Received: 2 November 2020 Revised: 6 February 2021 Accepted: 22 March 2021

DOI: 10.1002/mde.3340

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Sustainability actions, employee loyalty, and the awareness:

The mediating effect of organization legitimacy

Gabriel Cachón-Rodríguez | Alicia Blanco-González | Camilo Prado-Román |

Francisco Diez-Martin

Department of Business Economics, Rey Juan

Carlos University, Madrid, Spain
Correspondence
Francisco Diez-Martin, Department of
Business Economics, Rey Juan Carlos
University, Madrid, Spain.
Email: francisco.diez@urjc.es
Researchers highlighted the need to increase our understanding about the effect of
sustainability practices on employees. In this work, we argue that organizational legit-
imacy has a mediating effect between sustainability practices and employee loyalty.
This structural relationship is analyzed on employees of Spanish public universities.
Our results confirm the existence of the mediating effect proposed. The lack of orga-
nizational legitimacy makes sustainability actions irrelevant for employees. Results
expand our understanding about the effect of sustainability among employees. In
addition, they provide new evidence for practitioners in order to focus on organiza-
tional legitimacy for a better sustainability implementation.

1 | I N T RO DU CT I O N employees' perception of organizational sustainability, there is a sig-

Currently, sustainability has become a social demand at global level.
Corporate sustainability involves ‘meeting the needs of a firm's direct
and indirect stakeholders […], without compromising its ability
to meet the needs of future stakeholders as well’ (Dyllick &
Hockerts, 2002, p. 131). This concern has led to the formulation
and implementation of sustainability strategies by organizations.
‘Commitment to sustainability issues has become an issue of strategic
importance in the current competitive scenario’ (Goyal et al., 2013).
Along these lines, academics have demonstrated long-term benefits
for organizations that develop sustainability actions (Chabowski
et al., 2011; Schaltegger & Hörisch, 2017). Thus, these organizations
achieve positive effects on the following: financial performance
(Orlitzky et al., 2003; Sila, 2018); cost reduction (Mata et al., 2018);
image, reputation, and legitimacy (Del-Castillo-Feito et al., 2020); cus-
tomer satisfaction and loyalty (Davis-Sramek et al., 2020; Igbudu
et al., 2018); employee attraction and involvement (Kim et al., 2018;
Lee et al., 2013); and innovation (Shu et al., 2016, 2020). In short, sus-
tainability efforts clearly have a positive impact on business perfor-
mance thanks to creating value for all stakeholders (Porter &
Kramer, 2019).
Employees are included in the main stakeholders. Employees'
behaviors and attitudes towards sustainability can have significant
implications for organizations, as they are the ones who turn
the strategy into action. Surprisingly, despite the importance of
nificant lack of studies in this field (Hallinger, 2020). Some studies that
have followed this line of research indicate that the perception of
employees towards organizations that develop sustainability actions is
positive (Tsai et al., 2012). It has been noted that employees have a
preference for eco-friendly organizations (Zientara & Zamojska, 2018)
and that sustainable organizations are highly regarded by potential
employees, demonstrating greater capacity to attract employment
(Turban & Greening, 1997). Academics have also shown that sustain-
ability actions influence employee behavior (Kong et al., 2019), acting
as predictors of the quality of life at work, satisfaction, and employee
loyalty (Kim et al., 2018; Lee et al., 2013). The way employees per-
ceive sustainability actions should be part of the research in order to
understand the importance of sustainability for organizations.
However, not all sustainability activities are perceived in the same
way by employees. For example, in the case of the hospitality
industry, it has been observed that philanthropic and economic
actions cause a more favorable perception in employees towards the
company than those actions of a legal or ethical nature (Kim
et al., 2018). This can be explained by the irrelevance of sustainability
actions for employees. Irrelevance occurs when employees under-
stand that sustainability actions do not address relevant issues, or
because the degree of performance achieved by the organizations
that develop these actions is so low that it does not deserve further
consideration (Riaz et al., 2019). A lack of dissemination of these types
of actions can also cause them to be imperceptible to stakeholders.

1730 © 2021 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/mde Manage Decis Econ. 2021;42:1730–1739.
CACHÓN-RODRÍGUEZ ET AL.
All this leads to some sustainability activities being more legitimized
than others. Legitimacy refers to the perception that people have
about the desirability or correction of an activity. This perception
depends on multiple individual and contextual factors (Finch
et al., 2015). Thus, those organizations capable of showing greater
legitimacy will benefit from greater loyalty from their employees.
In this research, we propose that organizational legitimacy has a
mediating effect between sustainability practices and employee
loyalty. Our goal is to test this structural relationship. Researchers
have highlighted the need to increase research on the effect of
sustainability practices on employees because they bear the burden
of their implementation (Fung Wong & Kim, 2020; Turban &
Greening, 1997). We introduced the concept of legitimacy into this
relationship to gain a better understanding of how sustainability prac-
tices influence employee loyalty. To our knowledge, the effects of this
structural relationship have not yet been investigated in the literature.
The results of this research will help professionals to better
understand the relevance of sustainability practices for the function-
ing of organizations, providing new arguments for their application
and a more efficient allocation of resources.
2 | THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND
HYPOTHESES
2.1 | Sustainability and organizational legitimacy
Sustainability involves developing actions that satisfy the needs of
today's society without damaging or preserving its capacity or need to
satisfy future needs (Martín-Miguel et al., 2020). Nowadays, an
increasing number of organizational stakeholders demands more long-
term commitment from organizations (Carroll & Buchholtz, 2014). This
long-term approach has resulted in an increasing number of compa-
nies integrating sustainability policies into decision-making processes
(Albort-Morant et al., 2017; Sepasi et al., 2019).
Sustainability actions are a strategic response to a greater
increase in stakeholder demands regarding economic, social, and envi-
ronmental concerns. Authors such as Schaltegger and Hörisch (2017)
consider that sustainability actions are a reaction to pressure from
stakeholders, which provide a means to achieve legitimacy. Employees
constitute one of the main categories of the organization's internal
stakeholders (Carroll & Buchholtz, 2014), so if they withdraw their
support from the organization, it could lose certain legitimacy levels.
Organizational legitimacy is defined as ‘the perceived appropriateness
of an organization to a social system in terms of rules, values,
norms, and definitions’ (Deephouse et al., 2017). The importance of
legitimacy lies in the fact that its proper management is linked to the
organization's success. In fact, when an organization is lacking legiti-
macy, it is in a social defenselessness situation, which can threaten its
survival (Suddaby et al., 2017). Thus, legitimacy is established as a key
resource to the extent that it involves the perception that the organi-
zational changes (strategic, structural, or procedural) are desirable,
adequate, or appropriate (Díez-Martín et al., 2013).
1731
Sustainability actions play a key role for organizations because
they can maintain or stabilize legitimacy, avoid a reputational crisis, or
ensure brand value (Deegan, 2019; Weber & Fehre, 2020). Both sus-
tainability and legitimacy management are strategic elements that
require joint management (Thomas & Lamm, 2012). This relationship
has been shown in several investigations. Bansal and Roth (2000) con-
ducted a qualitative study on the motivations and contextual factors
that lead different organization managers to perform actions related
to environmental sustainability. The results showed that organiza-
tional legitimacy was a primary objective, and to a lesser extent, profit
seeking. In a survey conducted on Norwegian organization managers
regarding motivations of social sustainability, actions found that one
of the main motivation was obtaining organizational legitimacy
(Brønn & Vidaver-Cohen, 2009). In a survey with corporate leaders
and employees, results show that legitimacy-oriented factors
were closely related to sustainability actions (Ditlev-Simonsen &
Midttun, 2011). A study on the perceptions of sustainability actions,
carried out on students with the potential to be future employees,
showed that sustainability perceptions were an important ethical
aspect, which was closely related to legitimacy (Kim & Park, 2011).
Furthermore, internal sustainable practices were directly related
to organizational attractiveness and company reputation (Story
et al., 2016), which are factors aimed at employee legitimacy
(Ditlev-Simonsen & Midttun, 2011; Schaltegger & Hörisch, 2017). This
evidence suggests that as an organization develops sustainable
actions, these influence the evaluations carried out by its employees.
Companies are increasingly expected to engage in sustainability
actions to gain legitimacy among their stakeholders (Frandsen
et al., 2013). In this context, organizations facing institutional
pressures can gain legitimacy by showing good sustainability perfor-
mance (Ashrafi et al., 2020). Sustainability enhances organizational
legitimacy (Press et al., 2020). Therefore, we can establish that:
Hypothesis 1. Organizational sustainability influences organizational
legitimacy.
2.2 | Sustainability and employee loyalty
Employees are the key units for the development of organizations'
policies. Strategic implementation improves substantially when
employee loyalty is higher (Guillon & Cezanne, 2014). Employee
loyalty is made up of an attitudinal element and a behavioral element
(Yao et al., 2019). From an attitudinal point of view, it can be defined
as psychological attachment or emotional commitment to the organi-
zation. From a behavioral perspective, employee loyalty is reflected
by employees' actual behavior to remain in the organization (Cachón-
Rodríguez & Prado-Román, 2020). Behavioral elements are the result
of attitudinal elements. In this way, employees who develop a
favorable attitude to staying in the organization not only consider it as
their first job option, but they do not actively seek another job and do
not respond to offers either, and if they need something, they look for
it in the organization (Blanco-Gonzalez et al., 2020; Cachón Rodríguez
1732
et al., 2019). Thus, greater transparency, education, training, and moti-
vation are the key to increasing employee's organizational commit-
ment and loyalty.
Several investigations have shown that in addition to monetary
compensation (Elrehail et al., 2019), sustainable social and environ-
mental actions developed by organizations contribute to greater
employees' organizational commitment (Kucukusta et al., 2016; Song
et al., 2015) and loyalty (Kim et al., 2018; Lee et al., 2013). Social and
nonmonetary recognition is just as important as the salary to retain
employees (McGuire et al., 2003). In this line, it was found that social
benefits predominated over monetary ones on employee loyalty
(Ineson et al., 2013). Moreover, organizations that invest in sustain-
ability programs impact employee productivity positively and reduce
the average employee turnover and dropout rate (Whelan &
Fink, 2016).
The organization's level of commitment influences its employees'
loyalty (Becker, 1992). Furthermore, green actions based on the
organization's interior and exterior nature increased the perception of
mental health, emotional well-being, and employee loyalty (Han &
Hyun, 2019). Ecological management of an organization improves
employee loyalty (Chen et al., 2018). Organizations that developed
adequate sustainable actions were more appealing to attract and
retain employees (Kim & Park, 2011; Story et al., 2016). In short,
employees show greater loyalty to companies that work towards the
improvement of society (Aguilera et al., 2007; Davies, 2003;
Galaskiewicz & Colman, 2006). Therefore, we can establish that:
Hypothesis 2. Organizational sustainability influences employee
loyalty.
2.3 | Legitimacy and employee loyalty
The institutional theory suggests that people evaluate those organiza-
tions whose behavior seems appropriate favorably (Bitektine &
Haack, 2015). For example, companies that develop popular manage-
ment techniques such as total quality management, empowerment of
working teams, achieve greater admiration and are perceived as
more desirable and appropriate by their stakeholders (Staw &
Epstein, 2000). That is, individuals identify with organizations that
share the same values. Cultural values influence the affective commit-
ment towards the organization (Zhang & Zheng, 2009). When this sit-
uation occurs, they are given legitimacy. Having organizational
legitimacy favors survival because it is a resource with the potential to
influence people's behavior (e.g., job seekers and clients) (Deephouse
et al., 2017). To this end, organizations must transform it into the
commitment and loyalty of employees (Scherer et al., 2013). Commu-
nication is the key for this purpose (Prado-Roman et al., 2020).
Employees feel more identified with organizations with greater
legitimacy (Kraft & Wolf, 2018). The worker's identification with the
organization is a key variable that influences employee retention in
organizations (Llobet & Fito, 2013). Deephouse and Suchman (2008)
point out that legitimacy can be crucial to obtain the support of
CACHÓN-RODRÍGUEZ ET AL.
external audiences and generate loyalty among internal audiences
(e.g., employees). Thus, when organizations share social values and
defend employees' interests, they are rewarded with employee loyalty
(Bhattacharya & Sen, 2004). Organizational legitimacy is an assess-
ment in which processes and managers' ways of performing also come
into play. When managers' actions are correct and appropriate
(i.e., they are legitimized), employees' support and loyalty increase
(Schwarzmüller et al., 2017). Basic working conditions, such as social
integration and the legitimacy of the authority structure are essential
for employee bonding with the organization (Mueller et al., 1994),
making it possible to moderate employees' attitudes at work. In this
context, organizations that face institutional pressures can gain
legitimacy by showing good sustainability performance (Hudson
et al., 2017). Therefore, we can establish that:
Hypothesis 3. Organizational legitimacy influences employee loyalty.
2.4 | The mediating role of legitimacy between
sustainability and employee loyalty
It was previously justified that the development of sustainability
actions and organizational legitimacy are two fundamental factors
for obtaining greater loyalty from employees. In the relationship
between these three elements (sustainability, legitimacy, and
employee loyalty), legitimacy can be expected to play a key role,
because most stakeholders are only willing to commit to a legitimate
institution and withdraw their support from those institutions that
are questioned within a social structure. Different studies have
established that the influence of sustainability actions on employee
loyalty were closely linked to aspects related to legitimacy through
ethics, transparency, social adaptation, and the perceived norms and
values (Han & Hyun, 2019; Thomas & Lamm, 2012). In fact, a non-
legitimate organization could lose the support of its actions and not
survive (Deegan, 2019). Along these lines, Whelan and Fink (2016)
point out that in organizations that develop morality actions
(obtaining moral legitimacy), the sustainability impact on employee
loyalty is stronger than in those organizations that simply build sus-
tainability programs. In this regard, management based on organiza-
tional legitimacy improves employee commitment and loyalty than
the simple effect of the sustainability action. Therefore, we can
establish that:
Hypothesis 4. Organizational legitimacy mediates the effect of sus-
tainability actions on employee loyalty.
2.5 | Conceptual framework
Based on the literature review, Figure 1 shows the model to be tested
in this research. The model shows that corporate sustainability has a
direct effect on organizational legitimacy (Hypothesis 1) and loyalty
(Hypothesis 2). Organizational legitimacy has a direct effect on
CACHÓN-RODRÍGUEZ ET AL. 1733

TABLE 1 Respondents' profile

Characteristics Frequency Percentage (%)

Gender
Male 329 61.5
Female 206 38.5
Age
26–35 137 25.6
36–54 153 29.0
46–55 170 32.0
Above 55 75 14.0
Professional category
Lecturer 203 37.9
Reader 275 51.4
FIGURE 1 Research model
Professor 57 10.7
Total (N) 535 —

employee loyalty (Hypothesis 3), and organizational legitimacy

mediates the relationship between corporate sustainability and
employee loyalty (Hypothesis 4).
3 | M E TH O DO LO GY
3.1 | Sample and data collection
To verify the hypotheses proposed, an online questionnaire was
designed to collect the data. This survey was carried out between
May and June of 2019 by means of a convenience sample composed
of faculties from the Spanish public universities.
Data collection came from universities because sustainability rep-


resents a key element that defines their strategy (Avila et al., 2019).
An increasing number of universities are starting to develop these
practices, for example, publishing reports and integrating their actions
into their sustainability management systems (Sepasi et al., 2019).
There is a great sensitivity towards sustainability in university
environments due to the pressure from the university community
(Snelson-Powell et al., 2016). In the case of Spain, sustainability
actions have been integrated into the strategic planning of most
public universities. Spanish public universities operate under a strong
competitive environment, although highly institutionalized. All univer-
sities adhere to the same regulations that ensure similar standards of
quality and attention to the student. Thus, the universities long-
term survival depends on their ability to manage key strategic
resources such as organizational legitimacy and employee loyalty
(Blanco-Gonzalez et al., 2020).
A sample of 535 respondents completed the survey. Table 1
shows the profile of the respondents' faculties by gender, age,
and academic level. Among them, 61.5% were men and 38.5%
women. By age groups: 26–35 years (25.6%), 36–45 years (29%),
46–55 years (32%), and 56 years and above (14%). Finally, by
professional category: Lecturer (37.9%), Reader (51.4%), and
Professor (10.7%).
TABLE 2 Variable measurement
Sustainability SUST. My university develops sustainability actions
Legitimacy LEG1. My university provides me some personal
benefit
LEG2. My university complies with the law, is
responsible and behaves honestly
LEG3. I consider that it performs them in the best
possible way (technically speaking)
Loyalty LOYA1. If I had to take other courses, conferences,
or studies of professional improvement, I would
surely consider my university as the first option
LOYA2. If someone asks me for advice, I will
recommend my university
LOYA3. I would encourage family and friends to
study at my university
3.2 | Variable measurement
The research instrument of the study is an ad hoc questionnaire,
based on the theoretical and empirical literature. Eleven-point Likert
scales were used to measure each question (Table 2). Legitimacy was
measured using three items. Organizational legitimacy is a multi-
dimensional perceptual variable made up of three dimensions: prag-
matic, moral, and cognitive (Suchman, 1995). These perceptions affect
stakeholders' evaluations towards the organization (Bitektine, 2011).
This way of measuring organizational legitimacy has been widely
used by previous research (Alexiou & Wiggins, 2019; Chung
et al., 2016; Díez-Martín et al., 2013). Based on previous research
(Blanco-Gonzalez et al., 2020), to measure sustainability, an item
related to economic, social, and environmental sustainability was
used. In line with the purpose of the research (to analyze the effect of
sustainability in general, and not its dimensions), we condense the
three sustainability dimensions into a single item. This made it possi-
ble to know respondents' general perception about the sustainability
of the university in which they work. Furthermore, several
1734 CACHÓN-RODRÍGUEZ ET AL.

investigations support the use of individually constructs measurement Furthermore, results shown in Table 4 indicate no discriminant
because it allows obtaining higher response rates (Fuchs & validity problems. HTMT ratio values lower than 0.85 (Kline, 2015).
Diamantopoulos, 2009; Sarstedt & Wilczynski, 2009). Thus, this way
of measuring fits with our purpose of knowing if a positive perception
of sustainability actions favors obtaining legitimacy and employee 4.2 | Evaluation of the structural model
loyalty. Loyalty was measured using three items adopted from Cachón
Rodríguez et al. (2019) and Nguyen (2016). Once the measurement instrument has been analyzed, the second
step to carry out hypothesis testing is to evaluate the structural
model. For this, the collinearity analysis of the structural model should
3.3 | Data analysis be performed through the invariance inflation factor (VIF) and statisti-
cal significance of the effects of the path coefficients. VIF values
Partial least squares (PLS) were used to evaluate the research model. greater than 3.3 suggest the existence of possible multicollinearity
PLS-SEM is a comprehensive multivariate approach to examine each problems (Hair et al., 2019). Table 5 shows VIF values below the indi-
of the relationships of the conceptual model, including measurement cated thresholds. Thus, there are no problems related with this
and structural components of direct and indirect effects (Reinartz indicator.
et al., 2009). Data processing using PLS-SEM involves analyzing the Regarding the significance of the main effects, the results of
reliability and validity of the measurement model, as well as the struc- 5,000 subsamples shown in Table 5 indicate that sustainability influ-
tural model to test the hypotheses. PLS is an appropriate technique to ences legitimacy positively and significantly (Hypothesis 1; β = 0.652;
use because it is primarily intended for causal-predictive analysis, p < 0.001). The direct effect of sustainability on loyalty did not reveal
including mediating effects (Hair et al., 2017). a positive and significant influence (Hypothesis 2: β = 0.036; p > 0.5).
The direct effect of legitimacy influences loyalty positively
(Hypothesis 3: β = 0.610; p < 0.001).
4 | RESULTS Finally, evaluating the indirect effects requires two steps: deter-
mining the significance of the indirect effect (Step 1) and evaluating
4.1 | Evaluation of the measurement model the magnitude of the indirect effect or mediation (Step 2) (Carrión
et al., 2017). The results in Table 5 show that the mediating effect
Evaluating the measurement model for the variables involves analyz- of legitimacy between sustainability and loyalty is significant
ing the individual reliability of its indicators examined through their (Hypothesis 4: β = 0.397; p < 0.001) (Step 1). Regarding the magni-
loadings, the reliability of the construct through Cronbach's alpha tude of the effect (Step 2), the results reveal that the mediation is
(CA), composite reliability (CR), and Dijkstra–Henseler statistic (rho_A). complete, because the direct effect between sustainability and loyalty
The evaluation of the measurement model also requires analyzing is not significant (Hypothesis 3: p > 0.5), whereas the indirect effect
convergent validity by using the average variance extracted (AVE) and
the discriminant validity using the heterotrait–monotrait ratio (HTMT)
(Hair et al., 2019). TABLE 4 Discriminant validity
The values of the individual indicator loadings and CA require Construct Loyalty Legitimacy Sustainability
values above 0.7. Values higher than 0.6 or 0.7 are recommended for
Loyalty N/A N/A N/A
CR. Values higher than 0.6 are recommended for the rho_A statistic.
Legitimacy 0.697 N/A N/A
Finally, AVE values greater than 0.5 are suggested (Hair et al., 2017).
Sustainability 0.447 0.696 N/A
Table 3 shows that all the indicators meet these criteria, so there are
no reliability and validity problems. N/A = not applicable

T A B L E 3 Reliability and convergent

Construct Items Loadings CA CR rho_A AVE
validity tests
Sustainability SUST 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Legitimacy LEG1 0.870 0.876 0.924 0.877 0.802
LEG2 0.906
LEG3 0.902
Loyalty LOYA1 0.903 0.939 0.961 0.941 0.893
LOYA2 0.962
LOYA3 0.968

Abbreviations: AVE, average variance extracted; CA, Cronbach's alpha; CR, composite reliability; rho_A,
Dijkstra–Henseler statistic.
CACHÓN-RODRÍGUEZ ET AL.
T A B L E 5 Structural VIF and
Relationship
hypothesis testing
H1: Sustainability ! Legitimacy
H2: Sustainability ! Loyalty
H3: Legitimacy ! Loyalty
H4: Sustainability ! Legitimacy ! Loyalty
Abbreviations: N/A, not applicable; VIF, invariance inflation factor.
***p < 0.001.
of legitimacy on the relationship between sustainability and loyalty is
significant (Hypothesis 4: p < 0.001), indicating that there is only an
indirect effect through the mediator. Some authors suggest con-
firming this statement through the Variance Accountant For (VAF),
thus values higher than 80% would indicate complete mediation
(Carrión et al., 2017). These reasons confirm that we are facing a
complete mediation.
5 | DISCUSSIONS AND FUTURE LINES
This work examined a structural model in which organizational legiti-
macy exerts a mediating effect between sustainability and employee
loyalty. The results have confirmed this mediating effect, providing an
explanation as to why sustainability actions developed by organiza-
tions do not always influence employee loyalty.
First, the results provided empirical evidence on the effect of sus-
tainability on organizational legitimacy (Hypothesis 1). Previous stud-
ies confirmed this effect (Ditlev-Simonsen & Midttun, 2011). The
search for legitimacy has become one of companies' main motivations
to develop sustainability actions (Bansal & Roth, 2000) and above
economic motivations (Schaltegger & Hörisch, 2017). Our results
consolidate previous knowledge about sustainability as an
antecedent of organizational legitimacy (Díez-Martín et al., 2020;
Schaltegger & Hörisch, 2017). This is relevant to better understand
the legitimation process of organizations (Bitektine & Haack, 2015)
through sustainability. At the micro level, it seems that employees
positively evaluate organizations that develop sustainability actions.
Researchers suggest that good internal communication can lead to
these types of evaluations (Cornelissen et al., 2015; Prado-Roman
et al., 2020). However, we still do not know what happens at the
macro level and what is the effect that opinion leaders or the media
have on employees' evaluations. Future research could analyze the
influence of the combined effect (macro and micro level) of organiza-
tional legitimacy evaluations based on the development of sustainabil-
ity actions and what conditions for carrying out sustainability
activities produce better evaluations of organizations.
Second, this study reveals that sustainability actions do not
always produce a significant effect on employee loyalty
(Hypothesis 2). Although previous studies predict greater employee
loyalty towards companies that act in a socially responsible way
(Aguilera et al., 2007; Lee et al., 2013), the lack of significance could
be explained because there is a lack of employee involvement in the
1735
VIF Beta T value Supported
1.000 0.652*** 18.339 Yes
1.739 0.036 0.703 No
1.739 0.610*** 12.558 Yes
N/A 0.397*** 9.017 Yes
sustainability activities decision-making, along universities. Although
sustainability actions are well considered, they are irrelevant because
they do not directly influence faculties' activity. Some studies show
that in public higher education institutions, these types of strategies
are in the initial phase of their strategic programs and their employees
do not perceive them or do not have sufficient attractive knowledge


(Alghamdi et al., 2017; Avila et al., 2019).
Third, organizational legitimacy has a positive and significant
effect on employee loyalty (Hypothesis 3). This result is consistent
with previous research which argues that organizational legitimacy
has the capability to generate loyalty among internal audiences
(Deephouse & Suchman, 2008), as it favors employee identification
with the organization (Kraft & Wolf, 2018). That is, loyalty arises as an
emotional result of the behavior of organizations. It occurs when
employees assume that organizations represent the same values with
which they feel identified with and which they have in their minds
and hearts (Suchman, 1995).
Fourth, our results provide empirical evidence for the existence of
a mediating effect of organizational legitimacy on the relationship
between sustainability and employee loyalty. This result broadens our
understanding of why sustainability actions do not always have a signif-
icant influence on employees. From this result, it can be inferred that
employees trust sustainability actions when they are carried out by
legitimate companies. This confidence generates real increases in
loyalty among employees. However, when organizations without legiti-
macy carry out sustainability activities, employees do not entirely trust
the true objective of these actions, being able to associate them with a
makeover (e.g., green washing), instead of a true commitment to
sustainability. In this way, although employees consider sustainability
actions positively, the organization's lack of credibility, caused by a lack
of legitimacy, makes these types of actions irrelevant to employees.
5.1 | Managerial implications
The results of this study have significant implications for those
responsible for managing organizations and employee commitment.
Our results refer to the importance of sustainability actions and
organizational legitimacy on employee engagement. Managing sustain-
ability and organizational legitimacy is beneficial for organizations for
multiple reasons (Díez-Martín et al., 2020; Engert et al., 2016;
Schaltegger & Hörisch, 2017). Specifically, we empirically demonstrated
that sustainability actions and organizational legitimacy are related, and
1736
both promote employee's loyalty. This will increase the organizational
legitimacy level and employees will feel more committed, which in turn
will contribute not only to a higher performance and long-term survival
of the organization but also to a greater social benefit.
Legitimacy plays a key role in this relationship, because it acts as
a mediating variable. Employee loyalty increases with organizational
legitimacy. At the same time, it encourages employee loyalty through
sustainability actions. Thus, to increase employee loyalty, it is essential
that managers develop actions of legitimacy. There are a large number
of strategies aimed at obtaining organizational legitimacy (see
Deephouse et al., 2017). Some strategies, for example actions based
on corporate identity management, have shown their usefulness to
improve internal legitimacy (Balogun et al., 2019; Bridwell-Mitchell &
Mezias, 2012). That is, to improve the legitimacy obtained by
employee judgments. Within this purpose, it would be recommended
for managers to include legitimacy strategies into their plans.
Managers could rely on previous model processes to achieve internal
and external legitimacy (Drori & Honig, 2013). These plans should
include sustainability actions. Sustainability actions produce a positive
effect on organizational legitimacy because they represent actions
aimed at achieving socially desirable ends.
5.2 | Limitations
This study has several limitations that open the way for future
research. The main limitation of this study is that we focus on sustain-
ability actions at a general level. The method used to measure sustain-
ability could be another reason for the unexpected results of
Hypothesis 2. Future research could measure sustainability with a less
generic measurement scales, accounting for the different dimensions
of sustainability, to detect the direct effect of each dimension on
employee loyalty. In addition, future research could analyze the
mediating effect of legitimacy by taking into account the social,
environmental, and economic dimensions of sustainability. In this way,
they could determine if the mediating effect of legitimacy occurs on
each of the sustainability dimensions. Similarly, researchers could also
analyze whether this effect occurs equally with all legitimacy dimen-
sions or only with some of them (Díez-Martín et al., 2021). Some
research suggests that the legitimacy of organizations not only comes
from different sources, but that each legitimacy source grants it for
different reasons (Deephouse et al., 2017). Another limitation would
be determined by the segmentation level of the sample, because it is
made up of faculties from public universities. Researchers could
analyze this effect in different industries, in the private sector, or
among different stakeholders.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank Professors Emilio Díez and Luis Díez, for insightful com-
ments and suggestions on previous drafts. During the completion of
the paper, we benefited from discussions at research seminars at
Fundacion Camilo Prado and European Academy of Management and
Business Economics International Conference.
CACHÓN-RODRÍGUEZ ET AL.
FUNDING INF ORMATI ON
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.
CONFLIC T OF INT ER E ST
Authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
DATA AVAILABILITY STAT EMEN T
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the
corresponding author upon reasonable request.
OR CID
Gabriel Cachón-Rodríguez https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4228-2881
Alicia Blanco-González https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8509-7993
Camilo Prado-Román https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1540-0643
Francisco Diez-Martin https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9888-833X
RE FE RE NCE S
Aguilera, R. V., Rupp, D. E., Williams, C. A., & Ganapathi, J. (2007). Putting
the S back in corporate social responsibility: A multilevel theory of
social change in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32(3),
836–863. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.25275678
Albort-Morant, G., Henseler, J., Leal-Millán, A., & Cepeda-Carrión, G.
(2017). Mapping the field: A bibliometric analysis of green innovation.
Sustainability, 9(6), 1011. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9061011
Alexiou, K., & Wiggins, J. (2019). Measuring individual legitimacy percep-
tions: Scale development and validation. Strategic Organization, 17(4),
470–496. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127018772862
Alghamdi, N., den Heijer, A., & de Jonge, H. (2017). Assessment tools'
indicators for sustainability in universities: An analytical overview.
International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 18(1),
84–115. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-04-2015-0071
Ashrafi, M., Magnan, G. M., Adams, M., & Walker, T. R. (2020).
Understanding the conceptual evolutionary path and theoretical
underpinnings of corporate social responsibility and corporate sustain-
ability. Sustainability, 12(3), 760. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12030760


Avila, L. V., Beuron, T. A., Brandli, L. L., Damke, L. I., Pereira, R. S., &
Klein, L. L. (2019). Barriers to innovation and sustainability in universi-
ties: An international comparison. International Journal of Sustainability
in Higher Education, 20(5), 805–821. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-
02-2019-0067
Balogun, J. C., Fahy, K. M., & Vaara, E. (2019). The interplay between HQ
legitimation and subsidiary legitimacy judgments in HQ relocation: A
social psychological approach. Journal of International Business Studies,
50, 223–249. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-017-0122-8
Bansal, P., & Roth, K. (2000). Why companies go green: A model of ecolog-
ical responsiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 717–736.
Becker, T. E. (1992). Foci and bases of commitment: Are they distinctions
worth making? Academy of Management Journal, 35(1), 232–244.
https://doi.org/10.5465/256481
Bhattacharya, C., & Sen, S. (2004). Doing better at doing good: When,
why, and how consumers respond to corporate social initiatives. Cali-
fornia Management Review, 47(1), 9–25. https://doi.org/10.2307/
41166284
Bitektine, A. (2011). Toward a theory of social judgments of organizations:
The case of legitimacy, reputation, and status. Academy of Manage-
ment Review, 36(1), 151–179. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2009.
0382
Bitektine, A., & Haack, P. (2015). The macro and the micro of legitimacy:
Towards a multi-level theory of the legitimacy process. Academy of
CACHÓN-RODRÍGUEZ ET AL.
Management Review, 40(1), 49–75. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2013.
0318
Blanco-Gonzalez, A., Diéz-Martín, F., Cachón-Rodríguez, G., & Prado-
Román, C. (2020). Contribution of social responsibility to the work
involvement of employees. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmen-
tal Management, 27, 2588–2598. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1978
Bridwell-Mitchell, E. N., & Mezias, S. J. (2012). The quest for cognitive
legitimacy: organizational identity crafting and internal stakeholder
support. Journal of Change Management, 12(2), 189–207. https://doi.
org/10.1080/14697017.2011.645053
Brønn, P. S., & Vidaver-Cohen, D. (2009). Corporate motives for social ini-
tiative: Legitimacy, sustainability, or the bottom line? Journal of
Business Ethics, 87(S1), 91–109. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-
008-9795-z
Cachón Rodríguez, G., Prado Román, C., & Zúñiga-Vicente, J. A.
(2019).
The relationship between identification and loyalty in a public univer-
sity: Are there differences between (the perceptions) professors and
graduates? European Research on Management and Business Economics,
25(3), 122–128.
Cachón-Rodríguez, G., & Prado-Román, C. (2020). The identification-
loyalty relationship in a university context of crisis: The moderating
role of students and graduates. Cuadernos de Gestión, 20(3):53–60.
https://doi.org/10.5295/cdg.191109gc
Carrión, G. C., Nitzl, C., & Roldán, J. L. (2017). Mediation analyses in partial
least squares structural equation modeling: Guidelines and empirical
examples. In Partial least squares path modeling: basic concepts, method-
ological issues and applications (pp. 173–195). Springer International
Publishing.
Carroll, A. B., & Buchholtz, A. K. (2014). Business and society: Ethics, sus-
tainability, and stakeholder management. Nelson Education.
Chabowski, B. R., Mena, J. A., & Gonzalez-Padron, T. L. (2011). The struc-
ture of sustainability research in marketing, 1958–2008: A basis for
future research opportunities. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 39(1), 55–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-010-0212-7
Chen, S., Chen, H. H., Zhang, K. Q., & Xu, X. L. (2018). A comprehensive
theoretical framework for examining learning effects in green and con-
ventionally managed hotels. Journal of Cleaner Production, 174
(February), 1392–1399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.
10.321
Chung, J. Y., Berger, B. K., & DeCoster, J. (2016). Developing measurement
scales of organizational and issue legitimacy: A case of direct-to-
consumer advertising in the pharmaceutical industry. Journal of Busi-
ness Ethics, 137(2), 405–413. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-
2498-8
Cornelissen, J. P., Durand, R., Fiss, P. C., Lammers, J. C., & Vaara, E. (2015).
Putting communication front and center in institutional theory and
analysis. Academy of Management Review, 40(1), 10–27. https://doi.
org/10.5465/amr.2014.0381
Davies, R. (2003). The business community: Social responsibility and cor-
porate values. In J. H. Dunning (Ed.), Making globalization good: The
moral challenges of global capitalism (pp. 301–319). Oxford University
Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/0199257019.003.0014
Davis-Sramek, B., Robinson, J. L., Darby, J., & Thomas, R. W. (2020).
Exploring the differential roles of environmental and social
sustainability in carrier selection decisions. International Journal of
Production Economics, 227, 107660. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJPE.
2020.107660
Deegan, C. M. (2019). Legitimacy theory: Despite its enduring popularity
and contribution, time is right for a necessary makeover. Accounting,
Auditing & Accountability Journal, 32(8), 2307–2329.
Deephouse, D. L., Bundy, J., Tost, L. P., & Suchman, M. C. (2017). Organi-
zational legitimacy: Six key questions. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, T.
Lawrence, & R. Meyer (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational insti-
tutionalism (2nd ed.) (pp. 28–54). SAGE Publications Ltd.. https://doi.
org/10.4135/9781446280669.n2
1737
Deephouse, D. L., & Suchman, M. (2008). Legitimacy in organizational
institutionalism. In K. Greenwood, C. Oliver, R. Suddaby, &
K. Sahlin-Andersson (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational institu-
tionalism (pp. 49–77). Sage Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/
9781849200387.n2
Del-Castillo-Feito, C., Blanco-González, A., & Delgado-Alemany, R. (2020).
The relationship between image, legitimacy, and reputation as a sus-
tainable strategy: Students' versus professors' perceptions in the
higher education sector. Sustainability, 12(3), 1189. https://doi.org/10.
3390/su12031189
Díez-Martín, F., Blanco-González, A., & Díez-de-Castro, E. (2021). Measur-
ing a scientifically multifaceted concept. The jungle of organizational
legitimacy. European Research on Management and Business Economics,
27(1), 100131.
Díez-Martín, F., Blanco-González, A., & Prado-Román, C. (2020). The intel-
lectual structure of organizational legitimacy research: a co-citation
analysis in business journals. Review of Managerial Science. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11846-020-00380-6
Díez-Martín, F., Prado-Roman, C., & Blanco-González, A. (2013). Beyond
legitimacy: Legitimacy types and organizational success. Management
Decision, 51(10), 1954–1969. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-08-2012-
0561
Ditlev-Simonsen, C. D., & Midttun, A. (2011). What motivates managers to
pursue corporate responsibility? A survey among key stakeholders.
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 18(1),
25–38. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.237
Drori, I., & Honig, B. (2013). A process model of internal and external legit-
imacy. Organization Studies, 34(3), 345–376. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0170840612467153
Dyllick, T., & Hockerts, K. (2002). Beyond the business case for corporate
sustainability. Business Strategy and the Environment, 11(2), 130–141.
https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.323
Elrehail, H., Harazneh, I., Abuhjeeleh, M., Alzghoul, A., Alnajdawi, S., &
Ibrahim, H. M. H. (2019). Employee satisfaction, human resource
management practices and competitive advantage: The case of
Northern Cyprus. European Journal of Management and Business
Economics, 29(2), 125–149. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJMBE-01-
2019-0001
Engert, S., Rauter, R., & Baumgartner, R. J. (2016). Exploring the integration
of corporate sustainability into strategic management: A literature
review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112, 2833–2850. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.08.031
Finch, D., Deephouse, D., & Varella, P. (2015). Examining an individual's
legitimacy judgment using the value–Attitude system: The role of
environmental and economic values and source credibility. Journal of
Business Ethics, 127(2), 265–281. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-
013-2031-5
Frandsen, S., Morsing, M., & Vallentin, S. (2013). Adopting sustainability in
the organization. Journal of Management Development, 32(3), 236–246.
https://doi.org/10.1108/02621711311318265
Fuchs, C., & Diamantopoulos, A. (2009). Using single-item measures for
construct measurement in management research: Conceptual issues
and application guidelines. Die Betriebswirtschaft, 69(2), 195.
Fung Wong, A. K., & Kim, S. (. S.). (2020). Development and validation of
standard hotel corporate social responsibility (CSR) scale from the
employee perspective. International Journal of Hospitality Management,
87, 102507. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102507
Galaskiewicz, J., & Colman, M. S. (2006). Collaboration between corpora-
tions and nonprofit organizations. In W. W. Powell & R. Steinberg
(Eds.), The nonprofit sector: A research handbook (pp. 180–205). Yale
University Press.
Goyal, P., Rahman, Z., & Kazmi, A. A. (2013). Corporate sustainability per-
formance and firm performance research: Literature review and future
research agenda. Management Decision, 51(2), 361–379. https://doi.
org/10.1108/00251741311301867
1738
Guillon, O., & Cezanne, C. (2014). Employee loyalty and organizational per-
formance: A critical survey. Journal of Organizational Change Manage-
ment, 27(5), 839–850. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-02-2014-0025
Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A primer on
partial least squares structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). Sage.
Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use
and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review,
31(1), 2–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203
Hallinger, P. (2020). Analyzing the intellectual structure of the knowledge
base on managing for sustainability, 1982–2019: A meta-analysis.
Sustainable Development, 28, 1493–1506. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.
2071
Han, H., & Hyun, S. S. (2019). Green indoor and outdoor environment as
nature-based solution and its role in increasing customer/employee
mental health, well-being, and loyalty. Business Strategy and the Envi-
ronment, 28(4), 629–641. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2269
Hudson, S., González-Gómez, H. V., & Claasen, C. (2017). Legitimacy, par-
ticularism and employee commitment and justice. Journal of Business
Ethics, 157, 589–603.
Igbudu, N., Garanti, Z., & Popoola, T. (2018). Enhancing bank loyalty
through sustainable banking practices: The mediating effect of corpo-
rate image. Sustainability, 10(11), 4050. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su10114050
Ineson, E. M., Benke, E., & László, J. (2013). Employee loyalty in Hungarian
hotels. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 32(1), 31–39.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2012.04.001
Kim, H. (. L.)., Woo, E., Uysal, M., & Kwon, N. (2018). The effects of corpo-
rate social responsibility (CSR) on employee well-being in the hospital-
ity industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, 30(3), 1584–1600.
Kim, S. Y., & Park, H. (2011). Corporate social responsibility as an organiza-
tional attractiveness for prospective public relations practitioners.
Journal of Business Ethics, 103(4), 639–653. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10551-011-0886-x
Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling.
Guilford Press.
Kong, H., Bu, N. (. T.)., Yuan, Y., Wang, K., & Ro, Y. (2019). Sustainability of
hotel, how does perceived corporate social responsibility influence
employees' behaviors? Sustainability, 11(24), 7009. https://doi.org/10.
3390/su11247009
Kraft, B., & Wolf, S. (2018). Through the lens of accountability: Analyzing
legitimacy in environmental governance. Organization & Environment,
31(1), 70–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026616680682
Kucukusta, D., Denizci Guillet, B., & Chan, H. L. (2016). The effect of CSR
practices on employee affective commitment in the airline industry.
Journal of China Tourism Research, 12(3–4), 451–469. https://doi.org/
10.1080/19388160.2016.1278187
Lee, E. M., Park, S. Y., & Lee, H. J. (2013). Employee perception of CSR
activities: Its antecedents and consequences. Journal of Business
Research, 66(10), 1716–1724. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.
11.008
Llobet, J., & Fito, M. A. (2013). Contingent workforce, organisational com-
mitment and job satisfaction: Review, discussion and research agenda.
Intangible Capital, 9(4), 1068–1079.
Martín-Miguel, J., Prado-Román, C., Cachón-Rodríguez, G., & Avendaño-
Miranda, L. L. (2020). Determinants of reputation at private graduate
online schools. Sustainability, 12(22), 9659. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su12229659
Mata, C., Fialho, A., & Eugénio, T. (2018). A decade of environmental
accounting reporting: What we know? Journal of Cleaner
Production, 198(10), 1198–1209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.
2018.07.087
McGuire, M., Houser, J., Jarrar, T., Moy, W., & Wall, M. (2003). Retention:
It's all about respect. The Health Care Manager, 22(1), 38–44. https://
doi.org/10.1097/00126450-200301000-00007
CACHÓN-RODRÍGUEZ ET AL.
Mueller, C. W., Boyer, E. M., Price, J. L., & Iverson, R. D. (1994). Employee
attachment and noncoercive conditions of work: The case of dental
hygienists. Work and Occupations, 21(2), 179–212. https://doi.org/10.
1177/0730888494021002002
Nguyen, N. (2016). Reinforcing customer loyalty through service
employees' competence and benevolence. Service Industries Journal,
36(13–14), 721–738. https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2016.
1272595
Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., & Rynes, S. L. (2003). Corporate social and
financial performance: A meta-analysis. Organization Studies, 24(3),
403–441. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840603024003910
Porter, M., & Kramer, M. (2019). Creating shared value. In G. Lenssen & N.
Smith (Eds.), Managing sustainable business (pp. 327–350). Dordrecht:
Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-1144-7_16
Prado-Roman, C., Diez-Martin, F., & Blanco-Gonzalez, A. (2020). The
effect of communication on the legitimacy and performance of organi-
~ de Negócios, 22(3), 565–581.
zations. Revista Brasileira de Gestao
Press, M., Robert, I., & Maillefert, M. (2020). The role of linked legitimacy
in sustainable business model development. Industrial Marketing Man-
agement, 89, 566–577. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2019.
05.009
Reinartz, W., Haenlein, M., & Henseler, J. (2009). An empirical comparison
of the efficacy of covariance-based and variance-based SEM. Interna-
tional Journal of Research in Marketing, 26(4), 332–344. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2009.08.001
Riaz, H., Saeed, A., Baloch, M. S., & Khan, Z. A. (2019). Valuation of
Environmental Management Standard ISO 14001: Evidence from an
emerging market. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 12(1), 21.
https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm12010021
Sarstedt, M., & Wilczynski, P. (2009). More for less? A comparison
of single-item and multi-item measures. Die Betriebswirtschaft, 69
(2), 211.
Schaltegger, S., & Hörisch, J. (2017). In search of the dominant rationale in
sustainability management: Legitimacy- or profit-seeking? Journal of
Business Ethics, 145(2), 259–276. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-
015-2854-3
Scherer, A. G., Palazzo, G., & Seidl, D. (2013). Managing legitimacy in com-
plex and heterogeneous environments: Sustainable development in a
globalized world. Journal of Management Studies, 50(2), 259–284.
https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12014
Schwarzmüller, T., Brosi, P., Spörrle, M., & Welpe, I. M. (2017). It's the
base: Why displaying anger instead of sadness might increase leaders'
perceived power but worsen their leadership outcomes. Journal of
Business and Psychology, 32(6), 691–709. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10869-016-9467-4
Sepasi, S., Braendle, U., & Rahdari, A. H. (2019). Comprehensive sus-
tainability reporting in higher education institutions. Social Responsi-
bility Journal, 15(2), 155–170. https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-01-
2018-0009
Shu, C., Zhao, M., Liu, J., & Lindsay, W. (2020). Why firms go green and
how green impacts financial and innovation performance differently:
An awareness-motivation-capability perspective. Asia Pacific Journal of
Management, 37(3), 795–821. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-018-
9630-8
Shu, C., Zhou, K. Z., Xiao, Y., & Gao, S. (2016). How green management
influences product innovation in China: The role of institutional bene-
fits. Journal of Business Ethics, 133, 471–485. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10551-014-2401-7
Sila, I. (2018). Linking quality with social and financial performance: A con-
textual, ethics-based approach. Production and Operations Manage-
ment, 27(6), 1102–1123. https://doi.org/10.1111/poms.12857
Snelson-Powell, A., Grosvold, J., & Millington, A. (2016). Business school
legitimacy and the challenge of sustainability: A fuzzy set analysis of
institutional decoupling. Academy of Management Learning & Education,
15(4), 703–723. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2015.0307
CACHÓN-RODRÍGUEZ ET AL.
Song, H. J., Lee, H. M., Lee, C. K., & Song, S. J. (2015). The role of CSR and
responsible gambling in Casino employees' organizational commit-
ment, job satisfaction, and customer orientation. Asia Pacific Journal of
Tourism Research, 20(4), 455–471. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10941665.2013.877049
Staw, B. M. B., & Epstein, L. D. L. (2000). What bandwagons bring: Effects
of popular management techniques on corporate performance, reputa-
tion, and ceo pay. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(3), 523–556.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2667108
Story, J., Castanheira, F., & Hartig, S. (2016). Corporate social responsibility
and organizational attractiveness: Implications for talent management.
Social Responsibility Journal, 12(3), 484–505. https://doi.org/10.1108/
SRJ-07-2015-0095
Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional
approaches. The Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9508080331
Suddaby, R., Bitektine, A., & Haack, P. (2017). Legitimacy. Academy of Man-
agement Annals, 11(1), 451–478. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.
2015.0101
Thomas, T. E., & Lamm, E. (2012). Legitimacy and organizational sustain-
ability. Journal of Business Ethics, 110(2), 191–203. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s10551-012-1421-4
Tsai, H., Tsang, N. K. F., & Cheng, S. K. Y. (2012). Hotel employees' percep-
tions on corporate social responsibility: The case of Hong Kong. Inter-
national Journal of Hospitality Management, 31(4), 1143–1154. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2012.02.002
Turban, D. B., & Greening, D. W. (1997). Corporate social performance
and organizational attractiveness to prospective employees. Academy
of Management Journal, 40(3), 658–672.
1739
Weber, F., & Fehre, K. (2020). CSR strategies for (re)gaining legitimacy.
187–208. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
Whelan, T., & Fink, C. (2016). The comprehensive business case for
sustainability. Harvard Business Review, 21, 2012.
Yao, T., Qiu, Q., & Wei, Y. (2019). Retaining hotel employees as internal
customers: Effect of organizational commitment on attitudinal and
behavioral loyalty of employees. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 76, 1–8.
Zhang, J., & Zheng, W. (2009). How does satisfaction translate into perfor-
mance? An examination of commitment and cultural values. Human
Resource Development Quarterly, 20(3), 331–351. https://doi.org/10.
1002/hrdq.20022
Zientara, P., & Zamojska, A. (2018). Green organizational climates and
employee pro-environmental behaviour in the hotel industry. Journal
of Sustainable Tourism, 26(7), 1142–1159. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09669582.2016.1206554
How to cite this article: Cachón-Rodríguez, G., Blanco-
González, A., Prado-Román, C., & Diez-Martin, F. (2021).
Sustainability actions, employee loyalty, and the awareness:
The mediating effect of organization legitimacy. Managerial
and Decision Economics, 42(7), 1730–1739. https://doi.org/10.
1002/mde.3340