The Influence of Organizational Fairness,Identity and Empowerment on Employee Creativity: Mediating Role of Corporate Social Responsibility

Abstract

This study investigates the relationships between organizational fairness, perceived organizational identity, employee empowerment, corporate social responsibility (CSR), and employee creativity within Malaysian organizations. Using a quantitative research design, data were gathered from 500 employees across manufacturing, services, and IT sectors. Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) analysis revealed that organizational fairness (β = .157, p < .05) and employee empowerment (β = .274, p < .001) significantly enhance employee creativity, with CSR playing a dual role as both a direct driver of creativity (β = .400, p < .001) and a mediator for fairness and empowerment. Conversely, perceived organizational identity showed minimal direct influence on creativity (β = .060, p = .407), suggesting its role may depend on contextual factors. These findings emphasize the importance of CSR initiatives, equitable practices, and employee empowerment in fostering creativity, providing practical strategies for managers and policymakers aiming to enhance innovation within organizations.

Keywords

organizational fairness employee empowerment corporate social responsibility employee creativity perceived organizational identity organizational culture

Introduction

Creativity and innovation are indispensable for organizations striving to maintain competitiveness and achieve long-term success in today’s dynamic business landscape (Bilderback, 2023; Orieno et al., 2024). Companies that prioritize innovation are 33% more likely to outperform their competitors (BCG, 2021). However, only 35% of employees worldwide perceive their organizations as fostering environments conducive to creativity (Wigert & Robison, 2018). This disconnect underscores a significant challenge: while organizations recognize the value of creativity, many fail to implement the necessary practices to cultivate it effectively (Srimulyani & Hermanto, 2022). This issue is particularly pertinent in Malaysia (Lebdioui et al., 2021), where economic growth increasingly depends on transitioning from resource-based industries to knowledge-intensive sectors such as manufacturing, services, and IT. Understanding how organizational practices—such as fairness, empowerment, and corporate social responsibility (CSR)—influence employee creativity is critical for sustaining this transformation (N. Ahmad et al., 2022, 2024; Iqbal & Parray, 2024).

Organizational justice, encompassing distributive (Burri et al., 2021), procedural (Sikandar et al., 2022), and interactional justice (Farid et al., 2023), is widely regarded as foundational for fostering trust and psychological safety—key precursors to creativity (B. Kim, 2022; Nazir et al., 2019). Fairness in resource allocation (distributive justice), decision-making processes (procedural justice), and interpersonal treatment (interactional justice) encourages employees to engage in creative behaviors (Ye et al., 2022). In Malaysia, where workplace diversity and hierarchical structures often shape employee perceptions (Choo et al., 2023), the role of fairness may be further complicated by cultural nuances. For instance, procedural justice may have varying effects on creativity depending on leadership styles and cultural alignment (Jaboob et al., 2023). These findings necessitate deeper investigation into how justice interacts with cultural and leadership factors to influence creativity in Malaysia.

CSR is another critical driver of creativity, promoting employee engagement, autonomy, and job meaningfulness (Chaudhary & Akhouri, 2019; Tong et al., 2019). In Malaysia, the push for CSR is bolstered by national policies and incentives aimed at promoting sustainable business practices (Wan, 2023), making CSR not just an ethical obligation but also a competitive imperative (Mitnick et al., 2023). CSR initiatives that focus on employee well-being and environmental stewardship have been shown to create a sense of purpose, motivating employees to generate and apply innovative ideas (Guo et al., 2021). However, the mechanisms through which CSR impacts creativity remain underexplored. While psychological safety and organizational pride are proposed mediators (B.-J. Kim et al., 2021), the interaction of perceived, internal, and external CSR dimensions requires further investigation, particularly in Malaysia’s unique regulatory and cultural environment.

Similarly, perceived organizational identity, which reflects employees’ alignment with their organization’s values and mission, is a critical factor in fostering work engagement and enhancing problem-solving behaviors (Hui et al., 2020; G. Zhang & Wang, 2021). In Malaysia’s culturally diverse workplaces, identity alignment is influenced not only by organizational values but also by broader societal and cultural norms (Adams & Velarde, 2021; Cheah & Lim, 2024). This interplay between individual and organizational identity becomes even more pronounced in settings where leadership plays a transformative role. For example, research highlights that transformational leadership, when coupled with a strong creative role identity, can significantly enhance organizational identification, thereby promoting creativity in roles requiring non-routinized, innovative thinking (H. Liu et al., 2021; H. Zhang et al., 2022). Additionally, supervisors’ creativity has been shown to positively influence subordinates’ creativity, mediated through the subordinates’ own creative role identity (Lingling & Ye, 2023). This effect is further amplified in environments where organizational support for creativity is robust (Koseoglu et al., 2017). However, a deeper understanding of how these dynamics unfold within Malaysia’s unique cultural and organizational landscape is still lacking. Addressing this gap could unlock significant potential for fostering creativity through tailored leadership strategies and identity-driven initiatives that resonate with Malaysia’s diverse workforce and evolving economic priorities.

Employee empowerment, encompassing structural and psychological dimensions (Llorente-Alonso et al., 2024; Spreitzer et al., 1997), has consistently been linked to creativity (Barua et al., 2024; Chow, 2018). Structural empowerment, characterized by autonomy, resources, and decision-making authority, and psychological empowerment, which fosters intrinsic motivation through competence and purpose, both play critical roles (Echebiri et al., 2020; Singh & Sarkar, 2019). However, in Malaysia, where hierarchical cultural norms can limit autonomy (Loo et al., 2024), the effectiveness of empowerment strategies may depend on their alignment with organizational culture. Developmental and group-oriented cultures amplify the positive effects of empowerment on creativity, while hierarchical cultures tend to suppress them (Makumbe, 2021; Shamsuddin et al., 2023). This interplay between culture and empowerment warrants deeper exploration to identify culturally compatible strategies that enhance creativity.

While existing studies have explored fairness (Kapoor & Kaufman, 2022), CSR, identity (Mohammed et al., 2022), and empowerment individually (Imam et al., 2020) in relation to creativity, their combined effects remain underexplored, particularly in the Malaysian context. Additionally, the moderating role of organizational culture in these relationships is not fully understood as no study have tested the relations. Developmental and rational cultures are generally conducive to creativity, whereas hierarchical cultures often inhibit it, raising questions about how to align cultural practices with organizational objectives to foster creativity (Makumbe, 2021; Shamsuddin et al., 2023). Moreover, there is a notable absence of an integrated theoretical framework linking Social Exchange Theory (SET), Self-Determination Theory (SDT), and Stakeholder Theory (ST) to explain the interplay of these factors in driving creativity (Chowdhury et al., 2023).

To address these gaps, this study investigates how organizational fairness, perceived organizational identity, employee empowerment, and CSR collectively influence employee creativity. It also examines the mediating role of CSR and the moderating effect of organizational culture on these relationships. The research is guided by the following questions:

1. How do organizational fairness, perceived organizational identity, employee empowerment, and CSR individually and jointly influence employee creativity?

2. What is the mediating role of CSR in the relationship between (a) fairness, (b) identity, (c) empowerment, and creativity?

3. Does organizational culture moderate the relationships between fairness, identity, empowerment, CSR, and creativity?

This study adopts a quantitative research design, collecting survey data from employees across Malaysia’s manufacturing, services, and IT sectors. Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) is employed to test the hypothesized relationships, offering empirical insights into the mechanisms that foster or hinder creativity. By integrating SET (Blau, 1964), SDT (Deci & Ryan, 2008), and ST (Mahajan et al., 2023), this research provides a comprehensive framework for understanding creativity in organizational contexts. These findings aim to guide Malaysian managers and policymakers in designing equitable, empowering, and socially responsible environments that nurture innovation and sustain competitiveness in a global market.

Literature Review

Employee Creativity

Employee creativity, defined as the ability to generate novel and useful ideas, forms the cornerstone of organizational innovation and long-term competitiveness (Oldham & Baer, 2011). Creativity in organizations manifests across two primary dimensions: creative performance, and innovative work behavior (IWB), emphasizing the application and execution of these ideas (AlMazrouei et al., 2023; H. Li et al., 2020; Örnek & Ayas, 2015). Both dimensions are essential for organizations to adapt to dynamic market conditions, particularly in Malaysia’s rapidly evolving sectors like manufacturing, services, and IT, where creativity is pivotal for sustaining growth and competitive differentiation (Chen & Zhu, 2014; Rhee & Jin, 2019). Openness to experience and intrinsic motivation are well-established individual drivers of creative problem-solving (Kiesler, 2022; Urban et al., 2021), particularly when personal goals align with organizational objectives (H. Liu et al., 2024). These traits, however, do not operate in isolation. Contextual factors such as transformational and inclusive leadership styles further amplify creativity by fostering psychological safety, enabling employees to explore innovative ideas without fear of criticism or negative repercussions (Y. J. Kim et al., 2020). In Malaysia’s culturally diverse work environments, inclusive leadership is especially impactful, bridging cultural differences to foster collective creativity.

Organizational enablers like knowledge sharing and high-performance work systems (HPWS) further enhance creativity by promoting collaboration and autonomy (Nguyen et al., 2024). HPWS, which prioritize competence and development (Kamna & Ilkhanizadeh, 2022), are particularly significant in Malaysia’s transition toward a knowledge-based economy (Nuccio & Mogno, 2023). These systems not only align organizational structures with innovation goals but also empower employees to take ownership of their roles (Mehralian et al., 2022), facilitating the transition from creative ideation to actionable implementation (Alblooshi et al., 2020). Yet, challenges persist. Balancing radical and incremental innovation, navigating hierarchical cultural norms, and measuring creativity’s multifaceted nature require tailored approaches to ensure effectiveness. In Malaysia, where cultural norms may inhibit empowerment, aligning practices with group-oriented and developmental cultures is crucial for fostering innovation (Makumbe, 2021). This study positions employee creativity as reflective of both creative performance and IWB, investigating how organizational fairness, perceived identity, empowerment, and CSR influence these outcomes. By situating creativity within Malaysia’s organizational and cultural contexts, the study addresses the critical need for environments that balance individual and organizational factors to sustain innovation and competitiveness.

Organizational Fairness

Organizational fairness, encompassing distributive (Stivers et al., 2023), procedural (Colquitt et al., 2023), and interactional justice (Farid et al., 2023), significantly shapes employees’ attitudes, behaviors, and creative capacities within the workplace (Bankins et al., 2023; Ye et al., 2022). Together, these dimensions form the basis of trust and equity, foundational elements for fostering an innovative work environment (T. Akram et al., 2020).

Distributive justice pertains to perceptions of fairness in resource allocation, such as pay, rewards, and recognition (Gurney et al., 2021). Employees who perceive equity in outcomes are more likely to feel valued, motivating them to contribute innovative ideas (T. Akram et al., 2020). This dimension is particularly salient in Malaysia (N. A. Ahmad et al., 2022), where economic competitiveness is tightly linked to incentivizing creative contributions (Indradevi, 2022). Procedural justice, on the other hand, emphasizes fairness in decision-making processes (Mulgund, 2022), including transparency, consistency, and employee participation. Transparent and inclusive frameworks not only build trust but also create environments where employees are encouraged to engage in creative problem-solving (Bujold et al., 2022; Lambert et al., 2023). For Malaysian organizations, which often operate within hierarchical structures, the emphasis on procedural justice can mitigate power imbalances (Wook, 2019), enabling employees to voice ideas without fear of retribution. Interactional justice, focusing on respectful treatment and effective communication (Gupta et al., 2021), is equally critical in fostering employee creativity. Respectful interpersonal interactions create psychological safety (Itzchakov & DeMarree, 2022), which is essential for both ideation and implementation of innovative ideas. In hierarchical cultural contexts like Malaysia, interactional justice plays a pivotal role in addressing status-driven dynamics, allowing employees to feel secure in contributing creative solutions (Wu & Li, 2007).

Organizational fairness not only integrates these dimensions but also aligns them with broader innovation goals. Distributive justice motivates ideation by recognizing contributions (Leclercq et al., 2020), procedural justice ensures fair evaluation and implementation of ideas (Van Lent, 2014), and interactional justice fosters the trust necessary for risk-taking (Mittal et al., 2019). However, existing literature often overlooks the interplay between these dimensions, particularly in culturally diverse contexts like Malaysia. For instance, while procedural and interactional justice have been shown to enhance creativity through trust-building, their relative contributions in cultures with high power distance (Zolfaghari & Madjdi, 2022), such as Malaysia, remain underexplored. This study examines organizational fairness as a multidimensional construct influencing employee creativity in Malaysian organizations. By investigating the interplay between fairness dimensions and their combined effects on creativity, the research aims to provide actionable insights into how equitable practices can drive innovation and competitive advantage in culturally nuanced environments.

Perceived Organizational Identity

Perceived organizational identity, reflecting employees’ alignment with their organization’s values and mission (Ahn, 2022; Ouakouak & Ouedraogo, 2013), significantly influences creative performance and IWB. This sense of alignment fosters intrinsic motivation and engagement, enabling employees to channel cognitive and emotional resources into innovative behaviors (H. Li et al., 2020; G. Zhang & Wang, 2021). Employees who perceive a strong organizational identity are more likely to internalize the organization’s goals (Ahn, 2022), translating these into creative contributions.

Organizational fairness directly enhances perceived identity by creating trust and legitimacy (De Roeck & Delobbe, 2012). Fair practices, including equitable resource distribution and transparent decision-making (Cheng & Jiang, 2020), enhance organization-based self-esteem and authenticity—critical factors for fostering creativity (Lynch et al., 2021; X. Wang et al., 2020; Wen et al., 2021). For instance, employees who perceive fairness in their workplace are more likely to feel that their contributions are meaningful, thereby increasing their commitment to creative problem-solving. However, while organizational identification drives creativity, its effects are sometimes mediated by self-oriented mechanisms like self-esteem (Jiang et al., 2024; Si et al., 2023), suggesting that fairness must be paired with strategies that bolster individual motivation.

Empowerment further reinforces the connection between perceived identity and creativity (Burhan et al., 2024; X. Zhang & Bartol, 2010). Leadership empowerment behaviors (LEB), which emphasize autonomy and recognition, create climates where employees feel valued and motivated to contribute. Such environments not only elevate employees’ self-perceived status but also promote continuous feedback and refinement of ideas, critical for innovation (Valero-Pastor et al., 2021). In Malaysia, where hierarchical norms can suppress employee agency, deliberate efforts to integrate empowerment into organizational practices are essential.

By integrating perceived organizational identity with fairness and empowerment, organizations can create environments conducive to creativity (R. Li et al., 2018; W. Liu et al., 2016). Perceived identity fosters a sense of belonging, fairness ensures meaningfulness, and empowerment promotes psychological safety. Together, these factors enable employees to navigate the dual dimensions of creativity—ideation and implementation—effectively. This study examines perceived organizational identity as a driver of creativity in Malaysian organizations, highlighting its role in fostering innovative behaviors within a competitive global market.

Theoretical Underpinning

The theoretical foundation of this study is anchored in Social Exchange Theory (SET), Self-Determination Theory (SDT), and Stakeholder Theory, collectively providing a comprehensive understanding of how organizational practices drive employee creativity, with CSR playing a crucial mediating role.

Social Exchange Theory (SET) serves as the primary lens for this study, positing that social behavior is driven by an exchange process where individuals aim to maximize benefits and minimize costs (Blau, 1964). Within the workplace context, SET suggests that when employees perceive fairness, support, and empowerment from their organization, they are likely to reciprocate with positive behaviors such as increased creativity (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). Recent studies underscore the significance of SET-in enhancing creativity through various mediators and contextual factors. For instance, knowledge-based HR practices promote creativity by fostering knowledge sharing and reducing knowledge hiding, aligning with SET principles (Lugar & Novićević, 2021). The employee-organization exchange (EOX) has also been found to influence creativity through need satisfaction, moderated by leader-member exchange (LMX) and creative self-efficacy (Pan et al., 2020). Additionally, Z. Wang et al. (2022) demonstrate that enterprise social media enhances creativity through LMX and perceived support for innovation. These findings collectively emphasize how organizational fairness, identity, and empowerment contribute to employee creativity, particularly when reinforced by CSR initiatives.

To deepen the understanding of the mechanisms driving these reciprocal behaviors, this study integrates Self-Determination Theory (SDT), which emphasizes the importance of autonomy, competence, and relatedness in fostering intrinsic motivation, crucial for creativity (Ryan & Deci, 2020). Recent research solidifies SDT as a valuable framework for understanding employee motivation and creativity in organizational settings. Supporting basic psychological needs enhances employee motivation, well-being, and creative behavior (Forner et al., 2020; Olafsen & Deci, 2020). Empowering leadership and workplace fairness have been linked to increased creativity through thriving at work (Yang et al., 2019). Moreover, SDT-based approaches such as autonomy support and authentic leadership foster autonomous motivation and creativity (Fateh et al., 2021). Thus, SDT complements SET by explaining how employee empowerment—both structural and psychological—leads to enhanced creativity through intrinsic motivation.

Stakeholder Theory provides the third pillar of this theoretical framework, positing that organizations should create value not only for shareholders but also for all stakeholders, including employees (Mahajan et al., 2023). This theory emphasizes the importance of ethical practices and social responsibilities in building strong, reciprocal relationships. Recent literature expands on Stakeholder Theory’s application in the context of leadership and creativity. For example, empowering leadership has been shown to positively influence creativity through work engagement and knowledge sharing (Joo et al., 2022). Similarly, entrepreneurial and authentic leadership styles enhance creativity by promoting psychological empowerment and commitment to supervisors (Imam et al., 2020; Mehmood et al., 2021). Stakeholder Theory thus offers a lens through which CSR initiatives can be viewed not merely as external obligations but as strategic tools that enhance the perceived value exchange between employees and the organization, ultimately fostering creativity (Bhatt & Joshi, 2022).

The integration of Social Exchange Theory (SET), Self-Determination Theory (SDT), and Stakeholder Theory provides a robust framework (refer to Figure 1) for understanding the interplay between organizational practices and employee creativity. SET explains the reciprocal exchanges between employees and the organization (Blau, 1964), while SDT delves into the intrinsic motivations that drive these exchanges (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Olafsen & Deci, 2020). Stakeholder Theory positions CSR as a strategic mediator that enhances these exchanges, leading to increased employee creativity (Jawahar & McLaughlin, 2001; Joo et al., 2022).

Figure 1.

Research framework.

Hypothesis Development

The Role of Organizational Justice in Employee Creativity

Distributive, procedural, and interactional justice have been found to positively influence innovative work behavior and creative performance, fostering an environment that enhances employee engagement and overall performance (T. Akram et al., 2020; B. Kim, 2022; Pakpahan et al., 2020; Ye et al., 2022). This relationship is further strengthened by mediators such as psychological ownership and knowledge sharing, while ethical leadership and perceived organizational support also play crucial roles in facilitating creativity (Nazir et al., 2019; Ye et al., 2022). Additionally, the negative impact of abusive supervision on creativity can be mitigated through the presence of distributive and procedural justice (Z. Akram et al., 2021). Given the critical role of organizational justice in promoting creativity, it is hypothesized:

H1: There is a significant relationship between organizational fairness (e.g., Distributive Justice, Procedural Justice, Interactional Justice) and employee creativity (e.g., Creative Performance and Innovative Work Behavior).

Impact of Organizational Identity on Creativity

Similarly, perceived organizational identity is a key factor influencing employee creativity. When employees strongly identify with their organization, their creativity is enhanced, a relationship mediated by perceived organizational support and work engagement (Hui et al., 2020; H. Li et al., 2023). High-performance work systems and visionary leadership further amplify this effect by boosting organizational support, thereby increasing employee creativity (H. Li et al., 2023; Yuan & Xie, 2022). Additionally, factors like a sense of calling, work values, and trust in management contribute to this dynamic, though the impact may vary depending on individual differences such as proactive personality and stress levels (Duan et al., 2020; Hui et al., 2020; Inam et al., 2021; Lee et al., 2019; Pradana & Uliani, 2021). Therefore, it is hypothesized:

H2: There is a significant relationship between perceived organizational identity and employee creativity.

The Role of Employee Empowerment in Enhancing Creativity

Employee empowerment, encompassing both structural and psychological aspects, has consistently been linked to enhanced creativity (Echebiri et al., 2020). Structural empowerment provides the necessary resources and autonomy, while psychological empowerment fosters a sense of competence and influence, both of which are crucial for creative output (Echebiri et al., 2020; Singh & Sarkar, 2019). Psychological empowerment also acts as a mediator between various leadership styles and employee creativity, translating leadership influence into creative outcomes (Alshawabkeh et al., 2024; Nuzul et al., 2020; Siswanti & Muafi, 2020). Furthermore, the relationship between structural empowerment and innovative behavior is reinforced by psychological empowerment, with factors like developmental job experiences, learning goal orientation, and workplace spirituality further enhancing this link (Bantha & Nayak, 2023; Knezović & Musrati, 2018; Matsuo, 2022). Based on these insights, it is hypothesized:

H3: There is a significant relationship between employee empowerment (e.g., Structural Empowerment and Psychological Empowerment) and employee creativity.

Corporate Social Responsibility as a Catalyst for Creativity

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) also plays a pivotal role in fostering employee creativity. Perceived CSR acts as a catalyst for innovation, with its impact mediated by factors such as employee engagement, job autonomy, psychological safety, organizational pride, and affective commitment (Chaudhary & Akhouri, 2019; Guo et al., 2021; Id Bouichou et al., 2022; B.-J. Kim et al., 2021; Tong et al., 2019). Inclusive leadership, job satisfaction, organizational citizenship behavior, social capital, and prosocial motivation further enhance the effectiveness of CSR in promoting creativity across various sectors, including banking, IT, hospitality, and telecommunications (Al-Madadha et al., 2023; Bhatti et al., 2023; Shah et al., 2021). These findings underscore the strategic importance of CSR in driving creativity and innovation within organizations. Therefore, it is hypothesized:

H4: There is a significant relationship between corporate social responsibility (e.g., Perceived CSR, Internal CSR, and External CSR) and employee creativity.

Recent research highlights the substantial impact of corporate social responsibility (CSR) on employee creativity across various sectors. This relationship is often mediated by critical factors such as job autonomy, employee engagement, inclusive leadership, and psychological safety (Guo et al., 2021; B.-J. Kim et al., 2021; Shah et al., 2021; Tong et al., 2019). Specifically, work engagement and the meaningfulness of work have been identified as serial mediators, particularly effective in contexts where employees perceive their contributions as valued and purposeful (Chaudhary & Akhouri, 2019). In the Chinese context, the quality of supervisor-subordinate guanxi partially mediates this relationship, underscoring the cultural dimensions of CSR’s impact on creativity (Song & Jiang, 2022). Furthermore, ethical leadership plays a crucial role by moderating the effects of CSR on psychological safety, which in turn enhances employee creativity (B.-J. Kim et al., 2021). These findings suggest that CSR is a strategic tool for fostering creativity, thereby granting organizations a competitive edge in industries such as banking, hospitality, and information technology. Based on these insights, it is hypothesized:

H5a: Corporate social responsibility mediates the relationship between organizational fairness and employee creativity.

H5b: Corporate social responsibility mediates the relationship between perceived organizational identity and employee creativity.

H5c: Corporate social responsibility mediates the relationship between employee empowerment and employee creativity.

The Moderating Effect of Organizational Culture on Creativity

Organizational culture has also been shown to significantly influence employee creativity, with market, clan, and adhocracy cultures fostering creative behaviors, while hierarchical cultures tend to suppress them (Ahmed, 2023; Makumbe, 2021). Organizational learning culture has been explored as both a moderator and mediator in these relationships, with studies showing mixed results—some highlighting its positive moderation between proactive personality and creativity, while others found no significant effects on the relationships between core self-evaluation, knowledge sharing, and creativity (Marua & Etikariena, 2021; Putri & Etikariena, 2021; Shamara & Etikariena, 2021). The role of organizational justice has also been examined, particularly in autocratic cultures, where it moderates the effects of justice on job satisfaction and, indirectly, on creativity (Jaboob et al., 2023). Research further reveals that creativity-oriented cultures enable organizations to better adapt to environmental changes and secure competitive advantages (Aldabbagha & Rowaida, 2020). Additionally, factors such as thriving at work and overall fairness are critical mediators and moderators in the relationship between future work self and employee creativity (Yang et al., 2019). In light of these findings, it is hypothesized:

H6a: Organizational culture moderates the relationship between organizational fairness and employee creativity.

H6b: Organizational culture moderates the relationship between perceived organizational identity and employee creativity.

H6c: Organizational culture moderates the relationship between employee empowerment and employee creativity.

Research Methodology

Research Design

This study employs a quantitative research design to examine the relationships between organizational fairness, perceived organizational identity, employee empowerment, corporate social responsibility (CSR), and employee creativity within the context of Malaysian organizations. The target population for this study consisted of employees from three major industries in Malaysia: manufacturing, services, and information technology (IT). These sectors were chosen due to their substantial contribution to the economy and their critical reliance on creativity and innovation. A stratified random sampling (refer to Table 1 for detailed stratification of the samples) method ensured that the sample was representative of the broader population. The total sample size of 500 respondents was determined to provide robust statistical power for the analysis, particularly for Structural Equation Modeling (SEM).

Table 1.

Stratification of the Samples.

Industry	Organization size	Number of organizations	Respondents per organization	Total respondents
Manufacturing	Small (50–250 employees)	12	5	60
	Medium (251–1,000 employees)	16	5	80
	Large (1,001+ employees)	8	7–8	60
Services	Small (50–250 employees)	11	4–5	53
	Medium (251–1,000 employees)	14	5	70
	Large (1,001+ employees)	7	7–8	52
Information Technology	Small (50–250 employees)	8	4–5	38
	Medium (251–1,000 employees)	10	5	50
	Large (1,001+ employees)	5	7–8	37
Total		91		500

Measurement Items Development

In this study, the constructs of organizational fairness, employee creativity, employee empowerment, corporate social responsibility (CSR), perceived organizational identity, and organizational culture are treated as higher-order constructs, each encompassing multiple dimensions. To ensure reliability and validity, the measurement items (refer to Appendix 1 for detailed items) for these constructs have been carefully adopted from well-established sources in the literature. Organizational fairness is measured across distributive, procedural, and interactional justice, capturing perceptions of fairness in outcomes, processes, and interpersonal treatment. Items were drawn from Colquitt (2001), Moorman et al. (1993), and Bies and Shapiro (1987), with reliability and validity confirmed through high Cronbach’s alpha values (>.7) and construct validity tests. Employee creativity reflects both creative performance (idea generation) and innovative work behavior (application and implementation). Scales from Amabile et al. (2018) and Janssens (2001) were employed, achieving strong internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha > .8) and validated through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Employee empowerment incorporates structural and psychological aspects, addressing autonomy, competence, and resource access. Items from Kanter’s (1984) and Spreitzer’s (1995) frameworks demonstrated high reliability (>0.85) and clear factor loadings, ensuring robust construct measurement. CSR is examined through perceived, internal, and external dimensions, encompassing initiatives benefiting employees, communities, and the environment. Items from Turker (2009) and Maignan and Ferrell (2000) showed strong reliability and discriminant validity, supporting the distinctiveness of the CSR dimensions. Perceived organizational identity assesses alignment with organizational values and goals, using items adapted from Mael and Tetrick (1992) High internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha > .8) and validity tests confirmed its effectiveness in measuring employees’ emotional and cognitive connection to their organization. Organizational culture includes group, developmental, rational, and hierarchical dimensions, reflecting its impact on workplace behavior. Items from Denison and Mishra (1995) and Cameron and Quinn (2006) demonstrated high reliability and validity, supporting their use in analyzing cultural influences. A pilot study involving 30 respondents refined the survey instrument, ensuring reliability (Cronbach’s alpha > .7) and construct validity through CFA and AVE values (>0.5). Discriminant validity was confirmed using the Fornell-Larcker criterion and the Heterotrait-Monotrait (HTMT) ratio.

Data Collection

Data were collected through a structured questionnaire distributed both online and in person to employees across various managerial levels, including middle and senior management, within selected organizations. The target population comprised employees from Malaysian organizations in the manufacturing, services, and IT sectors, as these industries are key contributors to Malaysia’s economic and innovation landscape. Organizations were identified based on their size, industry sector, and demonstrated commitment to innovation and CSR. Sources such as the Federation of Malaysian Manufacturers (FMM) Directory and the Malaysian Investment Development Authority (MIDA) reports were used to compile the initial list. Companies included in the FTSE4Good Bursa Malaysia Index or recognized with awards such as the Malaysia Innovation Awards or the ACCA Malaysia Sustainability Reporting Awards in the past 3 years were prioritized for inclusion. These criteria ensured the selection of organizations actively engaging in innovative and socially responsible practices.

The sample size of 500 valid responses was determined based on established guidelines for Structural Equation Modeling (SEM). Following recommendations by Hair et al. (2022), the sample size exceeded the requirement of at least 10 times the number of indicators in the most complex model, ensuring robust statistical analysis. To enhance inclusivity, the questionnaire was available in both English and Malay. Bilingual experts translated the items, and back-translation was performed to verify accuracy. Respondents were given the option to select their preferred language, ensuring accessibility for all participants.

Data collection was carried out between December 5, 2023, and April 15, 2024, using a hybrid approach. Online distribution was facilitated through email and professional networks, while in-person data collection sessions were conducted at company premises during pre-arranged times. This dual approach yielded a high response rate, with approximately 75% of the contacted individuals completing the survey. A pilot test was conducted before full-scale data collection, involving 30 respondents from each of the three industries.

Data Analysis Technic

The collected data were analyzed using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) via SmartPLS 4, chosen for its capability to test complex relationships between variables simultaneously. SEM is particularly suited for examining higher-order constructs, such as organizational fairness, identity, empowerment, CSR, and creativity, which involve multidimensional frameworks (Hair et al., 2022). Its ability to address measurement error and analyze latent variables ensures accurate and reliable results (Sarstedt et al., 2020). Additionally, SmartPLS accommodates non-normal data distributions, making it ideal for this study’s context (Henseler, 2017). Informed consent was obtained from all participants, ensuring ethical compliance and confidentiality.

Data Analysis

The demographic analysis (refer to Table 2) of respondents offers important insights into the characteristics of the sample used in this study. The sample includes 60% from middle management and 40% from senior management, ensuring perspectives from both operational and strategic levels. This balance is crucial for understanding how organizational practices influence creativity across different management tiers. The gender distribution is relatively balanced, with 55% male and 45% female respondents, which allows for an examination of potential gender differences in perceptions of organizational practices and their impact on creativity.

Table 2.

Demographic of Respondents.

Category	Sub-category	Sample size	%
Managerial level	Middle management	300	60.0
Managerial level	Senior management	200	40.0
Gender distribution	Male	275	55.0
Gender distribution	Female	225	45.0
Age group	25–34 years	150	30.0
	35–44 years	200	40.0
	45–54 years	100	20.0
	55 and above	50	10.0
Ethnic distribution	Malay	280	56.0
	Chinese	140	28.0
	Indian	60	12.0
	Others	20	4.0
Marital status	Married	350	70.0
	Single	120	24.0
	Divorced/widowed	30	6.0
Educational level	Bachelor’s degree	250	50.0
	Master’s degree	200	40.0
	Doctorate/PhD	50	10.0
Years of experience	1–5 years	150	30.0
	6–10 years	200	40.0
	11–15 years	100	20.0
	16+ years	50	10.0
Job function	Operations	175	35.0
	Human resources	75	15.0
	Finance	75	15.0
	Marketing/sales	100	20.0
	Research & Development	75	15.0
Tenure with current organization	Less than 1 year	50	10.0
	1–3 years	150	30.0
	4–6 years	200	40.0
	7+ years	100	20.0

The age distribution shows that 70% of respondents are between 25 and 44 years old, reflecting a young and dynamic workforce likely to be more open to innovation. Additionally, the inclusion of older respondents provides insights into how more seasoned employees perceive these practices. Ethnically, the sample reflects Malaysia’s multicultural society, with 56% Malay, 28% Chinese, 12% Indian, and 4% from other ethnic groups. This diversity is key to exploring how cultural backgrounds might influence perceptions of fairness, identity, empowerment, and CSR.

The majority of respondents are married (70%), which may influence their views on work-life balance and organizational support. The educational background is strong, with 50% holding a Bachelor’s degree, 40% a Master’s, and 10% a Doctorate, which is likely to correlate with a workforce capable of engaging in creative problem-solving. Respondents’ years of experience vary, with a significant portion having between 6 and 10 years of experience, providing a range of perspectives from newer to more seasoned employees.

The distribution across job functions, including operations, marketing/sales, HR, finance, and R&D, ensures that the study captures a wide array of organizational activities, which is crucial for understanding how different roles interact with organizational practices. Tenure within the organization varies, with 40% having been with their current organization for 4 to 6 years. This range helps in understanding how both long-term and newer employees perceive the impact of organizational practices on creativity.

Overall, the demographic profile is diverse and reflective of the Malaysian workforce, which enhances the study’s ability to provide generalizable and meaningful insights into how organizational practices influence creativity across different segments of the workforce.

Measurement Model Statistics

The analysis of the measurement model provides key insights into the reliability, validity, and structural relationships of the constructs under study. These constructs, including organizational fairness, perceived organizational identity, employee empowerment, corporate social responsibility (CSR), and employee creativity, are examined within the context of Malaysian organizations, highlighting their intricate interplay in fostering creativity and innovation.

The results (refer to Figure 2) indicate that the constructs used in this study demonstrate robust reliability and validity. As shown in Table 3, all outer loadings (OL) exceed the threshold of 0.7, confirming that the items strongly represent their respective constructs. For example, Creative Performance (CP) shows loadings ranging from 0.822 to 0.843, signifying reliable indicators. Moreover, the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) values are all below the critical threshold of 3, indicating an absence of multicollinearity and ensuring the uniqueness of each indicator’s contribution to its construct.

Figure 2.

Measurement Moel (Lower order construct).

Table 3.

Measurement Model Statistics.

Construct	Items	OL	VIF	CA	CR (rho_c)	AVE
CP	CP1	0.827	2.565	0.889	0.918	0.692
	CP2	0.822	2.242
	CP3	0.843	2.617
	CP4	0.836	2.618
	CP5	0.832	2.537
DJ	DJ1	0.797	1.705	0.816	0.879	0.645
	DJ2	0.814	1.785
	DJ3	0.766	1.597
	DJ4	0.835	1.873
ECSR	ECSR1	0.896	2.373	0.870	0.921	0.794
	ECSR2	0.901	2.429
	ECSR3	0.876	2.151
ICSR	ICSR1	0.814	1.424	0.719	0.841	0.639
	ICSR2	0.758	1.392
	ICSR3	0.824	1.414
IJ	IJ1	0.867	1.929	0.835	0.901	0.751
	IJ2	0.861	1.942
	IJ3	0.872	1.938
IWB	IWB1	0.862	2.530	0.905	0.934	0.779
	IWB2	0.905	3.164
	IWB3	0.889	2.793
	IWB4	0.875	2.624
OC	OC1	0.880	2.726	0.883	0.919	0.741
	OC2	0.891	2.920
	OC3	0.909	3.157
	OC4	0.755	1.808
PCSR	PCSR1	0.735	1.554	0.843	0.895	0.680
	PCSR2	0.843	1.953
	PCSR3	0.853	2.056
	PCSR4	0.862	2.177
PE	PE1	0.856	1.881	0.836	0.902	0.753
	PE2	0.864	1.904
	PE3	0.884	2.118
PJ	PJ1	0.820	1.872	0.843	0.895	0.680
	PJ2	0.865	2.338
	PJ3	0.780	1.603
	PJ4	0.831	1.979
POI	POI1	0.862	2.255	0.882	0.918	0.738
	POI2	0.843	2.026
	POI3	0.844	2.270
	POI4	0.886	2.688
SE	SE1	0.871	2.446	0.872	0.913	0.723
	SE2	0.874	2.451
	SE3	0.844	2.071
	SE4	0.811	1.821

Reliability and Convergent Validity

Cronbach’s alpha (CA) values range from .719 (ICSR) to .905 (IWB), demonstrating acceptable to excellent internal consistency across constructs. Composite reliability (CR) values, which range from 0.841 to 0.934, further validate the reliability of the constructs. The Average Variance Extracted (AVE) values exceed the threshold of 0.5, with ICSR at 0.639 and ECSR at 0.794, confirming strong convergent validity. These metrics collectively validate the robustness of the constructs, providing a solid foundation for exploring the relationships between organizational practices and employee creativity.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity, essential for establishing the distinctiveness of constructs, is well-supported by both the HTMT ratios (Table 4) and the Fornell-Larcker criterion (Table 5). HTMT values are consistently below the 0.85 threshold, such as the 0.795 between CP and DJ, affirming that the constructs are conceptually distinct (Henseler, 2017). The Fornell-Larcker criterion confirms this, with diagonal values (square root of AVE) being higher than correlations among constructs. This distinctiveness is critical for accurately capturing the nuanced relationships between fairness, identity, empowerment, CSR, and creativity.

Table 4.

Discriminant Validity (HTMT).

Construct	CP	DJ	ECSR	ICSR	IJ	IWB	OC	PCSR	PE	PJ	POI	SE	OC × EE	OC × POI
CP
DJ	0.795
ECSR	0.774	0.842
ICSR	0.831	0.813	0.826
IJ	0.666	0.815	0.814	0.814
IWB	0.775	0.763	0.746	0.788	0.647
OC	0.414	0.383	0.464	0.515	0.404	0.459
PCSR	0.826	0.751	0.739	0.825	0.610	0.702	0.398
PE	0.783	0.826	0.816	0.847	0.754	0.768	0.526	0.843
PJ	0.649	0.732	0.683	0.835	0.767	0.751	0.381	0.573	0.686
POI	0.763	0.806	0.836	0.846	0.849	0.740	0.432	0.681	0.815	0.823
SE	0.776	0.807	0.846	0.834	0.802	0.783	0.484	0.763	0.807	0.719	0.838
OC × EE	0.238	0.342	0.343	0.327	0.249	0.370	0.229	0.386	0.471	0.251	0.334	0.400
OC × POI	0.225	0.302	0.312	0.322	0.261	0.351	0.202	0.280	0.410	0.269	0.309	0.333	0.804
OC × OF	0.250	0.348	0.307	0.291	0.235	0.361	0.126	0.335	0.371	0.240	0.307	0.320	0.849	0.810

Table 5.

Discriminant Validity (FLC).

Construct	CP	DJ	ECSR	ICSR	IJ	IWB	OC	PCSR	PE	PJ	POI	SE
CP	0.832
DJ	0.682	0.803
ECSR	0.688	0.711	0.891
ICSR	0.707	0.661	0.740	0.799
IJ	0.583	0.674	0.694	0.664	0.867
IWB	0.703	0.657	0.662	0.647	0.565	0.883
OC	0.378	0.330	0.407	0.409	0.346	0.419	0.861
PCSR	0.725	0.632	0.644	0.665	0.521	0.627	0.360	0.825
PE	0.682	0.685	0.696	0.700	0.634	0.669	0.458	0.752	0.868
PJ	0.568	0.608	0.585	0.654	0.644	0.655	0.331	0.491	0.577	0.825
POI	0.686	0.723	0.758	0.713	0.746	0.662	0.385	0.601	0.703	0.711	0.859
SE	0.691	0.684	0.737	0.701	0.687	0.696	0.428	0.663	0.744	0.618	0.737	0.850

Discriminant Validity

The validated measurement model establishes a solid basis for hypothesis testing and subsequent structural analysis (for model fit and predictive statistiscs refer to Table 6). The strong associations between CSR components (ECSR, ICSR, PCSR) and the CSR higher-order construct underscore CSR’s role as a multidimensional driver of creativity. For example, refer to Table 7 the high loadings of CSR components (range: 0.863–0.904) reinforce its strategic significance in fostering innovation through enhanced employee engagement and organizational commitment (Aguinis & Glavas, 2012). Similarly, the demonstrated reliability of constructs like organizational fairness and empowerment highlights their pivotal role in creating environments conducive to creativity.

Table 6.

Model Fit Statistics.

Construct	R ²	R ² adjusted	Q ² predict	RMSE	MAE
CSR	.781	.779	0.776	0.479	0.356
EC	.740	.733	0.670	0.580	0.404

Table 7.

Outer Loading Statistics of Higher Order Constructs.

Loading paths	Original sample	Sample mean	Standard deviation	T statistics	p Values
CP <- EC	0.926	0.926	0.012	78.409	.000
IWB <- EC	0.919	0.919	0.018	51.186	.000
ECSR <- CSR	0.897	0.897	0.013	69.408	.000
ICSR <- CSR	0.904	0.903	0.012	72.318	.000
PCSR <- CSR	0.863	0.862	0.022	38.761	.000
IJ <- OF	0.882	0.881	0.017	50.679	.000
DJ <- OF	0.882	0.882	0.018	49.964	.000
PJ <- OF	0.853	0.853	0.020	43.349	.000
PE <- EE	0.934	0.933	0.009	99.761	.000
SE <- EE	0.934	0.934	0.009	106.029	.000

Hypothesis Testing With Structural Model

The hypothesis testing (Table 8) and structural model (refer to Figure 3) results offer significant insights into the relationships between organizational fairness, perceived organizational identity, employee empowerment, corporate social responsibility (CSR), and employee creativity within Malaysian organizations.

Table 8.

Structural Model Statistics.

Hypothesis path		Original sample	Sample mean	Standard deviation	T statistics	p Values	f²	Support
H1	OF -> EC	0.157	0.150	0.072	2.177	0.030	0.021	Yes
H2	POI -> EC	0.060	0.071	0.072	0.830	0.407	0.004	No
H3	EE -> EC	0.274	0.275	0.075	3.655	0.000	0.058	Yes
H4	CSR -> EC	0.400	0.396	0.068	5.853	0.000	0.131	Yes
H5a	OF -> CSR -> EC	0.102	0.100	0.034	3.007	0.003		Yes
H5b	POI -> CSR -> EC	0.064	0.065	0.025	2.624	0.009		Yes
H5c	EE -> CSR -> EC	0.211	0.208	0.045	4.699	0.000		Yes
H6a	OC x OF -> EC	-0.159	−0.143	0.089	1.785	0.074	0.030	No
H6b	OC x POI -> EC	0.010	−0.005	0.105	0.096	0.924	0.000	No
H6c	OC x EE -> EC	0.134	0.131	0.068	1.971	0.049	0.028	Yes

Figure 3.

Structural model.

The hypothesis testing results provide insights into the intricate relationships between organizational fairness, perceived organizational identity, employee empowerment, corporate social responsibility (CSR), and employee creativity within Malaysian organizations. The structural model (Figure 3) demonstrated strong predictive power, with CSR exhibiting an R² of .781 (adjusted R² = .779) and employee creativity (EC) showing an R² of .740 (adjusted R² = .733). The high Q² predictive values for CSR (0.776) and EC (0.670) further validated the model’s relevance and predictive strength.

The findings for H1 support the positive influence of organizational fairness on employee creativity (β = .157, p = .030, f² = 0.021). This confirms that fairness in distributive, procedural, and interactional dimensions fosters an environment conducive to creativity. However, the relatively small effect size suggests that fairness alone may not substantially drive creative outcomes without complementary factors like empowerment or leadership.

H2, examining the direct impact of perceived organizational identity on employee creativity, was not supported (β = .060, p = .407, f² = 0.004). This finding diverges from prior literature, indicating that organizational identity may influence creativity indirectly through mechanisms like engagement or support rather than as a direct contributor. H3 revealed a significant positive effect of employee empowerment on creativity (β = .274, p < .001, f² = 0.058), underscoring the importance of empowering employees with autonomy and resources. H4 demonstrated that CSR is a substantial predictor of creativity (β = .400, p < .001, f² = 0.131), highlighting the role of socially responsible practices in motivating employees to engage in innovative behavior. The mediating role of CSR was supported across H5a, H5b, and H5c, with significant mediation effects observed for organizational fairness (β = .102, p = .003), perceived organizational identity (β = .064, p = .009), and employee empowerment (β = .211, p < .001). These results emphasize CSR as a critical intermediary linking organizational practices to creative outcomes. The moderating role of organizational culture was partially supported. While H6c (β = .134, p = .049, f² = 0.028) showed that a supportive culture enhances the positive impact of empowerment on creativity, H6a (β = −.159, p = .074, f² = 0.030) and H6b (β = .010, p = .924, f² = 0.000) were not supported, indicating that cultural moderation varies across different organizational practices.

Discussion

This study sheds light on the intricate dynamics between organizational fairness, perceived organizational identity, employee empowerment, corporate social responsibility (CSR), and employee creativity within the Malaysian context. Employing Structural Equation Modeling (SEM), the findings provide a nuanced understanding of how these constructs interact to influence creative performance and innovative work behavior.

CSR emerges as a pivotal factor driving employee creativity, significantly predicting both creative ideation and implementation. These findings reinforce existing literature, which positions CSR as a motivational catalyst that fosters a sense of purpose and engagement among employees (Guo et al., 2021; B.-J. Kim et al., 2021; Tong et al., 2019). CSR initiatives, particularly those aligned with employee values and societal well-being, appear to stimulate intrinsic motivation and psychological safety, both of which are critical for creative output. Practically, this underscores the importance of embedding CSR into organizational strategies, not merely as a tool for external reputation building but as a mechanism to enhance internal innovation capabilities. Leaders should prioritize CSR initiatives that resonate with employees, such as environmental stewardship and employee-centric welfare programs, to cultivate a workforce that is both engaged and creatively driven.

The significant positive effect of employee empowerment on creativity further emphasizes its central role in fostering innovation. Empowered employees, who are provided autonomy, resources, and opportunities for meaningful participation, are more likely to engage in creative problem-solving and innovative behaviors (Echebiri et al., 2020; Singh & Sarkar, 2019). This aligns with theories of psychological empowerment, which suggest that autonomy and competence are key drivers of intrinsic motivation. Practically, organizations must implement empowerment strategies that include participatory leadership, transparent communication, and access to decision-making authority. By doing so, they create an environment where employees feel valued and encouraged to innovate, particularly in the context of Malaysia’s evolving economic landscape.

Organizational fairness also positively influences creativity, albeit with a smaller effect size compared to empowerment and CSR. This finding highlights the foundational role of fairness in fostering trust, psychological safety, and legitimacy (T. Akram et al., 2020; B. Kim, 2022; Ye et al., 2022). However, the limited magnitude of its impact suggests that fairness alone may not be sufficient to drive substantial creative outcomes. Instead, fairness may act as a necessary but not sufficient condition for creativity, requiring the amplification of complementary factors such as CSR and empowerment. For organizations, this underscores the need to ensure that fairness permeates resource allocation, decision-making processes, and interpersonal interactions, while also integrating broader strategies that actively inspire innovation.

The non-significant direct relationship between perceived organizational identity and employee creativity adds a layer of complexity to existing theoretical frameworks. While prior studies have linked strong organizational identity to enhanced creativity (Hui et al., 2020; H. Li et al., 2020, 2023), the findings of this study suggest that identity may play a more nuanced, indirect role. It is possible that perceived organizational identity influences creativity through mediating mechanisms such as organizational support, employee engagement, or psychological safety. Alternatively, contextual factors, such as industry-specific norms or hierarchical cultural dynamics prevalent in Malaysia, may moderate this relationship. From a theoretical perspective, this challenges the assumption of a straightforward identity-creativity link and highlights the need for future research to explore these indirect pathways and contextual influences. Practically, this suggests that while fostering a strong organizational identity remains important for employee alignment and engagement, it may not directly translate into creativity without supportive organizational practices and environments.

The moderating role of organizational culture further underscores the importance of context in shaping creativity. While a supportive culture enhances the positive effects of empowerment on creativity, the lack of consistent moderating effects across all relationships suggests that cultural dynamics are highly specific to the organizational and societal context. In hierarchical cultures like Malaysia’s, group-oriented and developmental cultural practices can mitigate the constraints imposed by rigid power dynamics, fostering an environment where employees feel safe to express and implement creative ideas (Ahmed, 2023; Shamara & Etikariena, 2021). This highlights the importance of aligning empowerment strategies and leadership styles with cultural norms to maximize their effectiveness in promoting creativity. For Malaysian organizations, leveraging these insights within their unique cultural and economic landscape can drive creative performance and innovation, providing a sustainable competitive advantage in dynamic markets.

Implications of This Study

Theoretical and Contextual Insights

This study provides valuable theoretical contributions by affirming and extending the applicability of Social Exchange Theory (SET), Self-Determination Theory (SDT), and Stakeholder Theory to organizational creativity. The findings underscore that organizational fairness—through its distributive, procedural, and interactional dimensions—creates a trust-based environment, aligning with SET’s principle of reciprocity (Blau, 1964). Employees who perceive fairness are more inclined to engage in creative behaviors, reciprocating the organization’s equitable practices with innovation. Similarly, the empowerment of employees satisfies SDT’s core psychological needs for autonomy and competence, enhancing intrinsic motivation and fostering creative engagement (Deci & Ryan, 2000). These mechanisms affirm the foundational premise that empowering and equitable workplace practices are essential for stimulating employee creativity.

The role of CSR as both a direct driver and a mediator of creativity advances Stakeholder Theory by illustrating how socially responsible practices extend beyond external obligations to drive internal innovation. CSR initiatives, by fostering psychological safety and purpose, align organizational goals with broader societal and environmental imperatives. This dual impact—meeting ethical obligations while enhancing creativity—illustrates CSR’s potential to harmonize stakeholder interests with organizational innovation goals.

However, the study also reveals nuanced contextual insights, particularly the limited direct influence of perceived organizational identity on creativity in the Malaysian context. This suggests that identity may function indirectly, mediated by factors like organizational climate, leadership style, or cultural norms. For example, hierarchical cultural settings prevalent in certain Malaysian industries may dilute the direct impact of organizational identity, requiring further exploration of intermediary variables such as engagement or team dynamics. Similarly, the moderating role of organizational culture on the empowerment-creativity relationship highlights how cultural typologies (e.g., group-oriented vs. hierarchical cultures) can either amplify or constrain creative efforts. These findings emphasize the importance of tailoring strategies to industry-specific and culture-specific contexts, especially in Malaysia’s diverse economic landscape.

Practical Implications and Global Relevance

The practical implications of this study are both specific and innovative, offering actionable insights for managers and policymakers aiming to foster creativity within organizations. Firstly, fair resource distribution, transparent decision-making processes, and respectful interpersonal interactions should form the bedrock of organizational practices. Managers should ensure that fairness permeates all aspects of organizational operations, from performance evaluations to conflict resolution mechanisms. However, fairness alone is insufficient—integrating CSR initiatives and empowering leadership practices can significantly enhance creative outputs.

CSR can serve as a catalyst for innovation when embedded into an organization’s core strategy. For example, companies can implement employee-centric welfare programs, promote environmentally sustainable practices, and engage in community-building initiatives. These efforts not only fulfill ethical responsibilities but also create a shared sense of purpose, driving employees to contribute creatively. CSR’s mediating role underscores its potential to bridge organizational practices like fairness and empowerment with enhanced creativity, providing a cohesive framework for innovation.

Employee empowerment must also go beyond structural changes to include psychological support. Managers should adopt participatory leadership styles that foster autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Initiatives such as innovation challenges, cross-functional collaboration, and targeted professional development programs can further stimulate creative engagement.

The study’s findings also hold significant implications beyond Malaysia, particularly for economies navigating rapid technological and cultural shifts. In both emerging and developed economies, strategies such as embedding CSR into corporate missions, promoting participatory leadership, and fostering fairness can be adapted to enhance creativity. However, successful implementation requires a contextual understanding of local cultural norms, workforce demographics, and regulatory landscapes. For instance, while participatory leadership may flourish in group-oriented cultures, hierarchical settings may require incremental empowerment strategies to build trust and engagement over time.

Additionally, the study suggests that creativity strategies must account for the interplay between organizational culture and leadership practices. Organizations should conduct cultural audits to align empowerment initiatives with existing cultural values, ensuring that creative efforts are supported rather than stifled. Globally, these insights can guide multinational corporations in tailoring their approaches to creativity across diverse operational contexts, from innovation-driven economies to resource-constrained regions.

Limitations and Industry-Specific Considerations

Although the study provides valuable insights, several limitations merit attention. First, the cross-sectional design restricts the ability to infer causal relationships. Second, variations across industries—for instance, the creative demands of IT versus the process-oriented nature of manufacturing—may lead to different levels and expressions of creativity. Future research could adopt longitudinal or mixed-method designs to capture how creativity evolves over time and in response to organizational changes. Moreover, exploring industry-specific cultural contexts, such as high-power-distance norms in manufacturing versus flatter structures in tech startups, could deepen the understanding of how fairness, CSR, and empowerment operate in different sectors.

Conclusion and Future Research Directions

This study highlights the interplay between organizational fairness, perceived organizational identity, employee empowerment, and corporate social responsibility (CSR) in fostering employee creativity within Malaysian organizations. While the findings offer valuable insights, they also open avenues for further exploration. Future research could consider employing longitudinal designs to capture the dynamic nature of these relationships over time. Mixed-method approaches, such as combining quantitative surveys with qualitative interviews, could provide a deeper understanding of how employees perceive and respond to organizational practices.

The role of industry-specific cultural dynamics also warrants further investigation. Different sectors, such as healthcare, education, and public administration, may exhibit unique patterns in how fairness, empowerment, and CSR influence creativity. Comparative studies across industries would illuminate the contextual factors that either enable or constrain creative behavior. Moreover, exploring the nuanced impacts of organizational culture, particularly in hierarchical versus developmental or group-oriented cultures, could help refine our understanding of how cultural typologies shape the effectiveness of organizational practices.

Emerging trends in digital transformation present another important area for future inquiry. The increasing reliance on virtual collaboration, AI-driven decision-making, and digital tools in hybrid or fully remote work environments may alter how fairness, CSR, and empowerment manifest and influence creativity. Investigating the role of technology in enabling or hindering creative outcomes would provide timely insights into how organizations can adapt their practices to the evolving workplace. Additionally, the influence of digital leadership and agile management approaches on creativity in tech-enabled environments could be an essential focus for future research.

Cross-cultural comparisons could expand the applicability of these findings beyond Malaysia. By examining similar constructs in diverse cultural settings, future research could identify whether the observed relationships are universal or culturally contingent. Such investigations would offer valuable insights for multinational corporations seeking to tailor their strategies to varying cultural and economic contexts.

Finally, the potential mediating or moderating roles of factors such as organizational support, employee engagement, and leadership styles on the relationship between perceived organizational identity and creativity deserve further exploration. Similarly, deeper analysis into the distinct dimensions of CSR—such as internal versus external CSR—may uncover unique contributions to creativity, particularly in organizations navigating complex global challenges. By addressing these gaps and integrating emerging trends in organizational behavior, future studies can enrich our understanding of how to sustain creativity in increasingly dynamic and competitive environments.

Footnotes

Appendix 1

Construct	Items	Source
Creative Performance (CP)	CP1: I often come up with new and practical ideas to improve performance at work.	Tierney and Farmer (2002), Zhou and George (2001), Janssen (2000), Scott (2000)
	CP2: I seek out new technologies, processes, techniques, and/or product ideas.
	CP3: I suggest new ways to achieve goals or objectives.
	CP4: I am not afraid to take risks when trying new ideas.
	CP5: I develop adequate plans and schedules for the implementation of new ideas.
Distributive Justice (DJ)	DJ1: My work schedule is fair.	Colquitt (2001), Moorman (1993)
	DJ2: I consider my work responsibilities to be fair.
	DJ3: The rewards I receive are fair given my responsibilities.
	DJ4: My work outcomes reflect the effort I put into my work.
External CSR (ECSR)	ECSR1: My organization is involved in supporting environmental sustainability initiatives.	Turker (2009)
	ECSR2: My organization contributes to the local community.	Maignan and Ferrell (2000)
	ECSR3: My organization is committed to ethical practices in its operations.	Maignan and Ferrell (2000)
Internal CSR (ICSR)	ICSR1: My organization promotes employee well-being.	Turker (2009), Maignan and Ferrell (2000)
	ICSR2: My organization ensures a safe working environment.
	ICSR3: My organization invests in employee development and training.
Interactional Justice (IJ)	IJ1: My supervisor treats me with respect.	Colquitt (2001), Bies and Moag (1986)
	IJ2: My supervisor explains decisions thoroughly.
	IJ3: My supervisor considers my viewpoint.
Innovative Work Behavior (IWB)	IWB1: I generate new ideas related to my work.	Janssen (2000), de Jong and den Hartog (2010), Scott (2000)
	IWB2: I search out new working methods, techniques, or instruments.
	IWB3: I experiment with new work methods or techniques.
	IWB4: I try to convince people to support an innovative idea.
Organizational Culture (OC)	OC1: My organization encourages risk-taking in decision-making.	Denison and Mishra (1995)
	OC2: My organization values creativity and innovation.
	OC3: My organization supports teamwork and collaboration.
	OC4: My organization adapts quickly to changes in the environment.
Perceived CSR (PCSR)	PCSR1: My organization is socially responsible.	Maignan and Ferrell (2000), Turker (2009)
	PCSR2: My organization cares about the well-being of society.
	PCSR3: My organization prioritizes ethical behavior.
	PCSR4: My organization is committed to sustainable business practices.
Psychological Empowerment (PE)	PE1: I am confident about my ability to do my job.	Spreitzer (1995)
	PE2: I have a great deal of control over what happens in my job.
	PE3: My job activities are personally meaningful to me.
Procedural Justice (PJ)	PJ1: Job decisions are made in an unbiased manner.	Colquitt (2001)
	PJ2: All job decisions are applied consistently.
	PJ3: I have the opportunity to express my views during job decisions.
	PJ4: Procedures are designed to collect accurate information for decision-making.
Perceived Organizational Identity (POI)	POI1: I feel a strong sense of belonging to my organization.	Mael and Ashforth (1992)
	POI2: My organization’s successes are my successes.
	POI3: I am proud to be part of my organization.
	POI4: My organization’s values are similar to my own.
Structural Empowerment (SE)	SE1: I have access to the resources I need to do my job well.	Kanter (1993)
	SE2: I have access to the information I need to do my job well.
	SE3: I have access to the support I need to do my job well.
	SE4: I have access to opportunities to grow within my organization.

ORCID iD

Meng Na

Ethical Approval

Formal ethical approval has been waived instate this study adhered to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki following strict ethical standards. Formal ethical approval was waived due to Participation was anonymous, confidential, and voluntary, with informed consent obtained from all participants. There were no biomarkers or tissue samples collected for analysis. Participants had the freedom to withdraw from the study at any point.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Sheng Mai; Data curation, Xingyue Tang and Meng Na; Formal analysis, Sheng Mai and Lei Wang; Investigation, Meng Na; Software, Xingyue Tang ; Supervision, Sheng Mai; Visualization, Lei Wang ; Writing—original draft, Xingyue Tang; Writing—review and editing, Xingyue Tang and Meng Na. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Informed Consent

Oral consent was obtained from all individuals involved in this study. Consent for publication: All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding authors upon reasonable request

References

Adams

Velarde

J. M.

(2021). Leadership in a culturally diverse environment: Perspectives from international school leaders in Malaysia. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 41(2), 323–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2020.1732295

Aguinis

Glavas

(2012). What we know and don’t know about corporate social responsibility. 38(4), 932–968. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311436079

Ahmad

N. A.

Mohd Soffian Lee

U. H.

Salim

S. S.

(2022). Relationship between distributive justice and organizational commitment: Job satisfaction as mediator among public employees in Malaysia. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 12(12), 2677–2689. https://doi.org/10.6007/ijarbss/v12-i12/16060

Ahmad

Han

Kim

(2024). Elevated emotions, elevated ideas: The CSR-employee creativity nexus in hospitality. Journal of Service Theory and Practice, 34(6), 891–914. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSTP-11-2023-0288

Ahmad

Ullah

AlDhaen

Han

Araya-Castillo

Ariza-Montes

(2022). Fostering hotel-employee creativity through micro-level corporate social responsibility: A social identity theory perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 853125. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.853125

Ahmed

A. F. M.

(2023). Linking organizational culture to employee creativity: Mediating role of psychological well-being. Archives of Business Research, 11(6), 20–42.

Ahn

(2022). Mission match and organizational satisfaction: Testing the mediating role of perceived reputation. Public Personnel Management, 51(3), 355–379. https://doi.org/10.1177/00910260221096857

Akram

Lei

Haider

M. J.

Hussain

S. T.

(2020). The impact of organizational justice on employee innovative work behavior: Mediating role of knowledge sharing. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 5(2), 117–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2019.10.001

Akram

Ahmad

Akram

Asghar

Jiang

(2021). Is abusive supervision always harmful toward creativity? Managing workplace stressors by promoting distributive and procedural justice. International Journal of Conflict Management, 33(3), 385–407.

10.

Alblooshi

Shamsuzzaman

Haridy

(2020). The relationship between leadership styles and organisational innovation: A systematic literature review and narrative synthesis. European Journal of Innovation Management, 24(2), 338–370. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-11-2019-0339

11.

Aldabbagha

Rowaida

A. A.

(2020). The impact of organisational culture on fostering creative behaviour: Evidence from Jordan [Conference session]. International Conference Edu Robotics.

12.

Al-Madadha

Shaheen

Alma’ani

Alsayyed

Adwan

A. A.

(2023). Corporate social responsibility and creative performance: The effect of job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior. Organizacija, 56(1), 32–50. https://doi.org/10.2478/orga-2023-0003

13.

AlMazrouei

Zacca

Mustafa

(2023). Mediating-moderating effect of employee creativity and team potency on expatriate innovative work behaviour. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 31(5), 1669–1693. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-05-2021-2752

14.

Alshawabkeh

Ahmad

N. N.

Rashid

A. H. A.

Panatik

S. A.

Al-Rusa

Liyana

(2024). The role of transformational leadership and psychological empowerment toward employee creativity. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 11(2.2), 299–318.

15.

Amabile

T. M.

Amabile

T. M.

Collins

M. A.

Conti

Phillips

Picariello

Ruscio

Whitney

(2018). Creativity in context. Routledge.

16.

Bankins

Ocampo

A. C.

Marrone

Restubog

S. L. D.

Woo

S. E.

(2023). A multilevel review of artificial intelligence in organizations: Implications for organizational behavior research and practice. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 45(2), 159–182.

17.

Bantha

Nayak

(2023). The relation of workplace spirituality with employee creativity among Indian software professionals: mediating role of psychological empowerment. South Asian Journal of Business Studies, 12(3), 427–443. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAJBS-08-2020-0270

18.

Barua

Islam

M. O.

Kibria

Barua

(2024). Analysis of creativity at the workplace through employee empowerment. International Journal of Organizational Analysis. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-05-2024-4534

19.

BCG. (2021). Pandemic separates readiest innovators from the rest in list of most innovative companies. Boston Consulting Group. https://www.bcg.com/press/15april2021-pandemic-separates-readiest-innovators-from-rest-most-innovative-companies

20.

Bhatti

S. H.

Irshad

Shehzad

Santoro

(2023). Exploring the mediating role of social capital and pro-social motivation in the relationship between CSR and creative deviance. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 24(5), 1206–1226.

21.

Bhatt

Joshi

(2022). “Stakeholder” and “resource” labelled employee treatment practices and firm performance - An integrative review and implications for future research. International Journal of Indian Culture and Business Management, 25(4), 473.

22.

Bies

R.J.

Moag

J. S.

(1986) Interactional justice: Communication c?riteria of fairness. Research on Negotiation in Organizations, 1, 43–55.

23.

Bies

R. J.

Shapiro

D. L.

(1987). Interactional fairness judgments: The influence of causal accounts. Social Justice Research, 1(2), 199–218. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01048016

24.

Bilderback

(2023). Integrating training for organizational sustainability: The application of sustainable development goals globally. European Journal of Training and Development, 48(7/8), 730–748. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJTD-01-2023-0005

25.

Blau

(1964). Exchange and power in social life. Wiley.

26.

Bujold

Parent-Rocheleau

Gaudet

M. C.

(2022). Opacity behind the wheel: The relationship between transparency of algorithmic management, justice perception, and intention to quit among truck drivers. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 8, 100245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2022.100245

27.

Burhan

Q. U. A.

Khan

M. A.

Khan

M. A.

(2024). From identification to innovation: how empowering leadership drives organizational innovativeness. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 45(3), 478–498. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-05-2023-0215

28.

Burri

Lup

Pepper

(2021). What do business executives think about distributive justice? Journal of Business Ethics, 174(1), 15–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04627-w

29.

Cameron

K. S.

Quinn

R. E.

(2006). Diagnosing and changing organisational culture based on competing values framework. Josey Bass.

30.

Chaudhary

Akhouri

(2019). CSR perceptions and employee creativity: examining serial mediation effects of meaningfulness and work engagement. Social Responsibility Journal, 15(1), 61–74.

31.

Cheah

J. S. S.

Lim

K. H.

(2024). Effects of internal and external corporate social responsibility on employee job satisfaction during a pandemic: A medical device industry perspective. European Management Journal, 42(4), 584–594. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2023.04.003.

32.

Cheng

Jiang

(2020). How do AI-Driven Chatbots impact user experience? Examining gratifications, perceived privacy risk, satisfaction, loyalty, and continued use. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 64(4), 592–614.

33.

Chen

Zhu

(2014). High performance work systems and employee creativity: The mediating effect of knowledge sharing. Frontiers of Business Research in China, 8(3), 367–387. https://doi.org/10.3868/s070-003-014-0017-3

34.

Choo

L. S.

Bakar

H. A.

Connaughton

S. L.

(2023). Understanding workplace culture in Malaysia: cultural characteristics of Chinese-Malaysian ethnic society. International Journal of Business and Globalisation, 34(2), 131–151. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBG.2023.132796

35.

Chowdhury

S. R.

Mendy

Rahman

(2023). A systematic literature review of GHRM: Organizational Sustainable Performance Reimagined using a new holistic framework. Sustainability, 15(9), 7513. https://doi.org/10.3390/SU15097513

36.

Chow

I. H. S.

(2018). The mechanism underlying the empowering leadership-creativity relationship. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 39(2), 202–217. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-03-2016-0060

37.

Colquitt

J. A.

(2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. E-Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 386–400. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.386

38.

Colquitt

J. A.

Hill

E. T.

De Cremer

(2023). Forever focused on fairness: 75 years of organizational justice in Personnel Psychology. Personnel Psychology, 76(2), 413–435. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12556

39.

Cropanzano

Mitchell

M. S.

(2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31(6), 874–900. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206305279602

40.

Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

(2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01

41.

Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

(2008). Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 49(3), 182–185.

42.

Denison

D. R.

Mishra

A. K.

(1995). Toward a theory of organizational culture and effectiveness. Organization Science, 6(2), 204–223. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.6.2.204

43.

de Jong

den Hartog

(2010). Measuring innovative work behaviour. Creativity and Innovation Management, 19(1), 23–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8691.2010.00547.x

44.

De Roeck

Delobbe

. (2012). Do environmental CSR initiatives serve organizations’ legitimacy in the oil industry? Exploring employees’ reactions through organizational identification theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 110(4), 397–412. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1489-x

45.

Duan

Tang

Cheng

Zhang

(2020). Perceived organizational support and employee creativity: The mediation role of calling. Creativity Research Journal, 32(4), 403–411.

46.

Echebiri

Amundsen

Engen

(2020). Linking structural empowerment to employee-driven innovation: The mediating role of psychological empowerment. Administrative Sciences, 10(3), 42.

47.

Farid

Xiongying

Raza

Gul

Hanif

(2023). How and when organizational justice impact extra-role customer service: A social exchange perspective of thriving at work. Current Psychology, 42(12), 9743–9758. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-02244-y

48.

Fateh

Mustamil

Shahzad

(2021). Role of authentic leadership and personal mastery in predicting employee creative behavior: A self-determination perspective. Frontiers of Business Research in China, 15(3). https://doi.org/10.1186/s11782-021-00100-1

49.

Forner

V. W.

Jones

Berry

Eidenfalk

(2020). Motivating workers: How leaders apply self-determination theory in organizations. Organization Management Journal, 18(2), 76–94.

50.

Guo

(2021). Effects of customer trust on engagement in live streaming commerce: Mediating role of swift Guanxi. Internet Research, 31(5), 1718–1744.

51.

Gupta

Wang

K. Y.

Cai

(2021). Interactional justice and willingness to share tacit knowledge: Perceived cost as a mediator, and respectful engagement as moderator. Personnel Review, 50(2), 478–497. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-08-2019-0436

52.

Gurney

G. G.

Mangubhai

Fox

Kiatkoski Kim

Agrawal

(2021). Equity in environmental governance: Perceived fairness of distributional justice principles in marine co-management. Environmental Science & Policy, 124, 23–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2021.05.022

53.

Hair

Hult

Ringle

Sarstedt

(Eds.). (2022). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (3rd ed.). Sage.

54.

Henseler

(2017). Bridging design and behavioral research with variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of Advertising, 46(1), 178–192. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2017.1281780

55.

Hui

Qun

Nazir

Mengyu

Asadullah

M. A.

Khadim

(2020). Organizational identification perceptions and millennials’ creativity: testing the mediating role of work engagement and the moderating role of work values. European Journal of Innovation Management, 24(5), 1653–1678.

56.

Id Bouichou

Wang

Zulfiqar

. (2022). How perceived corporate social responsibility raises employees creative behaviors based on appraisal theory of emotion: The serial mediation model. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 865007.

57.

Imam

Naqvi

M. B.

Naqvi

S. A.

Chambel

M. J.

(2020). Authentic leadership: unleashing employee creativity through empowerment and commitment to the supervisor. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 41(6), 847–864.

58.

Inam

J. A.

Zafar

Khan

Sheikh

A. A.

Najam

(2021). Fostering creativity and work engagement through perceived organizational support: The interactive role of stressors. Sage Open, 11(3), 215824402110469. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211046937

59.

Indradevi

(2022). Organisational justice and employees’ psychological wellbeing. International Journal of Business Innovation and Research, 27(2), 207–222. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBIR.2022.121543

60.

Iqbal

Parray

Z. A.

(2024). Leading with integrity: Illuminating the pathway to positive job outcomes through ethical leadership and CSR. Social Responsibility Journal, 21(2), 320–336. https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-08-2023-0464

61.

Itzchakov

DeMarree

K. G.

(2022). Attitudes in an interpersonal context: Psychological safety as a route to attitude change. Frontiers in Psychology, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.932413

62.

Jaboob

Salim

Awain

A. M.

Al-Ansi

A. M.

(2023). Sustaining employees creativity through the organizational justice: The mediating role of leadership styles. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 8(1), 100693.

63.

Janssen

(2000). Job demands, perceptions of effort-reward fairness and innovative work behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73(3), 287–302. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317900167038

64.

Janssens

(2001). Developing a culturally synergistic approach to international human resource management. Journal of World Business, 36(4), 429–450. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1090-9516(01)00065-7

65.

Jawahar

I. M.

McLaughlin

G. L.

(2001). Toward a descriptive stakeholder theory: An organizational life cycle approach. Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 397–414.

66.

Jiang

Qiu

Liu

Zhang

(2024). Employee perceived overqualification and innovation performance: The roles of self-oriented perfectionism and job crafting. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, 1398163. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1398163

67.

Joo

B.-K.

Yim

J.-H.

Jin

Y. S.

Han

S. J.

(2022). Empowering leadership and employee creativity: The mediating roles of work engagement and knowledge sharing. European Journal of Training and Development, 47(9), 881–899.

68.

Kamna

D. F.

Ilkhanizadeh

(2022). Can high-performance work practices influence employee career competencies? There is a need for better employee outcomes in the banking industry. PLoS One, 17(3), e0264764. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0264764

69.

Kanter

(1984). The change masters: Innovation and entrepreneurship in the American corporation. Simon and Schuster.

70.

Kanter

(1993) Men and women of the corporation. 2nd Edition, Basic Book.

71.

Kapoor

Kaufman

J. C.

(2022). Unbound: The relationship among creativity, moral foundations, and dark personality. Journal of Creative Behavior, 56(2), 182–193. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.523

72.

Kiesler

(2022, October). Reviewing constructivist theories to help foster creativity in programming education [Conference session]. Proceedings - Frontiers in Education Conference, FIE. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE56618.2022.9962699

73.

Kim

(2022). A study on the relationship between organizational justice and innovative behavior with the mediating role of psychological ownership. Korea International Trade Research Institute, 18(5), 233–251. https://doi.org/10.16980/jiyc.22.5.202210.233

74.

Kim

B.-J.

Kim

M.-J.

Kim

T.-H.

(2021). “The power of ethical leadership”: The influence of corporate social responsibility on creativity, the mediating function of psychological safety, and the moderating role of ethical leadership. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(6), 2968.

75.

Kim

Y. J.

McRuer

Hirsh

J. B.

(2020). Creativity in the workplace. In Carducci

B. J.

Nave

C. S.

Mio

J. S.

Riggio

R. E.

(Eds.), The Wiley encyclopedia of personality and individual differences: Volume IV: Clinical, applied, and cross-cultural research (Vol. 4, pp. 248–255).

76.

Knezović

Musrati

M. A.

(2018). Empowering leadership, psychological empowerment and employees creativity: A gender perspective. International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change, 4(2), 51–72.

77.

Koseoglu

Liu

Shalley

C. E.

(2017). Working with creative leaders: Exploring the relationship between supervisors’ and subordinates’ creativity. Leadership Quarterly, 28(6), 798–811. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.03.002

78.

Lambert

E. G.

Solinas-Saunders

Haynes

S. H.

May

D. C.

Keena

L. D.

Leone

Buckner

(2023). The association of organizational justice views and turnover intent among correctional staff. Criminal Justice Studies, 36(4), 396–417. https://doi.org/10.1080/1478601X.2023.2239994

79.

Lebdioui

Lee

Pietrobelli

(2021). Local-foreign technology interface, resource-based development, and industrial policy: how Chile and Malaysia are escaping the middle-income trap. Journal of Technology Transfer, 46(3), 660–685. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-020-09808-3

80.

Leclercq

Poncin

Hammedi

Kullak

Hollebeek

L. D.

(2020). When gamification backfires: The impact of perceived justice on online community contributions. Journal of Marketing Management, 36(5-6), 550–556. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2020.1736604

81.

Lee

Kim

Lee

Moon

(2019). Enhancing employee creativity for A sustainable competitive advantage through perceived human resource management practices and trust in management. Sustainability, 11(8), 2305. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11082305

82.

Jin

Chen

(2020). Linking proactive personality to creative performance: The role of job crafting and high-involvement work systems. Journal of Creative Behavior, 54(1), 196–210. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.355

83.

Zhao

Pang

(2023). Linking visionary leadership with employee creativity: Perceived organizational support as a mediator. Social Behavior and Personality, 51(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.12098

84.

Lingling

(2023). The impact of digital empowerment on open innovation performance of enterprises from the perspective of SOR. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1109149. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1109149

85.

Wang

Huang

(2018). From empowerment to multilevel creativity: The role of employee self-perceived status and feedback-seeking climate. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 25(4), 430–442. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051818760998

86.

Liu

Bracht

Zhang

Bradley

van Dick

(2021). Creativity in non-routine jobs: The role of transformational leadership and organizational identification. Creativity and Innovation Management, 30(1), 129–143. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12419

87.

Liu

Jameel Ahmed

Anjum

M. A.

Mina

(2024). Leader humility and employees’ creative performance: The role of intrinsic motivation and work engagement. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, 1278755. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1278755

88.

Liu

Zhang

Liao

Hao

Mao

(2016). Abusive supervision and employee creativity: The mediating role of psychological safety and organizational identification. Management Decision, 54(1), 130–147. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-09-2013-0443

89.

Llorente-Alonso

García-Ael

Topa

(2024). A meta-analysis of psychological empowerment: Antecedents, organizational outcomes, and moderating variables. Current Psychology, 43(2), 1759–1784. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-04369-8

90.

Loo

S. H.

Wider

Lajuma

Jiang

Kenikasahmanworakhun

Tanucan

J. C. M.

Ahmad Khadri

M. W. A.

(2024). Key factors affecting employee job satisfaction in Malaysian manufacturing firms post COVID-19 pandemic: A Delphi study. Cogent Business & Management, 11(1), 2380809-238. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2024.2380809

91.

Lugar

Novićević

(2021). Knowledge based human resource management and employee creativity: The dual mediation of knowledge sharing and knowledge hiding. Economics. Ecology. Socium, 5(4), 1–10.

92.

Lynch

J. F.

Perera

I. M.

Iwashyna

T. J.

(2021). Scarce resource allocation in a pandemic: A protocol to promote equity, timeliness, and transparency. Critical Care Explorations, 3(6), e0466. https://doi.org/10.1097/CCE.0000000000000466

93.

Mael

Ashforth

B. E.

(1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(2), 103–123. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030130202

94.

Mael

F. A.

Tetrick

L. E.

(1992). Identifying organizational identification. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52(4), 813–824. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164492052004002

95.

Mahajan

Lim

W. M.

Sareen

Kumar

Panwar

(2023). Stakeholder theory. Journal of Business Research, 166, 114104.

96.

Maignan

Ferrell

O. C.

(2000). Measuring corporate citizenship in two countries: The case of the United States and France. Journal of Business Ethics, 23(3), 283–297. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006262325211

97.

Makumbe

(2021). The impact of organizational culture on employee creativity amongst Zimbabwean academics. African Journal of Science Technology Innovation and Development, 14(2), 523–531.

98.

Marua

Etikariena

(2021). Hubungan Knowledge-Sharing dan Kreativitas Karyawan: Peran Budaya Organisasi Pembelajaran sebagai Moderator (The Relationship of Knowledge-Sharing and Employee Creativity: The Role of Learning Organizational Culture as a Moderator). Jurnal Psikologi, 17(2), 127.

99.

Matsuo

(2022). Influences of developmental job experience and learning goal orientation on employee creativity: mediating role of psychological empowerment. Human Resource Development International, 25(1), 4–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2020.1824449

100.

Mehmood

M. S.

Jian

Akram

Tariq

(2021). Entrepreneurial leadership: The key to develop creativity in organizations. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 42(3), 434–452.

101.

Mehralian

Moradi

Babapour

(2022). How do high-performance work systems affect innovation performance? The organizational learning perspective. Personnel Review, 51(9), 2081–2102. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-08-2020-0617

102.

Mitnick

B. M.

Windsor

Wood

D. J.

(2023). Moral CSR. Business & Society, 62(1), 192–220. https://doi.org/10.1177/00076503221086881

103.

Mittal

Shubham Sengupta

(2019). Multidimensionality in organizational justice-trust relationship for newcomer employees: A moderated-mediation model. Current Psychology, 38(3), 737–748. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-017-9632-6

104.

Mohammed

A. A.

Ferraris

Troise

(2022). CSR practices and creativity during COVID-19 pandemic in the emerging market: Investigating the mediating effect of affective commitment. Management Decision, 60(10), 2669–2693. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-08-2021-1021

105.

Moorman

R. H.

Niehoff

B. P.

Organ

D. W.

(1993). Treating employees fairly and organizational citizenship behavior: Sorting the effects of job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and procedural justice. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 6(3), 209–225. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01419445

106.

Mulgund

(2022). Importance of distributive justice, procedural justice and fairness in workplace. International Journal of Management and Humanities. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.35940/ijmh.F1419.018622

107.

Nazir

Shafi

Atif

M. M.

Qun

Abdullah

S. M.

(2019). How organization justice and perceived organizational support facilitate employees innovative behavior at work. Employee Relations. Advance online publication.

108.

Nguyen

Pontes

Malik

Gupta

Gugnani

(2024). Impact of high involvement work systems in shaping power, knowledge sharing, rewards and knowledge perception of employees. Journal of Knowledge Management, 28(6), 1771–1792. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-04-2023-0345

109.

Nuccio

Mogno

(2023). Knowledge, skills, and competences (KSC) in the knowledge-based economy. In Contributions to management science. Springer Nature Switzerland

110.

Nuzul

Witjaksono

A. D.

Kistyanto

(2020). Empowering leadership and employee creativity: The mediating role of psychological empowerment. SEISENSE Journal of Management, 3(6), 14–25. https://doi.org/10.33215/sjom.v3i6.467

111.

Olafsen

A. H.

Deci

E. L.

(2020). Self-determination theory and its relation to organizations. In Oxford research encyclopedia of psychology. Oxford University Press.

112.

Oldham

G. R.

Baer

(2011). Creativity and the work context. In M. D. Mumford (Ed.) Handbook of organizational creativity. (pp. 387–420)

113.

Orieno

O. H.

Chioma

A. U.

Osato

I. O.

Beryl

Ndubuisi

L. N.

(2024). Innovative Management Strategies in contemporary organizations: A Review: Analyzing the evolution and impact of modern management practices, with an emphasis on leadership, organizational culture, and Change Management. International Journal of Management and Entrepreneurship Research, 6(1), 167–190. https://doi.org/10.51594/ijmer.v6i1.727

114.

Örnek

A. Ş.

Ayas

(2015). The relationship between intellectual capital, innovative work behavior and business performance reflection. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 195, 1387–1395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.06.433

115.

Ouakouak

M. L.

Ouedraogo

(2013). The mediating role of employee strategic alignment in the relationship between rational strategic planning and firm performance: A European study. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 30(3), 143–158. https://doi.org/10.1002/cjas.1259

116.

Pakpahan

Eliyana

Hamidah Buchdadi

Bayuwati

TR.

(2020). The role of organizational justice dimensions: Enhancing work engagement and employee performance. Systematic Reviews in Pharmacy, 11(9), 323–332. https://doi.org/10.31838/srp.2020.9.49

117.

Pan

Sun

L.-Y.

Lam

L. W.

(2020). Employee–organization exchange and employee creativity: A motivational perspective. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 31(3), 385–407. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2017.1331368

118.

Pradana

H. A.

Uliani

(2021). Fostering or hindering creativity at work? Moderating role of proactive personality toward support and meaningfulness. Jurnal Aplikasi Bisnis dan Manajemen, 7(3), 559. https://doi.org/10.17358/jabm.7.3.559

119.

Putri

K. A. H.

Etikariena

(2021). Proactive personality & employee creativity: The role of organizational learning culture as mediator. Budapest International Research and Critics Institute-Journal, 4(4), 10601–10611.

120.

Rhee

T. S.

Jin

(2019). The influence of knowledge sharing on employees’ creativity in small and medium-sized Korean enterprises: The mediating effect of job variety and the moderating effect of intrinsic motivation. International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change, 7(4), 279–299.

121.

Ryan

R. M.

Deci

E. L.

(2020). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, 101860.

122.

Sarstedt

Ringle

C. M.

Cheah

J.-H.

Ting

Moisescu

O. I.

Radomir

(2020). Structural model robustness checks in PLS-SEM. Tourism Economics, 26(4), 531–554. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354816618823921

123.

Scott

(2000). Being real: An ongoing decision. Frog Books.

124.

Shah

M. S.

Ullah

(2021). The inter-relationship between CSR, inclusive leadership and employee creativity: A case of the banking sector. Sustainability, 13(16), 9158.

125.

Shamara

P. A.

Etikariena

(2021). Budaya Organisasi Pembelajaran sebagai Moderator Hubungan antara Core Self-Evaluation dengan Kreativitas Karyawan [Organizational learning culture as a moderator of the relationship between core self-evaluation and employee creativity]. Jurnal Psikologi Teori Dan Terapan, 12(1), 103–116.

126.

Shamsuddin

M Hashim

Ashari

. (2023). The effect of strategic alignment between organizational culture and organizational structure towards employee empowerment: A conceptual framework. KnE Social Sciences, 8(20). https://doi.org/10.18502/kss.v8i20.14592.

127.

Sikandar

Aleemi

A. R.

Irshad

Sundus. (2022). Feeling Black & Blue yet at work: Physical job stressors and sickness presenteeism with the moderation of organizational justice. Sustainable Business and Society in Emerging Economies, 4(1), 167–178. https://doi.org/10.26710/sbsee.v4i1.2207

128.

Singh

Sarkar

(2019). Role of psychological empowerment in the relationship between structural empowerment and innovative behavior. Management Research Review, 42(4), 521–538. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-04-2018-0158

129.

Siswanti

Muafi

(2020). Empowering leadership and individual creativity: The mediation role of psychological empowerment in facing Covid-19 pandemic. Journal of Asian Finance Economics and Business, 7(11), 809–816.

130.

Xiao

Chen

(2023). Fairly meaningful: Mechanisms linking organizational fairness to perceived meaningfulness. Journal of Business Ethics, 187(1), 53–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05271-2

131.

Song

Jiang

(2022). Corporate social responsibility and Chinese employees’ creative behavior: Supervisor–subordinate Guanxi as a mediator. Social Behavior and Personality, 50(8), 1–8.

132.

Spreitzer

G. M.

(1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38(5), 1442–1465. https://doi.org/10.2307/256865

133.

Spreitzer

G. M.

Kizilos

M. A.

Nason

S. W.

(1997). A dimensional analysis of the relationship between psychological empowerment and effectiveness, satisfaction, and strain. Journal of Management, 23(5), 679–704. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639702300504

134.

Srimulyani

V. A.

Hermanto

Y. B.

(2022). Organizational culture as a mediator of credible leadership influence on work engagement: empirical studies in private hospitals in East Java, Indonesia. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 9(1), 274. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01289-z

135.

Stivers

Pandey

S. K.

DeHart-Davis

Hall

J. L.

Newcomer

Portillo

Sabharwal

Strader

Wright

(2023). Beyond social equity: Talking social justice in public administration. Public Administration Review, 83(2), 229–240. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13620

136.

Tierney

Farmer

S. M.

(2002). Creative self-efficacy: Its potential antecedents and relationship to creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 45(6), 1137–1148. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069429

137.

Tong

Zhu

Zhang

Livuza

Zhou

(2019). Employees’ perceptions of corporate social responsibility and creativity: Employee engagement as a mediator. Social Behavior and Personality, 47(12), 1–13.

138.

Turker

(2009). Measuring corporate social responsibility: A scale development study. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(4), 411–427. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9780-6

139.

Urban

Pesout

Kombrza

Urban

(2021). Metacognitively aware university students exhibit higher creativity and motivation to learn. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 42, 100963. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100963

140.

Valero-Pastor

J. M.

García-Avilés

J. A.

Carvajal

(2021). Transformational leadership and innovation in digital-only news outlets. Analysis of quartz and El confidencial. Journalism Studies, 22(11), 1450–1468. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2021.1927153

141.

Van Lent

. (2014). Procedural justice seen to be done: The judiciary’s press guidelines in the light of publicity and procedural justice. Utrecht Law Review, 10(4), 131. https://doi.org/10.18352/ulr.295

142.

Wang

Guchait

Paşamehmetoğlu

(2020). Why should errors be tolerated? Perceived organizational support, organization-based self-esteem and psychological well-being. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 32(5), 1987–2006. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-10-2019-0869

143.

Wang

Hangeldiyeva

Ali

Guo

(2022). Effect of enterprise social media on employee creativity: Social exchange theory perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 812490.

144.

Wan

K. M.

(2023). Exploring organizational cultures affecting sustainability professionals’ motivation to implement sustainability: A study in Malaysia and Canada [Graduate Thesis, University of British Columbia].

145.

Wen

Long

(2021). Influence of ethical leadership on employees’ innovative behavior: The role of organization-based self-esteem and flexible human resource management. Sustainability, 13(3), 1359. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13031359

146.

Wigert

Robison

(2018). Fostering creativity at work: Do your managers push or crush innovation?https://www.gallup.com/workplace/236198/create-culture-psychological-safety.aspx

147.

Wook

(2019). Addressing the rights of indigenous peoples to resources in Malaysia: A procedural justice approach. International Journal on Minority and Group Rights, 26(1), 40–66. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718115-02601003

148.

(2007). The influence of organizational justice on job satisfaction of employees in government [Conference session]. ICMSEM: Proceedings of 2007 International Conference on Management Science and Engineering Management (pp. 121–127).

149.

Yang

Zhang

(2019). The role of thriving at work and overall fairness in the future work self–employee creativity relationship. International Journal of Manpower, 41(3), 289–302.

150.

Liu

Tan

(2022). The influence of organisational justice and ethical leadership on employees innovation behaviour. European Journal of Innovation Management, 26(4), 1129–1149.

151.

Yuan

Xie

(2022). High-performance work system and employee creativity [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 2022 International Conference on Creative Industry and Knowledge Economy (CIKE 2022). https://doi.org/10.2991/aebmr.k.220404.111

152.

Zhang

Wang

(2021). Organizational identification and employees innovative behavior: The mediating role of work engagement and the moderating role of creative self-efficacy. Chinese Management Studies, 16(5), 1108–1123.

153.

Zhang

Reynolds

K. J.

(2022). Creativity at work: exploring role identity, organizational climate and creative team mindset. Current Psychology, 41(6), 3993–4000. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-00908-9

154.

Zhang

Bartol

K. M.

(2010). Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity: The influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process engagement. Academy of Management Journal, 53(1), 107–128. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.48037118

155.

Zhou

George

J. M.

(2001). When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: Encouraging the expression of voice. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 682–696. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069410

156.

Zolfaghari

Madjdi

(2022). Building trusting multicultural organizations: Rethinking the influence of culture on interpersonal trust development in the workplace. Journal of International Management, 28(4), 100944. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intman.2022.100944