It has come to the attention of the publisher that the article Wu, F., and Lei, B. (2026), “CER as a workforce strategy: investigating how and when corporate environmental responsibility promotes organizational attractiveness”. Nankai Business Review International, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 180–202, Link to CER as a workforce strategy: investigating how and when corporate environmental responsibility promotes organizational attractivenessLink to the cited article. was published with incorrect Figures 1 and 2.
The model contains Corporate Environmental Responsibility C E R, Corporate Ability, Organizational Pride, Perceived Treatment, and Organizational Attractiveness. Corporate Environmental Responsibility C E R connects to Organizational Pride and Perceived Treatment. Corporate Ability moderates the path from Corporate Environmental Responsibility C E R to Organizational Pride and the path from Corporate Environmental Responsibility C E R to Perceived Treatment. Organizational Pride and Perceived Treatment connect to Organizational Attractiveness.The theoretical model of the research
The model contains Corporate Environmental Responsibility C E R, Corporate Ability, Organizational Pride, Perceived Treatment, and Organizational Attractiveness. Corporate Environmental Responsibility C E R connects to Organizational Pride and Perceived Treatment. Corporate Ability moderates the path from Corporate Environmental Responsibility C E R to Organizational Pride and the path from Corporate Environmental Responsibility C E R to Perceived Treatment. Organizational Pride and Perceived Treatment connect to Organizational Attractiveness.The theoretical model of the research
The comparison includes 2 line graphs labelled a and b. Graph A presents Organizational Pride on the vertical axis from 3.0 to 7.0 and C E R values 0 and 1 on the horizontal axis. Two lines represent Corporate Ability 0 and Corporate Ability 1. Organizational Pride increases from about 3.5 to about 5.9 for Corporate Ability 0 and from about 4.5 to about 6.0 for Corporate Ability 1. Graph B presents Perceived Treatment on the vertical axis from 3.0 to 7.0 and C E R values 0 and 1 on the horizontal axis. Perceived Treatment increases from about 4.1 to about 5.7 for Corporate Ability 0 and from about 5.0 to about 5.9 for Corporate Ability 1.The interactive effect of CER and corporate ability on organizational pride and perceived treatment in Study 1
The comparison includes 2 line graphs labelled a and b. Graph A presents Organizational Pride on the vertical axis from 3.0 to 7.0 and C E R values 0 and 1 on the horizontal axis. Two lines represent Corporate Ability 0 and Corporate Ability 1. Organizational Pride increases from about 3.5 to about 5.9 for Corporate Ability 0 and from about 4.5 to about 6.0 for Corporate Ability 1. Graph B presents Perceived Treatment on the vertical axis from 3.0 to 7.0 and C E R values 0 and 1 on the horizontal axis. Perceived Treatment increases from about 4.1 to about 5.7 for Corporate Ability 0 and from about 5.0 to about 5.9 for Corporate Ability 1.The interactive effect of CER and corporate ability on organizational pride and perceived treatment in Study 1
Figure 2 was placed in the position of Figure 1 and Figure 1 was placed in the position of Figure 2.
The corrected figures are as follows:
This misplacement occurred during the production of the article, for which the publisher apologises.
