Journal of Primeasia
Integrative Disciplinary Research | Online ISSN 3064-9870 | Print ISSN 3069-4353
570
Citations
227.1k
Views
151
Articles
Volume 7 Number 1 2026
REVIEWS (Open Access)
The Psychological and Performance Impacts of Remote and Hybrid Work on Knowledge Workers: Insights from Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Md. Mesbaul Haque 1*, Laboni Khatun 2, ASM Amanullah 2,
Journal of Primeasia 7 (1) 1-8 https://doi.org/10.25163/primeasia.7110830
Submitted: 15 April 2026 Revised: 08 June 2026 Accepted: 18 June 2026 Published: 20 June 2026
Abstract
The pandemic did more than relocate where knowledge workers sat while they worked — it reshaped, in ways still being untangled, how they experience autonomy, connection, and stress. This review set out to synthesize the psychological and performance consequences of remote and hybrid arrangements, an evidence base that has grown substantially but remains fragmented across sectors and disciplines. Following PRISMA 2020 guidelines, we searched five databases — PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, PsycINFO, and Google Scholar — for studies published between 2000 and 2025. After screening 1,842 records across three stages, 12 studies met eligibility criteria and were retained. Data were pooled using random-effects meta-analytic models to account for the considerable heterogeneity across populations, sectors, and outcome measures; heterogeneity was quantified using I², and publication bias was assessed through funnel plots and Egger's test. Moderate remote work was consistently linked to higher autonomy, engagement, and satisfaction, whereas more intensive or fully remote arrangements tended to elevate technostress, loneliness, and role ambiguity. Hybrid arrangements appeared to occupy a kind of middle ground — tempering the stress associated with full remote work while largely preserving engagement. Organizational support, e-leadership, and adaptive technology consistently emerged as protective factors, though their influence varied meaningfully by sector, age, gender, and neurodivergent status. Taken as a whole, the evidence suggests hybrid work is not simply a pandemic-era compromise but a genuinely adaptive model — one that, when paired with thoughtful leadership and structural support, can enhance both well-being and performance for knowledge workers navigating an evolving post-pandemic workplace.
Keywords: Remote work, hybrid work, knowledge workers, technostress, job autonomy, e-leadership, psychological well-being, work engagement, systematic review, meta-analysis
References
Abid, R. (2023). Corporate social (ir)responsibility towards employees and financial performance: Using time to solve the chicken–egg problem. Review of Managerial Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-022-00541-9
Aguinis, H., & Glavas, A. (2012). What we know and don’t know about corporate social responsibility: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 38(4), 932–968. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311436079
Alshehhi, A., Nobanee, H., & Khare, N. (2018). The impact of sustainability practices on corporate financial performance. Sustainability, 10(2), 494. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10020494
Arian, A., Sands, J., & Tooley, S. (2023). Industry and stakeholder impacts on CSR and financial performance. Sustainability, 15(16), 12254. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151612254
Awa, H. O., et al. (2024). Stakeholders, stakeholder theory and corporate social responsibility. International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40991-024-00094-y
Bai, H., & Kim, J. (2024). Do ESG practices promote financial performance? Comparison of English, Chinese, and Korean papers through bibliometric and meta-analysis. Sustainability, 16(22), 9810. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16229810
Barauskaite, G., & Streimikiene, D. (2021). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: The puzzle of concepts. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 28(1), 278–287. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2048
Barnea, A., & Rubin, A. (2010). Corporate social responsibility as a conflict between shareholders. Journal of Business Ethics, 97(1), 71–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0496-z
Barnett, M. L. (2007). Stakeholder influence capacity and the variability of financial returns to CSR. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 794–816. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.25275520
Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700108
Bebbington, J., & Unerman, J. (2018). Achieving the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 31(1), 2–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-05-2017-2929
Boccia, F., & Sarnacchiaro, P. (2018). The impact of corporate social responsibility on consumer preference. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 25(1), 151–163. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1446
Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility. Business Horizons, 34(4), 39–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/0007-6813(91)90005-G
Charlo, M. J., Moya, I., & Muñoz, A. M. (2017). Financial performance of socially responsible firms. Sustainability, 9(9), 1622. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9091622
Chi, H.-K., & Phan, H.-T. (2025). Revealing the role of corporate social responsibility, service quality, and perceived value in determining customer loyalty: A meta-analysis study. Sustainability, 17(10), 4304.
Chininga, E., et al. (2024). ESG ratings and corporate financial performance in South Africa. Journal of Accounting in Emerging Economies. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAEE-03-2023-0072
Fombrun, C. J., & Shanley, M. (1990). What’s in a name? Reputation building and corporate strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 33(2), 233–258. https://doi.org/10.5465/256324
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Pitman. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139192668
Friedman, M. (1970). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. The New York Times Magazine. http://umich.edu/~thecore/doc/Friedman.pdf
Gallardo-Vázquez, D., Barroso-Méndez, M. J., Pajuelo-Moreno, M. L., & Sánchez-Meca, J. (2019). Corporate social responsibility disclosure and performance: A meta-analytic approach. Sustainability, 11(4), 1115.
Guerrero-Villegas, J., et al. (2018). Board attributes and CSR disclosure. Sustainability, 10(12), 4808. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10124808
Guerrero-Villegas, J., Pérez-Calero, L., Hurtado-González, J. M., & Giráldez-Puig, P. (2018). Board attributes and corporate social responsibility disclosure: A meta-analysis. Sustainability, 10(12), 4808.
Hart, S. L. (1995). A natural-resource-based view of the firm. Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 986–1014. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9512280033
Hategan, C. D., et al. (2018). Relationship between CSR and profit in Romanian companies. Sustainability, 10(4), 1041. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10041041
Ioannou, I., & Serafeim, G. (2015). The impact of CSR on investment recommendations. Strategic Management Journal, 36(7), 1053–1081. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2269
Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(76)90026-X
Jones, T. M. (1995). Instrumental stakeholder theory. Academy of Management Review, 20(2), 404–437. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9508080330
Kazmierczak, M. (2022). CSR versus ESG: A literature review. Scientific Papers of Silesian University of Technology. https://doi.org/10.29117/sbe.2022.0162
Knudsen, J. S., & Moon, J. (2022). Corporate social responsibility and government. Business Ethics Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1017/beq.2021.16
Lemana, P., Matemane, R., & Mokabane, M. (2025). Corporate social responsibility as a driver of financial performance. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 18(5), 278. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm18050278
Lin, W. L. (2024). Too little of a good thing? Curvilinear effects of CSR on FP. Review of Managerial Science.
Maya, M. (2024). The importance of corporate social responsibility in social value creation. Business & Society. https://doi.org/10.1142/9789811286674_0007
McKeever, M. (2024). Social stratification and inequality in South Africa. Sociology Compass. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.13173
Nguyen, C. T., et al. (2022). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance. Cogent Economics & Finance. https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2022.2075600
Ortas, E., Álvarez, I., & Zubeltzu, E. (2017). Firms’ board independence and corporate social performance: A meta-analysis. Sustainability, 9(6), 1006.
Öztürk, R., et al. (2024). Green entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance. Sustainability, 16(24), 11224. https://doi.org/10.3390/su162411224
Öztürk, R., Öztürk, M., & Kizilkan, Z. (2024). Meta-analysis of the relationship between green entrepreneurial orientation and sustainable firm performance. Sustainability, 16(24), 11224.
Passas, I. (2024). The evolution of ESG. Encyclopedia. https://doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia4040112
Porter, M. E. (1991). America’s green strategy. Scientific American, 264(4), 168. https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0491-168
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2011). Creating shared value. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2011/01/the-big-idea-creating-shared-value
Xu, H., Mei, Q., Shahzad, F., Liu, S., Long, X., & Zhang, J. (2020). Untangling the impact of green finance on the enterprise green performance: A meta-analytic approach. Sustainability, 12(21), 9085.