wellness. Population Health Management19: 2279. [CrossRef]
Pharr, Jennifer R., and Tim Bungum. 2012. Health disparities experienced by people with disabilities in the United States: A Behavioral
Risk Factor Surveillance System study. Global Journal of Health Science4: 99108. [CrossRef]
Proper, Karin, and Willem van Mechelen. 2007.Background Paper Prepared for the WHO/WEF Joint Event on Preventing Noncommunicable
Diseases in the Workplace. Geneva: World Health Organization, WHO Press.
Rahman, Muhammad Khalil Ur, and Fazal Haleem. 2018. On the relationship between emotional intelligence and job satisfaction.
Middle East Journal of Business 13: 1317.
Rani, Sakthivel, Kamalanabhan, and Selvarani Mariappan. 2011. Work/life balance reections on employee satisfaction.Serbian Journal
of Management6: 8596. [CrossRef]
Renzl, Birgit. 2003. Mitarbeiter als Wissensressource. InWerte schaffen-Perspektiven einer stakeholderorientierten Unternehmensfuhrung.
Wiesbaden: Gabler, pp. 31934.
Ringle, Christian M., Marko Sarstedt, Rainer Schlittgen, and Charles R. Taylor. 2013. PLS path modeling and evolutionary segmentation.
Journal of Business Research 66: 131824. [CrossRef]
Roscoe, Lauren J. 2009. Wellness: A review of theory and measurement for counselors.Journal of Counseling and Development87: 21626.
[CrossRef]
Sarstedt, Marko, Jrg Henseler, and Christian M. Ringle. 2011. Multigroup analysis in partial least squares (PLS) path modeling:
Alternative methods and empirical results. Advances in International Marketing22: 195218.
Sarstedt, Marko, Christian M. Ringle, Donna Smith, and Russell Reams. 2014. Partial least squares structural equation modeling
(PLS-SEM): A useful tool for family business researchers. Journal of Family Business Strategy5: 10515. [CrossRef]
Sears, Lindsay E., Sangeeta Agrawal, James A. Sidney, Patricia H. Castle, Elizabeth Y. Rula, and Carter R. Coberley. 2014. The well-being:
Development and validation of a diagnostic instrument to improve population well-being.Population Health Management17:
35765. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Sen, Sankar, C.B. Bhattacharya, and Daniel Korschun. 2006. The Role of Corporate Social Responsibility in Strengthening Multiple
Stakeholder Relationships: A Field Experiment. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science34: 15866. [CrossRef]
Shpak, Nestor, Nataliia Stanasiuk, Oleh Volodymyrovych Hlushko, and Wlodimierz Sroka. 2018. Assessment of the social and labor
components of industrial potential in the context of corporate social responsibility.Polish Journal of Management Studies17: 20920.
[CrossRef]
Skagen, Kristian, and Alison Collins. 2016. The consequences of sickness presenteeism on health and wellbeing over time: A systematic
review.Social Science & Medicine 161: 16977.
SMARTPLS GMBH. 2019. SmartPLS Software and Webpage. Available online:https://www.smartpls.com/(accessed on 10 October
2020).
Economies
2021,9, 55 21 of 22Smedslund, Geir, Fisher K. J, Shawn M. Boles, and Edward Lichtenstein. 2004. The effectiveness of workplace smoking cessation
programmes: A meta-analysis of recent studies.
Tobacco Control13: 197204. [CrossRef]
Soo You, Kwang, and HaeOk Lee. 2006. The physical, mental, and emotional health of older people who are living alone or with
relatives.Archives of Psychiatric Nursing 20: 193201.
Spector, Paul E. 1997. Job satisfaction: Application, Assessment, Causes, and Consequences . Thousand Oaks: Sage Publication Inc.
Stawicka, Eva. 2018. Social Responsibility Model of the Sustainable Development in Enterprises in Poland.The Journal of Human and
Work4: 14349.
Stojanovic, Andelka, Isidora Milosevic, Sanela Arsic, Snezana Urosevic, and Ivan Mihajlovic. 2020. Corporate Social Responsibility as a
Determinant of Employee Loyalty and Business Performance. Journal of Competitiveness12: 14966. [CrossRef]
Strenitzerov, Mariana, and Karol Achimsk. 2019. Employee Satisfaction and Loyalty as a Part of Sustainable Human Resource
Management in Postal Sector. Sustainability11: 4591. [CrossRef]
Szabo, Agnes, and Peter Juhasz. 2019. Possibilities of Measuring the Value Creation of Workplace Health Programs (in Hungarian).
Vezetstudom ny 50: 5971.
Szegedi, Krisztina, Khan Yahya, and Csaba Lentner. 2020. Corporate Social Responsibility and Financial Performance: Evidence from
Pakistani Listed Banks. Sustainability12: 4080. [CrossRef]
Taras, Vas, Piers Steel, and Bradley L. Kirkman. 2011. Three decades of research on national culture in the workplace: Do the differences
still make a difference? Organizational Dynamics 403: 18998. [CrossRef]
Tasmania. 2012. Your Simple Guide to Workplace Health and Wellbeing. Available online:http://worksafe.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/
pdf_le/0003/252390/your_simple_guide_to_workplace_health_and_wellbeing.pdf(accessed on 10 September 2017).
Taylor, Frederick Winslow. 1911. The Principles of Scientic Management . New York: Harper & Brothers.
Tekleab, Amanuel G., Riki Takeuchi, and M. Susan Taylor. 2005. Extending the chain of relationships among organizational justice,
social exchange, and employee reactions: The role of contract violations. Academy of Management Journal48: 14657. [CrossRef]
Thao, Le Ha Nhu Theo, Doan Ngoc Phi Anh, and Jlan Velencei. 2019. Measuring corporate social performance.Serbian Journal of
Management14: 193204.
Tietjen, Mark A., and Robert A. Myers. 1998. Motivation and job satisfaction. Management Decision36: 22631. [CrossRef]
Toussaint, Mariana, Pablo Cabanelas, and Tania Elena Gonzlez-Alvarade. 2021. What about the consumer choice? The inuence of
social sustainability on consumer ‘s purchasing behavior in the Food Value Chain.European Research on Management and Business
Economics27: 100134. [CrossRef]
Turen, Ufuk, Haluk Erdem, and Asil Camoglu. 2017. The effects of perceived quality of organizationally provided meal service on
employees’ job performance and mediating role of organizational identication.Journal of Workplace Behavioral Health. [CrossRef]
Turker, Duygu. 2009. How corporate social responsibility inuences organizational commitment.Journal of Business Ethics89: 189204.
[CrossRef]
Turkyilmaz, Ali, G. Akman, Coskun Ozkan, and Zbigniew Pastuszak. 2011. Empirical study of public sector employee loyalty and
satisfaction. Industrial Management & Data Systems 111: 67596.
UN. 2020. Sustainable Development Goals. Available online:https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable- development-
goals/(accessed on 19 March 2020).
Victor, Vijay, Jose Joy Thoppan, Maria Fekete-Farkas, and Janusz Grabara. 2019. Pricing strategies in the era of digitalisation and the
perceived shift in consumer behaviour of youth in Poland. Journal of International Studies12: 7491. [CrossRef]
Vlachos, Pavlos, Nikolaos G. Panagopoulos, and Adam Rapp. 2014. Employee judgments of and behaviors toward corporate social
responsibility: A multi-study investigation of direct, cascading, and moderating effects.Journal of Organizational Behavior35:
9901017. [CrossRef]
Waqas, Athar, Umair Bashir, Muhammad Fahad Sattar, Haz Muhammad Abdullah, Imitaz Hussain, Waqas Anjum, Muhammad
Aftab Ali, and Rizwan Arshad. 2014. Factors Inuencing Job Satisfaction and Its Impact on Job Loyalty.International Journal of
Learning & Development4: 14161.
Ward, E. A. 1988. Relation of job satisfaction and job knowledge and their effect on intention to turnover.Psychological Reports63:
61115. [CrossRef]
Warner, Kenneth E., David Mendez, and Dean G. Smith. 2004. The Financial Implications of Coverage of Smoking Cessation Treatment
by Managed Care Organizations. Inquiry41: 5769. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
WCED. 1987.Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p.
27.
Werner, Wendy J. 2009. Corporate Social Responsibility Initiatives Addressing Social Exclusion in Bangladesh.Journal of Health
Population and Nutrition 27: 54562. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
WHO. 1948. Constitution of the World Health Organization as adopted by the International Health Conference, New York, 1922
June 1946; signed on 22 July 1946 by the representatives of 61 States (Ofcial Records of the World Health Organization, no. 2, p.
100) and entered into force on 7 April 1948. In Grad, Frank P. (2002). The Preamble of the Constitution of the World Health
Organization.Bulletin of the World Health Organization 80: 982.
WHO. 1986. The Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion. Available online:http://www.who.int/healthpromotion/conferences/
previous/ottawa/en/(accessed on 20 June 2018).
WHO. 2017. Health Impact Assessment. Available online:http://www.who.int/hia/evidence/doh/en/(accessed on 25 June 2017).
Economies
2021,9, 55 22 of 22WHO. 2018. Mental Health: Strengthening Our Response. Available online:https://www.who.int/news- room/fact- sheets/detail/
mental- health- strengthening- our- response(accessed on 12 December 2020).
Witek-Crabb, Anna. 2019. CSR Maturity in Polish Listed Companies: A Qualitative Diagnosis Based on a Progression Model.
Sustainability
11: 1736. [CrossRef]
Wong, Ken Kwong-Kay. 2013. Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) Techniques Using SmartPLS.Marketing
Bulletin24: 132.
Yaseen, Al-Dubai Omar. 2020. The inuence of emotional intelligence and organizational politics on employee turnover and
performance. Frontiers in Management and Business 1: 5162. [CrossRef]
Zhang, Jiangchi, Chaowu Xie, and Alastair M. Morrison. 2021. The effect of corporate social responsibility on hotel employee safety
behavior during COVID-19: The moderation of belief restoration and negative emotions.Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
Management46: 23343. [CrossRef]
Zhu, Quinghua, Hang Yin, Junjun Liu, and Kee-Hung Lai. 2014. How is employee perception of organizational efforts in corporate
social responsibility related to their satisfaction and loyalty towards developing harmonious society in Chinese enterprises?
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 21: 2840. [CrossRef]