Management Decision

Corporate social responsibility and employee organizational citizenship behavior:

The pivotal roles of ethical leadership and organizational justice
Yongqiang Gao, Wei He,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Yongqiang Gao, Wei He, (2017) "Corporate social responsibility and employee organizational
citizenship behavior: The pivotal roles of ethical leadership and organizational justice", Management
Decision, Vol. 55 Issue: 2, pp.294-309, https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-05-2016-0284
Permanent link to this document:
Downloaded by ISTANBUL UNIVERSITY At 08:44 16 May 2018 (PT)

https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-05-2016-0284
Downloaded on: 16 May 2018, At: 08:44 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 65 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1749 times since 2017*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2017),"Examining the effects of corporate social responsibility and ethical leadership on
turnover intention", Personnel Review, Vol. 46 Iss 3 pp. 526-550 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/
PR-11-2015-0293">https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-11-2015-0293</a>
(2016),"The influence of corporate social responsibility on employee satisfaction", Management
Decision, Vol. 54 Iss 9 pp. 2325-2339 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-05-2016-0308">https://
doi.org/10.1108/MD-05-2016-0308</a>

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:304077 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.
 *Related content and download information correct at time of download.
Downloaded by ISTANBUL UNIVERSITY At 08:44 16 May 2018 (PT)

MD
55,2
294
Received 10 May 2016
Revised 15 July 2016
26 October 2016
Accepted 15 November 2016
Downloaded by ISTANBUL UNIVERSITY At 08:44 16 May 2018 (PT)
Management Decision
Vol. 55 No. 2, 2017
pp. 294-309
© Emerald Publishing Limited
0025-1747
DOI 10.1108/MD-05-2016-0284
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0025-1747.htm
Corporate social responsibility
and employee organizational
citizenship behavior
The pivotal roles of ethical leadership
and organizational justice
Yongqiang Gao and Wei He
School of Management, Huazhong University of Science and Technology,
Wuhan, PR China
Abstract
Purpose – An increasing number of studies have demonstrated a positive effect of corporate social
responsibility (CSR) on employee organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), but little attention has been paid
to the mechanisms and boundary conditions underlying this effect. The purpose of this paper is to propose a
trickle-down model and examine the mediating role of supervisor ethical leadership and the moderating role
of perceived organizational distributive justice in the CSR-OCB relationship.
Design/methodology/approach – To test the arguments, the authors collected field data in four companies
located in a central city of China. Through a multi-wave data collection design, a total of 187 employees
reported their perceptions toward firms’ CSR and organizational justice at Time 1, and reported their direct
supervisors’ ethical leadership behaviors, and their own OCBs at Time 2 (four weeks later).
Findings – Empirical findings demonstrated that CSR had a positive effect on employee OCB, as mediated
by supervisors’ ethical leadership. In addition, this mediation effect was found to be moderated by perceived
organizational distributive justice such that the mediation relationship was stronger when perceived
organizational distributive justice was lower than when it was higher.
Originality/value – The present study makes three major contributions. First, it contributes to the CSR
literature by revealing the underlying mechanism of ethical leadership through which CSR will lead to
increased employee OCB in the workplace. Second, the moderation findings of the study add a new piece of
empirical evidence suggesting the boundary condition of organizational distributive justice affecting the
positive effect of CSR on employee OCB. Finally, the trickle-down theoretical model demonstrates the pivotal
role of leadership in transforming CSR into positive employee outcomes, providing valuable insights into
future research that examines why CSR motivates in-organization employees at work.
Keywords Corporate social responsibility, Organizational citizenship behaviour, Ethical leadership,
Organizational justice, Work attitudes, Multi-wave data
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) has received extensive scholarly attention for the past
four decades, and numerous empirical studies have shown a significant effect of CSR on
corporate financial performance (see Griffin and Mahon, 1997; Peloza, 2009 for reviews).
Organizational researchers have taken a micro perspective and demonstrated that
employees’ work attitudes and behaviors play crucial roles in transforming CSR into
beneficial organizational outcomes (e.g. Kim et al., 2010; Valentine and Fleischman, 2008).
For instance, research suggests that CSR increases employees’ commitment to the firm,
which further enhances firm performance (Ali et al., 2010). Therefore, it is imperative to
examine why and when CSR contributes to employee outcomes in the workplace.
Unraveling this black box may not only contribute to the CSR literature by revealing the
micro mechanisms via which CSR benefits the organization, but also have practical
The authors are grateful to the financial support of the “National Natural Science Foundation of China
(NSFC)” (No. 71372131, 71402061).
 implications for firm managers as to how to solicit beneficial employee outcomes while the CSR and OCB
organization is engaging in CSR activities.
Following this perspective, organizational researchers have begun to examine the
influences of CSR on employees’ attitudinal and behavioral outcomes within the organization
(e.g. Aguilera et al., 2006; Swaen and Maignan, 2003). In particular, CSR is found to increase
employee job satisfaction (Valentine and Fleischman, 2008), organizational commitment
(Aguilera et al., 2006; Brammer et al., 2007), and identification (e.g. Kim et al., 2010; Rodrigo and 295
Arenas, 2008), and the organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) (e.g. Chun et al., 2013;
Evans et al., 2010; Fu et al., 2014; Lin et al., 2010; Zhang et al., 2014). Despite these empirical
findings, the theoretical mechanisms underlying the effects of CSR on employee behaviors
such as OCB remain unanswered. In other words, knowledge regarding why and when CSR
can motivate employee OCB is nearly in vacuum (Aguilera et al., 2007; Fu et al., 2014).
In the current study, drawing from social information processing (SIP) theory (Salancik
and Pfeffer, 1978; Vlachos et al., 2014), we theorize a trickle-down model and test
Downloaded by ISTANBUL UNIVERSITY At 08:44 16 May 2018 (PT)

the mediating role of supervisor ethical leadership in the CSR-OCB relationship.

We suggest that learning from top managers’ CSR decisions, middle- or low-level
managers are likely to perform ethical behaviors in their leadership roles (i.e. ethical
leadership), which in turn motivate their followers to engage in OCB. Moreover, SIP theory
suggests that employee behaviors are influenced not only by the information derived from
their direct supervisors, but also by the information enacted from the organization as a
whole (Salancik and Pfeffer, 1978). Therefore, we further suggest that ethical leadership
interacts with employee perception of organizational distributive justice to influence
employee OCB. In general, we theorize a moderated mediation model suggesting that
the meditational relationship between CSR and employee OCB via ethical leadership will
be more positive when employees perceive low rather than high organizational
distributive justice (see Figure 1).
This study makes three major contributions. First, we contribute to the CSR literature by
revealing the underlying mechanism of ethical leadership through which CSR will lead to
increased employee OCB in the workplace. Second, our findings regarding the moderation
effect add a new piece of empirical evidence suggesting the boundary condition of
organizational distributive justice in the positive relationship between CSR and employee
OCB. Finally, our trickle-down theoretical model demonstrates the pivotal role of leadership
in transforming CSR into positive employee outcomes, providing valuable insights into
future research that examines why CSR motivates employees at work.

Theory and hypotheses

Trickle-down effect in SIP literature
The central tenet of SIP theory states that “individuals, as adaptive organisms, adapt
attitudes, behavior, and beliefs to their social context” (Salancik and Pfeffer, 1978, p. 226).

Organizational
distributive
justice

H1
H2 and H3
Corporate social Supervisor Organizational
responsibility ethical citizenship
(CSR) leadership behavior (OCB)
Figure 1.
The conceptual model
 MD In other words, it suggests that individual work attitudes and behaviors are, to a large
55,2 extent, a result of individual enactment of the processed information from the social
environment rather than individual predispositions (Goldman, 2001). Based on this
argument, research drawn from SIP theory has demonstrated a “trickle-down” effect
(Vlachos et al., 2014), which means that subordinates view their direct superiors as
important social referents and will learn from or be influenced by their supervisors’ words
296 and behaviors, and will emulate them through their everyday interactions (e.g. Mayer et al.,
2009; Thomas and Griffin, 1989).
The theoretical explanations for this trickle-down effect involve three major
psychological mechanisms: compliance, identification, and internalization (Kelman, 1958).
Specifically, the compliance mechanism suggests that subordinates want to follow their
supervisors because they expect to be rewarded or to avoid punishment. The identification
mechanism suggests that subordinates want to satisfy their self-defining relationships with
supervisors within the organizations. Finally, the internalization mechanism suggests that
Downloaded by ISTANBUL UNIVERSITY At 08:44 16 May 2018 (PT)

subordinates strongly believe in the content of the social influence and find this content is
congruent with their value system (Vlachos et al., 2014). Drawing from the above theorizing,
researchers have validated this trickle-down effect in different research contexts.
For instance, Mayer et al. (2009) demonstrated that group leaders’ ethical leadership
mediated the effect of top mangers’ ethical leadership on group-level employee citizenship
and deviant behaviors. Similarly, Ruiz et al. (2011) found that top mangers’ ethical
leadership has a significant effect on employees’ positive job attitudes as mediated by their
direct supervisors’ ethical leadership behaviors. In the CSR literature, moreover, Vlachos
et al. (2014) observed a trickle-down effect that leaders’ perceptions of CSR significantly
increase employees’ perceptions of CSR, which in turn increase their affective organizational
commitment and in-role CSR-specific performance.
Extending the above findings, we suggest that CSR demonstrates top managers’ pro-
social values and high moral standards, and this information will profoundly affect middle
mangers’ attitudes and behaviors within the organization. In turn, middle or line managers
who are deeply influenced by CSR will demonstrate their pro-social values and moral
considerations by displaying ethical leadership, which refers to “the demonstration of
normatively appropriate conduct through personal actions and interpersonal relationships,
and the promotion of such conduct to followers through two-way communication,
reinforcement, and decision-making” (Brown et al., 2005, p. 120). Further, we argue that
supervisors’ ethical leadership will motivate employees to engage in more OCBs in the
workplace. Therefore, we theorize a mediating role of supervisor ethical leadership in the
CSR-OCB relationship.

CSR and employee OCB via perceived ethical leadership

According to Organ (1988), OCB refers to “individual behavior that is discretionary, not
directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and in the aggregate
promotes the efficient and effective functioning of the organization” (p. 4). Typical behaviors
of OCB include altruism, conscientiousness, sportsmanship, courtesy, and civic virtue
(e.g. Podsakoff et al., 1990).
Past research has shown that by observing CSR activities, employees are more likely to
perform OCB at work (e.g. Swaen and Maignan, 2003; Zhang et al., 2014). One explanation
for this effect is that CSR benefits employees by helping them build favorable self-concept
constructs such as self-esteem (Haslam, 2001; Tajfel and Turner, 1986), which in turn makes
them feel obliged to reciprocate their firms with positive behaviors (Gond et al., 2010;
Peterson, 2004). In addition to this self-concept explanation, we propose a trickle-down effect
linking CSR with employee OCB and theorize one’s perceived ethical leadership of his/her
direct supervisor as the mediator.
 On one hand, we suggest that CSR will increase supervisors’ ethical leadership CSR and OCB
behaviors. CSR is a broad and multidimensional concept and moral conducts have been
theorized as a major component of CSR (Carroll, 1991). Because CSR is a vital organizational
decision made by top managers, frequent CSR activities will signal that they emphasize
pro-social values and moral standards. Driven by this social information (Mayer et al., 2009;
Salancik and Pfeffer, 1978), middle- or low-level managers are likely to emulate top
managers’ pro-social values by engaging in more ethical conducts (here adopting ethical 297
leadership) within the organizations (Dickson et al., 2001; Mulki et al., 2009; Vera and
Crossan, 2004).
According to the three psychological mechanisms (i.e. compliance, identification, and
internalization) that underlie the trickle-down effect (Kelman, 1958), when CSR is
emphasized in organizations, managers will adopt ethical leadership not only because it is
the right way for them to get reward or to avoid possible punishment, but also because
managers may identify with or even strongly believe in the top managers’ pro-social values
Downloaded by ISTANBUL UNIVERSITY At 08:44 16 May 2018 (PT)

illustrated by CSR (Kelman, 1958; Vlachos et al., 2014). Indeed, identification literature
suggests that individuals are self-esteem seekers, and they tend to identify with
organizations or the authority in the organizations to enhance their self-esteem (e.g. Dutton
and Dukerich, 1991; Hogg and Terry, 2001). CSR is socially desirable, reflecting the decision
makers’ (top managers) pro-social values. It increases the attractiveness of the firm and the
top managers in the eyes of middle- or low-level mangers. Managers are likely to admire
such top managers since their visions may be based on pro-social values such as altruism
and justice (Bass and Steidlmeier, 1999). As a result, mangers are likely to identify with or
strongly believe in organizations and top managers who support CSR (Hogg and Terry,
2001; Turner et al., 1987). In sum, CSR made by top managers will induce ethical leadership
behaviors from middle- or low-level managers.
On the other hand, we argue that supervisors’ ethical leadership is a significant
predictor of subordinate OCB. Although various leadership styles are associated
with employees’ attitudinal and behavioral outcomes, ethical leadership is regarded to be
more relevant to employee OCB because it enhances employees’ caring toward their
coworkers or organizations (Wang and Sung, 2016). Different from other types of
leadership, ethical leaders emphasize exclusively on moral management, affect their
followers’ ethical conduct by setting ethical standards, and use reward and punishment
to hold the followers accountable for the standards (Brown and Treviño, 2006;
Mayer et al., 2009). The caring for others’ well-being demonstrated by ethical leaders
will be emulated by the followers, motivating them to care about their coworkers
and organizations by performing more OCB (Demirtas and Akdogan, 2015; Treviño
et al., 2003). Prior studies have provided empirical evidence for the positive effect of ethical
leadership on employees’ OCBs (e.g. De Hoogh and Den Hartog, 2008; Kacmar et al., 2011;
Mayer et al., 2009).
Taken together, we propose a trickle-down effect suggesting that supervisors’ ethical
leadership will mediate the positive relationship between CSR and employee OCB:
H1. Supervisors’ ethical leadership will mediate the positive relationship between CSR
and their followers’ OCB.

The moderating role of employee perceived distributive justice

SIP suggests that individuals’ attitudes are affected not only by the social information
interacted with their direct supervisors, but also by the information enacted from the
general context within the organization (Salancik and Pfeffer, 1978), such as
organizational culture or climate (e.g. Schneider, 1975) and the organization’s policies
(e.g. Griffin, 1983). Therefore, the moral influences associated with CSR on individual
 MD attitudes and behaviors come not only from their direct supervisors’ ethical behaviors,
55,2 but also from their moral perceptions enacted from the organization’s policies.
One crucial moral perception associated with the organization’s policies is the
distributive justice perception, which refers to employees’ perception toward fairness
of outcome or distribution of reward (Adams, 1965; Ramamoorthy and Flood, 2002).
On the basis of the above theoretical arguments, we posit that individual distributive
298 justice perception will interact with the supervisor’s ethical leadership behavior to
influence one’s OCB.
Specifically, although supervisors’ ethical leadership is expected to affect employees’
OCB, this effect may vary as a function of employees’ perception of distributive
justice. According to SIP, employees are prone to be affected by social information when
the work environment is ambiguous (Salancik and Pfeffer, 1978). When employees
have little confidence in the fairness of the firms’ distribution of resources, the perceptions
of uncertainty and ambiguity are likely to emerge, and thus individuals are more
Downloaded by ISTANBUL UNIVERSITY At 08:44 16 May 2018 (PT)

vulnerable to the leaders’ opinions and behaviors. On the contrary, when employees
perceive high distributive justice, they trust in, identify with, and commit to the
organization’s policies more than their immediate supervisors. In such a situation, they
pay less attention to the supervisors’ ethical behaviors and are less sensitive to those
moral conducts. As a result, employees may be less likely to use OCB to cater or to keep a
good relationship with their supervisors (Kelman, 1958; Vlachos et al., 2014). Furthermore,
within firms where the resource allocation policies are equitable, managers are expected to
make decisions and allocate resources fairly, so employees may take their supervisors’
ethical leadership for granted. Accordingly, employees are less motivated to engage in
OCB to reciprocate. Taking together, we theorize a compensating effect of ethical
leadership and individual distributive justice perception on employee OCB. We argue that
the effect of ethical leadership on employee OCB will be mitigated by high distributive
justice perception:
H2. Employee perception of distributive justice will moderate the relationship between
supervisor’s ethical leadership behavior and employee OCB such that the
relationship will be more positive when employee distributive justice perception is
low rather than high.
When we consider H1 and H2 together, a moderated mediation effect can be expected.
Specifically, the mediation relationship between CSR and employee OCB via the supervisor’s
ethical leadership behavior will be moderated by individual perception of distributive
justice. We therefore propose the following moderated mediation prediction:
H3. Employee perception of distributive justice will moderate the indirect relationship
between CSR and employee OCB via the supervisor’s ethical leadership behavior
such that the indirect relationship will be more positive when employee distributive
justice perception is low rather than high.

Method
Data collection
To test our arguments, we collected data of bottom-level employees’ perceptions toward
their firms, their supervisors, as well as their own attitudinal or behavioral intentions
across four companies located in the city of Wuhan, China. Because the scales were
originally developed in English, to make sure the equivalency of meaning to our Chinese
edition scales, three independent bilingual researchers were invited to translate English to
Chinese first and then back-translate to English (Brislin, 1980). Small revisions were made
in this process.
 A two-wave questionnaire survey was conducted to 220 employees. At the first wave of CSR and OCB
survey, we used questionnaires to collect respondents’ perception toward their firms’ CSR
and demographic information. About four weeks later, we conducted the second wave of
questionnaire survey to the same respondents, collecting data on the remaining variables.
A total of 209 two-wave paired questionnaires were collected, resulting in a response rate of
95.0 percent. Two questionnaires were dropped because of significant missing data.
In addition, another 20 questionnaires were dropped because of significant unreliable 299
responses (i.e. more than 50 percent of items in the questionnaire were rated the same).
Thus, we get a final sample of 187 questionnaires, with a valid response rate of 85 percent.
The demographic characteristics of respondents are reported in Table I.

Measurement of variables
In this study, all the variables are measured on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (“strongly
Downloaded by ISTANBUL UNIVERSITY At 08:44 16 May 2018 (PT)

disagree”) to 5 (“strongly agree”), unless otherwise specified.

Dependent variable: employee OCB. Employee OCB is measured by using the nine-item scale
developed by Tsui et al. (1997). Sample items include “I make suggestions to improve work
procedures,” “I express opinions honestly when others think differently,” and “I make
suggestions to improve organization.” The reliability of these nine items was 0.912 in this study.
Independent variable: perceived CSR. Among the different scales measuring CSR existed
in prior research (e.g. Carroll, 1979; Maignan and Ferrell, 2000; Rego et al., 2011), in this
study, we adopted Rego et al.’s (2011) scale because this scale considers both Carroll’s (1979)

Demographics Number of people (frequency) % of total n

Gender
Male 101 54.0
Female 86 46.0
Age
Less than 30 95 50.8
30-39 77 41.2
40-49 14 7.5
50 or above 1 0.5
Education
High school or below 5 2.7
Junior college 47 25.1
Bachelor 116 62
Master degree or above 19 10.2
Salary (monthly)
Less than RMB3,000 34 18.2
RMB3,000-4,999 63 33.7
RMB5,000-6,999 57 30.5
RMB7,000-8,999 15 8.0
RMB9,000 or above 18 9.6
Years with the company
Less than 1 year 42 22.5
1-3 years 82 43.9
4-6 years 36 19.3 Table I.
7-9 years 22 11.8 Demographic
10 years or above 5 2.7 characteristics of
Note: n ¼ 187 respondents
 MD CSR pyramid and the stakeholder view (Freeman, 1984) of CSR[1]. Sample items include
55,2 “our business gives adequate contributions to charities,” “the salaries offered by our
company are higher than industry averages,” and “we continually improve the quality of
our products.” The reliability of these items was 0.880 in this study.
Mediator: supervisor ethical leadership. Supervisor’s ethical leadership is measured by
using Brown et al. (2005) ten-item scale (ELS). Sample items include “listens to what employees
300 have to say,” “disciplines employees who violate ethical standards,” and “has the best interests
of employees in mind.” The reliability of these ten items was 0.932 in this study.
Moderator: perceived organizational distributive justice. Perceived organizational
distributive justice is measured by using the five-item scale developed by Ramamoorthy
and Flood (2002). Sample items include “Promotion in this company is based on ability
and how well you do your work,” “Salary increases in this company are based on ability and
how well you do your work,” and “There is a good chance of promotion in this company.”
The reliability of these five items was 0.843 in this study.
Downloaded by ISTANBUL UNIVERSITY At 08:44 16 May 2018 (PT)

Control variables. We controlled for affective commitment and organizational identification

because have been found to be related to employee OCB (e.g. Fu et al., 2014). Affective
commitment is measured by using the nine-item scale developed by Angle and Perry (1981).
Sample items include “I am willing to put in a great deal of effort beyond that normally
expected in order to help this organization be successful,” and “I talk up this organization to my
friends as a great organization to work for.” The reliability was 0.894 in this study.
Organizational identification is measured by using the six-item scale developed by Mael and
Ashforth (1992). Sample items include such as “When someone criticizes this company it feels
like a personal insult,” and “This company’s successes are my successes.” The reliability
was 0.800 in this study. In addition, we controlled for respondents’ demographic characteristics
including gender, age, education, salary, and years with the company in our regression models
because these demographic characteristics have been found to affect individual judgment or
behavior (e.g. Ford and Richardson, 1994; Glover et al., 1997).

Analysis and results

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)
A CFA was conducted to confirm the hypothesized four-factor structure of CSR, ethical
leadership, OCB, and justice. Given that the constructs in our model contain numerous
indicators that may undermine model fit, we employed a parceling technique and created
parcels for each of the scales. We opted to use a parceling approach due to our primary
interest in the interrelations of our constructs, rather than the interrelations of our items
within constructs (Little et al., 2013). For all the constructs, parcels were created using an
item-to-construct balance technique, where the highest loading items were paired with
the lowest loading items to create parcels (Little et al., 2013). This resulted in three parcels
for CSR measure, two parcels for ethical leadership measure, three parcels for OCB measure,
and three parcels for distributive justice measure. Model fit was evaluated based on the
root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), root mean square residual (RMR),
goodness-of-fit index (GFI), normed fit index (NFI), and the comparative fit index (CFI).
The hypothesized four-factor model demonstrated good fit to the data ( χ2 ¼ 77.44,
df ¼ 38, p o0.001, CFI ¼ 0.976, GFI ¼ 0.933, NFI ¼ 0.954, RMSEA ¼ 0.075, RMR ¼ 0.013).
This four-factor model fit the data better than a three-factor model grouping CSR and ethical
leadership ( χ2 ¼ 233.70, df ¼ 41, p o 0.001, CFI ¼ 0.882, GFI ¼ 0.806, NFI ¼ 0.862,
RMSEA ¼ 0.159, RMR ¼ 0.019), and another three-factor model grouping ethical
leadership and OCB ( χ2 ¼ 180.54, df ¼ 41, p o 0.001, CFI ¼ 0.915, GFI ¼ 0.838,
NFI ¼ 0.893, RMSEA ¼ 0.135, RMR ¼ 0.017). This four-factor model also fit the data
better than a two-factor model grouping CSR, ethical leadership, and OCB ( χ2 ¼ 347.70,
 df ¼ 43, p o0.001, CFI ¼ 0.814, GFI ¼ 0.731, NFI ¼ 0.795, RMSEA ¼ 0.195, RMR ¼ 0.024), CSR and OCB
and a one-factor model grouping all four constructs ( χ2 ¼ 453.03, df ¼ 44, p o0.001,
CFI ¼ 0.750, GFI ¼ 0.672, NFI ¼ 0.732, RMSEA ¼ 0.224, RMR ¼ 0.030). Overall, the results
of the CFA support the discriminant validity among our daily focal constructs.

Descriptive statistics
The descriptive statistics and correlation matrix of the variables are reported in Table II. 301
Results show that perceived CSR and supervisor ethical leadership are significantly
correlated with employee OCB. In addition, perceived organizational distributive justice,
affective commitment, and organizational identification are also significantly correlated
with employee OCB.
Similar significant correlations could be found among independent variables. To mitigate
the potential multicollinearity problem, we followed Aiken and West (1991) and mean-centered
the variables included in the interaction terms and then computed the interaction terms by
Downloaded by ISTANBUL UNIVERSITY At 08:44 16 May 2018 (PT)

multiplying the mean-centered variables. We also computed the variance inflation factor (VIF)
in the following regressions to further check the multicollinearity problem. Among the
regressions, the largest VIF was 2.894, fall below the cutoff point of 10, suggesting that
multicollinearity is not a serious concern in this study.

Simple mediation analysis

Following Baron and Kenny’s (1986) recommendation, we conducted three regressions to
test the mediation effect of supervisor’s ethical leadership on the relationship between
employees’ perceived CSR and their OCB. The first regression model tests the effect of
independent variable (perceived CSR) on dependent variable (employee OCB); while the
second examines the effect of perceived CSR on mediator of supervisor ethical leadership.
The third regression model puts perceived CSR and supervisor ethical leadership together
to predict employee OCB. The results are reported in Table III.
It can be seen from Model 2 of Table III, perceived CSR has a significant and positive
effect on employee OCB ( β ¼ 0.174, p o0.05). In Model 1 of Table III, perceived CSR has a
significant and positive effect on supervisor ethical leadership ( β ¼ 0.332, p o0.01). When
we put perceived CSR and supervisor ethical leadership into the model simultaneously to
predict employee OCB (see Model 3 in Table III), the effect of perceived CSR is no longer
significant ( β ¼ −0.050, p W0.1), while the effect of supervisor ethical leadership is
significant and positive ( β ¼ 0.579, p o0.01). These results provide initial support for a
mediation effect of supervisor’s ethical leadership on the relationship between perceived
CSR and employee OCB.
To further validate this mediation effect, we used the Indirect procedure for SPSS 17.0
(Preacher and Hayes, 2008) to estimate the indirect effect of perceived CSR on employee OCB
via supervisor’s ethical leadership. Monte Carlo simulation results based on 5,000 bootstrap
samples suggest a significant and positive indirect effect of perceived CSR on employee
OCB through supervisor’s ethical leadership (point estimate ¼ 0.597, 95 percent CI ¼ (0.438,
0.758), Z ¼ 8.283, p o0.01). Thus, H1 is supported.

Moderation effect analysis

Table III also reports the moderation effect of perceived organizational distributive justice
on the relationship between supervisor ethical leadership and employee OCB. In Model 4, the
coefficient of the interaction term between supervisor ethical leadership and perceived
organizational distributive justice is significant and negative ( β ¼ −0.131, p o0.01).
Recalling that supervisor ethical leadership has a positive main effect on employee OCB (see
Model 3), the results suggest that perceived organizational distributive justice reduces the
 Downloaded by ISTANBUL UNIVERSITY At 08:44 16 May 2018 (PT)

MD
55,2

302

Table II.
Descriptive statistics
and correlation matrix
No. Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1 Employee OCB 3.60 0.53

2 Perceived CSR 3.73 0.42 0.560**
3 Supervisor ethical leadership 3.61 0.58 0.771** 0.663**
4 Perceived organizational distributive justice 3.49 0.55 0.582** 0.596** 0.640**
5 Gender 0.54 0.50 0.070 −0.024 −0.028 −0.032
6 Age 1.58 0.65 −0.006 −0.089 −0.128 −0.160* 0.093
7 Education 2.80 0.65 0.011 −0.026 0.061 −0.072 −0.008 −0.140
8 Salary 2.57 1.16 0.103 0.038 0.087 0.093 0.150* 0.213** 0.397**
9 Years with the firm 2.28 1.03 0.000 −0.080 −0.115 −0.229** 0.140 0.411** 0.030 0.269**
10 Affective commitment 3.52 0.58 0.639** 0.662** 0.667** 0.632** 0.012 −0.052 −0.030 0.056 −0.090
11 Organizational identification 3.62 0.52 0.580** 0.584** 0.586** 0.491** −0.027 −0.057 0.054 0.074 −0.014 0.624**
Notes: *;**Significant at 0.05 and 0.01 levels (two-tailed), respectively
 CSR and OCB
Supervisor ethical
leadership Employee OCB
Model 1 VIF/TOL Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 VIF/TOL

Gender −0.015 (0.059) 1.043/0.959 0.066 (0.059) 0.077 (0.048) 0.081 (0.047) 1.045/0.957
Age −0.056 (0.050) 1.303/0.767 0.020 (0.050) 0.063 (0.041) 0.062 (0.041) 1.325/0.755
Education 0.043 (0.050) 1.289/0.776 0.002 (0.050) −0.006 (0.042) 0.006 (0.042) 1.356/0.737
Salary 0.053 (0.029) 1.385/0.722 0.037 (0.029) −0.016 (0.024) −0.018 (0.024) 1.454/0.688
303
Years with the firm −0.047 (0.032) 1.282/0.780 0.023 (0.032) 0.071 (0.027) 0.071 (0.026) 1.347/0.742
Affective commitment 0.329 (0.072)** 2.136/0.468 0.370 (0.072)** 0.137 (0.065) 0.140 (0.063)* 2.540/0.394
Organizational
identification 0.176 (0.074)** 1.820/0.549 0.248 (0.074)** 0.134 (0.062)* 0.144 (0.061)* 1.902/0.526
Perceived CSR 0.332 (0.096)** 1.963/0.509 0.174 (0.095)* −0.050 (0.084) 0.005 (0.087) 2.504/0.399
Perceived
organizational
Downloaded by ISTANBUL UNIVERSITY At 08:44 16 May 2018 (PT)

distributive justice 0.119 (0.064) 0.105 (0.064) 2.257/0.443

Supervisor ethical
leadership 0.579 (0.064)**0.503 (0.068)** 2.894/0.345
Supervisor ethical
leadership×Perceived
organizational
distributive justice −0.131 (0.020)** 1.261/0.793
Number of
observations 187 187 187 187
Adjusted R2 0.543 0.463 0.637 0.649
F value 28.651** 21.015** 33.597** 32.271** Table III.
Notes: VIF, variance inflation factor; TOL, tolerance. *,**Significant at 0.05 and 0.01 levels (two-tailed), Simple mediation and
respectively moderation analysis

positive effect of supervisor ethical leadership on employee OCB. To better present the
moderation effect, we graphed the interaction effect between supervisor ethical leadership
and perceived organizational distributive justice on employee OCB (see Figure 2). It can be
seen from this figure that the relationship between supervisor ethical leadership and
employee OCB is more positive when perceived organizational justice is lower. Thus, H2
was demonstrated.

5
4.5
4
3.5
Employee OCB

3
2.5
2 Figure 2.
1.5
Interaction effect
between ethical
1 leadership and
Low perceived distributive justice perceived
0.5
High perceived distributive justice organizational
0 distributive justice on
Mean – 1 SD Mean + 1 SD employee OCB
Supervisor ethical leadership
 MD Moderated mediation analysis
55,2 H3 proposes a moderated mediation effect such that the mediation relationship between
CSR and employee OCB via supervisor ethical leadership will be moderated by employee
perception of organizational justice such that the mediation relationship being more
significant when perceived organizational justice is lower. To test this moderated mediation
effect, we followed Preacher et al.’s (2007) recommendation and used the PROCESS
304 procedure for SPSS as the statistic tool. Tests of significance for parameters were based on
95 percent bias-corrected confidence intervals (CIs) with 5,000 bootstrap estimates.
We followed the Model 14 as suggested in Hayes’s (2013) templates to conduct the
PROCESS analysis. We used the mean as well as one standard deviation above and below
the mean to represent moderate, high, and low values of perceived organizational
distributive justice, respectively. The results are reported in Table IV.
We can see from Table IV that the indirect effect of perceived CSR on employee OCB
through supervisors’ ethical leadership is positive in all three conditions. Despite the
Downloaded by ISTANBUL UNIVERSITY At 08:44 16 May 2018 (PT)

generally significant mediation relationship between CSR and employee OCB via supervisor
ethical leadership, the magnitude of this mediation effect varies across different levels of
organizational justice. Specifically, when perceived organizational distributive justice is low,
the point estimate for this mediation effect is 0.254 (95 percent CI: 0.140-0.408).
Comparatively, when perceived organizational distributive justice is high, point estimate
for this mediation effect is 0.168 (95 percent CI: 0.081-0.332). Moreover, the difference
between these two conditional indirect effects is significant (difference ¼ −0.079, 95 percent
CI: −0.246 to −0.004).

Discussion
In this study, we explored the effect of employees’ perceived CSR on their OCB, as well as
the mediating role of supervisors’ ethical leadership and the moderating effect of perceived
organizational distributive justice. Empirical findings suggest that perceived CSR has a
positive main effect on employee OCB, and this effect is mediated by supervisors’ ethical
leadership. In addition, we find that the effect of supervisors’ ethical leadership on employee
OCB is attenuated by high distributive justice perception. The indirect effect of perceived
CSR on employee OCB through supervisor ethical leadership depends also on perceived
distributive justice, such that high distributive justice weakens the mediating relationship
between CSR and employee OCB via supervisor ethical leadership.

Theoretical implications
This study contributes to the CSR and OCB literatures in the following aspects. At first,
prior studies have generally found a positive effect of perceived CSR on employee OCB
(e.g. Chun et al., 2013; Lin et al., 2010). However, the underlying mechanisms linking
perceived CSR to employee OCB remain unknown (Fu et al., 2014). This study fills this void
by identifying supervisor ethical leadership as one of the possible mechanisms underlying
the CSR-employee OCB relationship.

Table IV.
Conditional indirect Employee OCB
effects of perceived 95% bias-corrected
CSR on employee OCB Perceived organizational distributive justice Point estimate bootstrap confidence interval
through supervisor
ethical leadership at Low (−0.547; 2.939 before centering) 0.254 0.140-0.408
levels of perceived Moderate (0; 3.486 before centering) 0.211 0.125-0.337
organizational High (0.547; 4.032 before centering) 0.168 0.081-0.332
distributive justice Note: n ¼ 187
 Second, this study identifies organizational justice as an important boundary condition for the CSR and OCB
effect of supervisor ethical leadership on employee OCB, as well as for the mediation effect of
ethical leadership on the relationship between perceived CSR and employee OCB. Prior studies
have suggested that ethical leadership may have different effects on employee OCB, depending
on the contexts such as the organizational politics (Kacmar et al., 2011). Consistent with prior
observations, we find that employees’ perceptions of high distributive justice can attenuate the
effect of ethical leadership on employee OCB, as well as the mediating relationship between 305
perceived CSR and employee OCB via supervisor ethical leadership.
Finally, this study supports an implicit “trickle-down” effect in human resource
management literature (Vlachos et al., 2014). Trickle-down effect suggests that top
managers may affect employees’ behavior by first shaping supervisors’ attitude and
behavior. For instance, prior research has demonstrated an ethics trickle-down effect such
that executive managers’ display of ethical conducts increase front-line employees’
pro-social or ethical behaviors through their direct supervisors’ increased ethical behaviors
Downloaded by ISTANBUL UNIVERSITY At 08:44 16 May 2018 (PT)

(e.g. Mayer et al., 2009; Ruiz et al., 2011). We demonstrate and extend this ethics trickle-down
effect by showing that top managers affect supervisors’ ethical leadership by using CSR to
signal their ethical attitude and value, while supervisors’ ethical leadership further affects
employee OCB.

Practical implications
This study also has important practical implications. At first, our study finds that CSR has a
positive effect on subordinates’ (here supervisors’) ethical leadership, which further
increases employee OCB. Motivating middle managers or supervisors to adopt ethical
leadership is very important because they have a direct impact on employees. Prior studies
have suggested that top managers in particular chief executive officer could shape the
ethical climate which further affects employee behavior (Shin, 2012). Our study provides
some viable way for top managers to achieve that. Specifically, top managers may use CSR
to signal their ethical values to subordinates, motivating them to adopt ethical leadership.
Supervisors’ ethical leadership further positively affects employees’ extra-role behavior
such as OCB. In addition, our study also suggests that organizational equity or justice and
supervisor ethical leadership may to some extent substitute each other in affecting
employee OCB. Thus, firms with low level of justice or equity, at least from the viewpoint of
employees, should be in a better position to conduct CSR to build ethical leadership.

Limitations and future study directions

The main limitation lies in the data. In this study, our data come from a single source.
Although we have conducted two wave of surveys and specified a moderated mediation
model which is less likely to be affected by common method bias (CMB) (Podsakoff et al.,
2012), we cannot rule out CMB completely. Partly owning to this reason, our findings
suggest a full mediation relationship between perceived CSR and employees’ OCB via their
direct supervisors’ ethical leadership, which should be taken with cautions. First, this
mediation relationship may be upward biased because of the CMB. Second, while we
controlled for affective commitment and organizational commitment in testing this
mediation effect, there are still other plausible theoretical explanations, such as perceived
self-esteem (Haslam, 2001) and felt obligation (Gond et al., 2010), for the effect of CSR on OCB
that were not controlled in our study. Therefore, we suggest that future researchers should
be cautious in interpreting this full mediation effect as observed in our study.
In addition to the potential influences of CMB, the rigor of our empirical findings may
also be affected because we used self-reported data to measure OCB. For this reason, we
cannot rule completely out the social desirability response bias. Future studies, when
possible, could collect data from multiple sources and ask supervisors to assess
 MD employees’ OCB. In this study, we only examined the effect of CSR on employee
55,2 OCB, future studies could focus on the impact of CSR on other in-role and extra-role
behaviors of employees.

Note
306 1. We have used Zhang et al.’s (2014) nine-item scale of CSP to measure perceived CSR and conducted
a robustness check. The results are consistent with our original results.

References
Adams, J.S. (1965), “Inequity in social exchange”, in Berkowitz, L. (Ed.), Advances in Experimental
Social Psychology – Volume 2, Academic Press, New York, NY, pp. 267-299.
Downloaded by ISTANBUL UNIVERSITY At 08:44 16 May 2018 (PT)

Aguilera, R., Rupp, D.E., Ganapathi, J. and Williams, C.A. (2006), “Justice and social responsibility:
a social exchange model”, paper presented at the Society for Industrial/Organizational
Psychology Annual Meeting, Berlin.
Aguilera, R.V., Rupp, D., Williams, C.A. and Ganapathi, J. (2007), “Putting the S back in corporate social
responsibility: a multi-level theory of social change in organizations”, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 836-863.
Aiken, L.S. and West, S.G. (1991), Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions, Sage,
Newbury Park, CA.
Ali, I., Rehman, K.U., Ali, S.I., Yousaf, J. and Zia, M. (2010), “Corporate social responsibility influences,
employee commitment and organizational performance”, African Journal of Business
Management, Vol. 4 No. 12, pp. 2796-2801.
Angle, H.L. and Perry, J.L. (1981), “An empirical assessment of organizational commitment and
organizational effectiveness”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 1-14.
Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), “The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 1173-1182.
Bass, B.M. and Steidlmeier, P. (1999), “Ethics, character and authentic transformational leadership
behaviour”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 181-217.
Brammer, S., Millington, A. and Rayton, B. (2007), “The contribution of corporate social responsibility
to organizational commitment”, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 18
No. 10, pp. 1701-1719.
Brislin, R.W. (1980), “Translation and content analysis of oral and written material”, in Triandis, H.C.
and Berry, J.W. (Eds), Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology: Methodology, Vol. 2, Allyn and
Bacon, Boston, pp. 389-444.
Brown, M.E. and Treviño, L.K. (2006), “Ethical leadership: a review and future directions”,
The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 595-616.
Brown, M.E., Treviño, L.K. and Harrison, D.A. (2005), “Ethical leadership: a social learning perspective
for construct development and testing”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
Vol. 97 No. 2, pp. 117-134.
Carroll, A.B. (1979), “A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 497-505.
Carroll, A.B. (1991), “The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: toward the moral management of
organizational stakeholders”, Business Horizons, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 39-48.
Chun, J.S., Shin, Y., Choi, J.N. and Kim, M.S. (2013), “How does corporate ethics contribute to firm
financial performance? The role of collective organizational commitment and organizational
citizenship behavior”, Journal of Management, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 853-877.
 De Hoogh, A.H.B. and Den Hartog, D.N. (2008), “Ethical and despotic leadership, relationships with CSR and OCB
leader’s social responsibility, top management team effectiveness and subordinates’ optimism:
a multi-method study”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 297-311.
Demirtas, O. and Akdogan, A.A. (2015), “The effect of ethical leadership behavior on ethical climate,
turnover intention, and affective commitment”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 130 No. 1, pp. 59-67.
Dickson, M.W., Smith, D.B., Grojean, M.W. and Ehrhart, M. (2001), “An organizational climate
regarding ethics: the outcome of leader values and the practices that reflect them”, Leadership
Quarterly, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 197-217.
307
Dutton, J.E. and Dukerich, J.M. (1991), “Keeping an eye on the mirror: image and identity in
organizational adaptation”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 517-554.
Evans, W.R., Goodman, J.M. and Davis, W.D. (2010), “The impact of perceived corporate citizenship on
organizational cynicism, OCB, and employee deviance”, Human Performance, Vol. 24 No. 1,
pp. 79-97.
Ford, R.C. and Richardson, W.D. (1994), “Ethical decision making: a review of the empirical literature”,
Downloaded by ISTANBUL UNIVERSITY At 08:44 16 May 2018 (PT)

Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 205-221.

Freeman, R.E. (1984), Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, Pitman, Boston, MA.
Fu, H., Ye, B.H. and Law, R. (2014), “You do well and I do well? The behavioral consequences of corporate
social responsibility”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 40, pp. 62-70.
Glover, S.H., Bumpus, M.A., Logan, J.E. and Ciesla, J.R. (1997), “Re-examining the influence of
individual values on ethical decision making”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 16 Nos 12/13,
pp. 1319-1329.
Goldman, B.M. (2001), “Toward an understanding of employment discrimination claiming: an
integration of organizational justice and social information processing theories”, Personnel
Psychology, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 361-386.
Gond, J.P., El-Akremi, A., Igalens, J. and Swaen, V. (2010), “A corporate social responsibility - Corporate
financial performance behavioral model for employees”, in Smith, C., Bhattacharya, C.B., Vogel, D.
and Levine, D. (Eds), Global Challenges in Responsible Business: Corporate Responsibility and
Strategy, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 13-48.
Griffin, J.J. and Mahon, J.F. (1997), “The corporate social performance and corporate financial
performance debate: twenty-five years of incomparable research”, Business and Society, Vol. 36
No. 1, pp. 5-31.
Griffin, R. (1983), “Objective and social sources of information in task redesign: a field experiment”,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 184-200.
Haslam, A.S. (2001), Psychology in Organizations – The Social Identity Approach, Sage, London.
Hayes, A.F. (2013), Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis, The
Guilford Press, New York, NY.
Hogg, M.A. and Terry, D. (2001), Social Identity Processes in Organizational Contexts, Psychology Press,
Philadelphia, PA.
Kacmar, K.M., Bachrach, D.G., Harris, K.J. and Zivnuska, S. (2011), “Fostering good citizenship through
ethical leadership: exploring the moderating role of gender and organizational politics”, Journal
of Applied Psychology, Vol. 96 No. 3, pp. 633-642.
Kelman, H.C. (1958), “Compliance, identification, and internalization: three processes of attitude
change”, Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 51-60.
Kim, H.R., Lee, M., Lee, H.T. and Kim, N.M. (2010), “Corporate social responsibility and employee-
company identification”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 95 No. 4, pp. 557-569.
Lin, C.P., Lyau, N.M., Tsai, Y.H., Chen, W.Y. and Chiu, C.K. (2010), “Modeling corporate citizenship and
its relationship with organizational citizenship behaviors”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 95
No. 3, pp. 357-372.
Little, T.D., Rhemtulla, M., Gibson, K. and Schoemann, A.M. (2013), “Why the items versus parcels
controversy needn’t be one”, Psychological Methods, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 285-300.
 MD Mael, F. and Ashforth, B.E. (1992), “Alumni and their alma mater: a partial test of the reformulated
55,2 model of organizational identification”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 13 No. 2,
pp. 103-123.
Maignan, I. and Ferrell, O.C. (2000), “Measuring corporate citizenship in two countries: the case of the
United States and France”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 283-297.
Mayer, D.M., Kuenzi, M., Greenbaum, R., Bardes, M. and Salvador, R. (2009), “How low does ethical
leadership flow? Test of a trickle-down model”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
308 Processes, Vol. 108 No. 1, pp. 1-13.
Mulki, J.P., Jaramillo, J.F. and Locander, W.B. (2009), “Critical role of leadership on ethical climate and
salesperson behavior”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 86 No. 2, pp. 125-141.
Organ, D.W. (1988), Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome, Lexington
Books, Lexington, MA.
Peloza, J. (2009), “The challenge of measuring financial impacts from investments in corporate social
performance”, Journal of Management, Vol. 35 No. 6, pp. 1518-1541.
Downloaded by ISTANBUL UNIVERSITY At 08:44 16 May 2018 (PT)

Peterson, D.K. (2004), “The relationship between perceptions of corporate citizenship and
organizational commitment”, Business and Society, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 269-319.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2012), “Sources of method bias in social science
research and recommendations on how to control it”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 63 No. 1,
pp. 539-569.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Moorman, R.H. and Fetter, R. (1990), “Transformational leader
behavior and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational
citizenship behavior”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 107-142.
Preacher, K.J. and Hayes, A.F. (2008), “Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and
comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models”, Behavior Research Methods, Vol. 40
No. 3, pp. 879-891.
Preacher, K.J., Rucker, D.D. and Hayes, A.F. (2007), “Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses:
theory, methods, and prescriptions”, Multivariate Behavioral Research, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 185-227.
Ramamoorthy, N. and Flood, P.C. (2002), “Employee attitudes and behavioral intentions: a test of the
main and moderating effects of individualism-collectivism orientations”, Human Relations,
Vol. 55 No. 9, pp. 1071-1096.
Rego, A., Leal, S. and Cunha, M.P. (2011), “Rethinking the employees’ perceptions of corporate
citizenship dimensionalization”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 104 No. 2, pp. 207-218.
Rodrigo, P. and Arenas, D. (2008), “Do employees care about CSR programs? A typology of employees
according to their attitudes”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 83 No. 2, pp. 265-283.
Ruiz, P., Ruiz, C. and Martínez, R. (2011), “Improving the ‘leader-follower’ relationship: top manager or
supervisor? The ethical leadership trickle-down effect on follower job response”, Journal of
Business Ethics, Vol. 99 No. 4, pp. 587-608.
Salancik, G.R. and Pfeffer, L. (1978), “A social information processing approach to job attitudes and
task design”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 224-235.
Schneider, B. (1975), “Organizational climate: an essay”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 447-479.
Shin, Y. (2012), “CEO ethical leadership, ethical climate, climate strength, and collective organizational
citizenship behavior”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 108 No. 3, pp. 299-312.
Swaen, V. and Maignan, I. (2003), “Organizational citizenship and corporate citizenship: two constructs,
one research theme?”, in True, S.L. and Pelton, L. (Eds), Business Rites, Writs and
Responsibilities: Readings on Ethics and Social Impact Management, Kennesaw State University,
Kennesaw, GA, pp. 107-134.
Tajfel, H. and Turner, J.C. (1986), “The social identity theory of intergroup behavior”, in Worchel, S. and
Austin, L.W. (Eds), Psychology of Intergroup Relations, Nelson-Hall, Chicago, IL, pp. 7-24.
Thomas, J.G. and Griffin, R.W. (1989), “The power of social information in the workplace”,
Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 63-75.
 Treviño, L.K., Brown, M. and Hartman, L.P. (2003), “A qualitative investigation of perceived executive CSR and OCB
ethical leadership: perceptions from inside and outside the executive suite”, Human Relations,
Vol. 56 No. 1, pp. 5-37.
Tsui, A.S., Pearce, J.L., Porter, L.W. and Tripoli, A.M. (1997), “Alternative approaches to the employee-
organization relationship: does inducement in employees pay off?”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 4 No. 5, pp. 1089-1121.
Turner, J.C., Hogg, M.A., Oakes, P.J., Reicher, S.D. and Wetherell, M.S. (Eds) (1987), Rediscovering the
Social Group: A Self-Categorization Theory, Basil Blackwell, New York, NY.
309
Valentine, S. and Fleischman, G. (2008), “Ethics programs, perceived corporate social responsibility and
job satisfaction”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 77 No. 2, pp. 159-172.
Vera, D. and Crossan, M. (2004), “Strategic leadership and organizational learning”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 222-240.
Vlachos, P.A., Panagopoulos, N.G. and Rapp, A.A. (2014), “Employee judgments of and behaviors
toward corporate social responsibility: a multi-study investigation of direct, cascading, and
Downloaded by ISTANBUL UNIVERSITY At 08:44 16 May 2018 (PT)

moderating effects”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 35 No. 7, pp. 990-1017.

Wang, Y. and Sung, W. (2016), “Predictors of organizational citizenship behavior: ethical leadership
and workplace jealousy”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 135 No. 1, pp. 117-128.
Zhang, M., Fan, D. and Zhu, C.J. (2014), “High-performance work systems, corporate social performance
and employee outcomes: exploring the missing links”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 120 No. 3,
pp. 423-435.

Corresponding author
Yongqiang Gao can be contacted at: yqgao@hust.edu.cn

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
 This article has been cited by:

1. PanXin, Xin Pan, ChenXuanjin, Xuanjin Chen, NingLutao, Lutao Ning. 2018. The roles of
macro and micro institutions in corporate social responsibility (CSR). Management Decision 56:5,
955-971. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
2. BizriRima, Rima Bizri. 2018. Diversity management and OCB: the connection evidence from the
Lebanese banking sector. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal 37:3, 233-253.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
3. ElGammalWalid, Walid ElGammal, El-KassarAbdul-Nasser, Abdul-Nasser El-Kassar, Canaan
MessarraLeila, Leila Canaan Messarra. 2018. Corporate ethics, governance and social responsibility
in MENA countries. Management Decision 56:1, 273-291. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
Downloaded by ISTANBUL UNIVERSITY At 08:44 16 May 2018 (PT)