Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Ethical CSR, Organizational Identification, and Job Satisfaction: Mediated Moderated Role of Interactional Justice

  • Published:
Social Justice Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The interconnected relationships between a business and its various stakeholders have been the beneficiaries of widespread research over the past few decades. Consequently, corporate social responsibility (CSR) and organizational justice have gained much prominence within management and organizational research. Yet, there remains less visibility into how they may interact to influence employee attitudes. Combining insights from social exchange and social identity theories, we develop and validate a mediated moderation model: organizational identification’s mediation accounts for the interactive effect of ethical CSR (i.e., perceptions of whether firms act according to the generally accepted norms, standards, and principles of society) and interactional justice (i.e., perceptions of equity in the relationship between employees and those with authority over them) on employee job satisfaction. Using structural equation modeling on a sample of 293 employees, we find support for our proposed relationships. This research contributes to the existing knowledge at the intersection of CSR and organizational justice literature and reveals useful takeaways germane to accruing ethical capital with employees.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Researchers have employed two other justice dimensions operationalized as employees’ perceptions of the fairness of the outcomes (i.e., distributive justice) and of the processes leading to said outcomes (i.e., procedural justice). Although not part of our conceptualization, these two dimensions of justice are included in our analysis.

References

  • Aguinis, H., & Gottfredson, R. K. (2010). Best-practice recommendations for estimating interaction effects using moderated multiple regression. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(6), 776–786.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahmad, S. (2018). Can ethical leadership inhibit workplace bullying across east and west: Exploring cross-cultural interactional justice as a mediating mechanism. European Management Journal, 36(2), 223–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alegre, I., Mas-Machuca, M., & Berbegal-Mirabent, J. (2016). Antecedents of employee job satisfaction: Do they matter? Journal of Business Research, 69(4), 1390–1395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ambrose, M. L., Schminke, M., & Mayer, D. M. (2013). Trickle-down effects of supervisor perceptions of interactional justice: A moderated mediation approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(4), 678–689.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong, J. S. (2001). Evaluating forecasting methods. In J. S. Armstrong (Ed.), Principles of forecasting: A handbook for researchers and practitioners. Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 20–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Au, A. K., & Leung, K. (2016). Differentiating the effect s of informational and interpersonal justice in co-worker interactions for task accomplishment. Applied Psychology, 65(1), 132–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, M. L., Henriques, I., & Husted, B. W. (2020). Beyond good intentions: Designing CSR initiatives for greater social impact. Journal of Management, 46(6), 937–964.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bies, R. J. (2001). Interactional (in)justice: The sacred and the profane. In J. Greenberg & R. Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in organizational justice (pp. 89–118). Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. S. (1986). Interactional justice: communication criteria of fairness. In R. J. Lewicki, B. H. Sheppard, & M. H. Bazerman (Eds.), Research on negotiations in organizations (Vol. 1, pp. 43–55). JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bies, R. J., & Shapiro, D. L. (1987). Interactional fairness judgments: The influence of causal accounts. Social Justice Research, 1, 199–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. (1996). Who is this “we’’? Levels of collective identity and self-representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(1), 83–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, A. B. (2021). Corporate social responsibility: Perspectives on the CSR construct’s development and future. Business & Society, 60(6), 1258–1278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chatzopoulou, E.-C., Manolopoulos, D., & Agapitou, V. (2021). Corporate social responsibility and employee outcomes: Interrelations of external and internal orientations with job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Journal of Business Ethics, 179(3), 795–817.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiaburu, D. S. (2007). From interactional justice to citizen behaviors: Role enlargement or role discretion? Social Justice Research, 20(2), 207–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, K. A. (2005). The phantom menace: Omitted variable bias in econometric research. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 22(4), 341–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations. A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 86(2), 278–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 425–445.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cropanzano, R., Goldman, B., & Folger, R. (2003). Deontic justice: The role of moral principle in workplace fairness. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(8), 1019–1024.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cropanzano, R., Massoro, S., & Becker, W. J. (2017). Deontic justice and organizational neuroscience. Journal of Business Ethics, 144(4), 733–754.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cropanzano, R., Prehar, C. A., & Chen, P. Y. (2002). Using social exchange theory to distinguish procedural from interactional justice. Group & Organization Management, 27(3), 324–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Bakker, F. G. A., Matten, D., Spence, L. J., & Wickert, C. (2020). The elephant in the room: The nascent research agenda on corporations, social responsibility, and capitalism. Business & Society, 59(7), 1295–1302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Cremer, D., & Vandekerckhove, W. (2017). Managing unethical behavior in organizations: The need for a behavioral business ethics approach. Journal of Management & Operation, 22(3), 437–455.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Roeck, K., El Akremi, A., & Swaen, V. (2016). Consistency matters! How and when does corporate social responsibility affect employees’ organizational identification? Journal of Management Studies, 53(1), 1141–1168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Roeck, K., Marique, G., Stinglhamber, F., & Swaen, V. (2014). Understanding employees’ responses to corporate social responsibility: Mediating roles of overall justice and organisational identification. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(1), 91–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M., & Harquail, C. V. (1994). Organizational images and member identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(2), 239–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edinger-Scons, L. M., Lengler-Graif, L., Scheidler, S., & Wieseke, J. (2019). Frontline employees as corporate social responsibility ambassadors: A quasi-field experiment. Journal of Business Ethics, 157(3), 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farooq, O., Rupp, D. E., & Farooq, M. (2017). The multiple pathways through which internal and external corporate social responsibility influence organizational identification and multifoci outcomes: The moderating role of cultural and social orientations. Academy of Management Journal, 60(3), 954–985.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Folger, R. (2012). Deonance: Behavioral ethics and moral obligation. In D. De Cremer & A. E. Tenbrunsel (Eds.), Series in organization and management. Behavioral business ethics: Shaping an emerging field (pp. 123–142). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glavas, A., & Godwin, L. N. (2013). Is the perception of ‘goodness’ good enough? Exploring the relationship between perceived corporate social responsibility and employee organizational identification. Journal of Business Research, 114(1), 15–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghosh, K. (2018). How and when do employees identify with their organization? Perceived CSR, first-party (in)justice, and organizational (mis)trust at workplace. Personnel Review, 47(5), 1152–1171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gond, J., El Akremi, A., Swaen, V., & Babu, N. (2017). The psychological micro-foundations of corporate social responsibility: A person centric systematic review. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(2), 183–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25(2), 161–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the job diagnostic survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(2), 159–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, J. S., Phillips, R. A., & Freeman, R. E. (2020). On the 2019 business roundtable ‘statement on the purpose of a corporation.’ Journal of Management, 46(7), 1223–1237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jansen, P. (1982). Measuring homogeneity by means of Loevinger’s coefficient H: A critical discussion. Psychologische Beiträge, 24, 96–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joo, Y. R., Moon, H. K., & Choi, B. K. (2016). A moderated mediation model of CSR and organizational attractiveness among job applicants: Roles of perceived overall justice and attributed motives. Management Decision, 54(6), 1269–1293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Judge, T. A., Heller, D., & Mount, M. K. (2002). Five-factor model of personability and job satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 530–541.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jung, H.-J., & Ali, M. (2017). Corporate social responsibility, organizational justice and positive employee attitudes: In the context of Korean employment relations. Sustainability, 9(11), 1992.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, J., Millman, J. F., & Lucas, A. F. (2021). Effects of CSR on affective organizational commitment via organizational justice and organization-based self-esteem. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 92, 102691.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, E. S., Park, T. Y., & Koo, B. (2015). Identifying organizational identification as a basis for attitudes and behaviors: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 141(5), 1049–1080.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenstein, D. R., Drumwright, M. E., & Braig, B. M. (2004). The effect of corporate social responsibility on customer donations to corporate-supported nonprofits. Journal of Marketing, 68(4), 16–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lind, E. A. (2001). Fairness heuristic theory: Justice judgments as pivotal cognitions in organizational relations. In J. Greenberg & R. Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in organizational justice (pp. 56–88). Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindell, M. K., & Whitney, D. J. (2001). Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 114–121.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1297–1349). Rand McNally.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(2), 103–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muller, D., Judd, C. M., & Yzerbyt, V. Y. (2005). When moderation is mediated and mediation is moderated. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(6), 852–863.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Murshed, F., Sen, S., Savitskie, K., & Xu, H. (2012). CSR and job satisfaction: Role of CSR importance to employee and procedural justice. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 29(4), 518–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. (2011). Mplus user’s guide. Muthén & Muthén.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly, J., Aquino, K., & Skarlicki, D. (2016). The lives of others: Third parties’ responses to others’ injustice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(2), 171–189.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Olkkonen, M. E., & Lipponen, J. (2006). Relationships between organizational justice, identification with the organization and the work-unit, and group-related outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100(2), 202–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patient, D. L., & Skarlicki, D. P. (2010). Increasing interpersonal and informational justice when communicating negative news: The role of the manager’s emphatic concern and moral development. Journal of Management, 36(2), 55–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, D. K. (2004). The relationship between perceptions of corporate citizenship and organizational commitment. Business & Society, 43(3), 296–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendation on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 65(5), 879–903.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2011). The big idea: Creating shared value. How to reinvent capitalism- and unleash a wave of innovation and growth. Harvard Business Review, 89(1–2), 62–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879–891.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rupp, D. E., Ganapathi, J., Aguilera, R. V., & William, C. A. (2006). Employee reactions to corporate social responsibility: An organizational justice framework. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(4), 537–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rupp, D. E., Shao, R., Thornton, M. A., & Skarlicki, D. P. (2013). Applicants’ and employees’ reactions to corporate social responsibility: The moderating effects of first-party justice perceptions and moral identity. Personal Psychology, 66(4), 895–933.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rupp, D. E., Wright, P. M., Aryee, S., & Luo, Y. (2015). Organizational justice, behavioral ethics, and corporate social responsibility: Finally the three shall merge. Management and Organization Review, 11(1), 15–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, M. S., & Carroll, A. B. (2003). Corporate social responsibility: A three-domain approach. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(4), 503–530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siemsen, E., Roth, A., & Oliveira, P. (2010). Common method bias in regression models with linear, quadratic, and interaction effects. Organizational Research Methods, 13(3), 456–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slack, R. E., Corlett, S., & Morris, R. (2015). Exploring employee engagement with (corporate) social responsibility: A social exchange perspective on organizational participation. Journal of Business Ethics, 127(3), 537–548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spiller, S. A., Fitzsimons, G. J., Lynch, J. G., Jr., & McClelland, G. H. (2013). Spotlights, floodlights, and magic number zero, Simple effects tests in moderated regression. Journal of Marketing Research, 50(2), 277–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Starbucks, (2022). Retrieved from https://starbucks.com/about-us/company-information.

  • Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of inter-group conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of inter-group relations. Brooks/Cole.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tax, S. S., Brown, S. W., & Chandrashekaran, M. (1998). Customer evaluations of service complaint experiences: Implications for relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 62(2), 60–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thornton, M. A., & Rupp, D. E. (2016). The joint effect of justice climate, group moral identity, and corporate social responsibility on the prosocial and deviant behaviors of groups. Journal of Business Ethics, 137(4), 677–697.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tziner, A., Oren, L., Bar, Y., & Kadosh, G. (2011). Corporate social responsibility, organizational justice and job satisfaction: How do they interrelate, if at all? Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 27(1), 67–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Dick, R., Crawshaw, J. R., Karpf, S., Schuh, S. C., & Zhang, X. (2020). Identity, importance, and their roles in how corporate social responsibility affects workplace attitudes and behavior. Journal of Business and Psychology, 35(2), 159–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Dick, R., van Knippenberg, D., Kerschreiter, R., Hertel, G., & Wieseke, J. (2008). Interactive effects of work group and organizational identification on job satisfaction and extra-role behavior. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 72(3), 388–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Knippenberg, D., & Sleebos, E. (2006). Organizational identification versus organizational commitment: Self-definition, social exchange, and job attitudes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(5), 571–584.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vendenberg, R. J., & Lance, Ch. E. (1992). Examining the causal order of job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Journal of Management, 18(1), 153–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vogel, D. J. (2005). Is there a market for virtue? The business case for corporate social responsibility. California Management Review, 47(4), 19–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whetten, D. A. (2006). Albert and Whetten revisited: Strengthening the concept of organizational identity. Journal of Management Inquiry, 15(3), 219–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yakovleva, N., & Vazquez-Brust, D. (2012). Stakeholder perspective on CSR of mining in Argentina. Journal of Business Ethics, 106(2), 191–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zheng, L. (2020). We’re entering the age of corporate social justice. In Harvard Business Review, June 15, 2020.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Authors wish to thank Herman Aguinis, Frederik Beuk, Joan Carlini, Lawrence Feick, Ravi Madhavan, Neil Morgan, Corinne Post, John Prescott, and Niels van de Ven for their insightful comments on an earlier draft of this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Feisal Murshed.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Authors declare that they have no potential conflict of interest.

Human or Animals Rights

All procedures performed in this study were in accordance with the ethical standard of institutional research committee.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in this study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

The two equations estimated:

  1. (1)

    The moderation of the effect of interactional justice on the mediator organizational identity:

$$\begin{aligned} {\text{Org}}\_{\text{identification}}\;{\text{y}}_{i} = & \, \beta_{0} + \beta_{1} {\text{Interactional}}\_{\text{justice}}_{i} + \beta_{2} {\text{Ethical}}\_{\text{CSR}}_{i} \\ & + \beta_{3} {\text{Interactional}}\_{\text{justice}}*{\text{Ethical}}\_{\text{CSR}}_{i} + \beta_{4} {\text{Distributive}}\_{\text{justice}}_{i} \\ & + \beta_{5} {\text{Procedural}}\_{\text{justice}}_{i} + \beta_{6} {\text{Gender}}_{i} + \beta_{7} {\text{Age}}_{i} + \beta_{8} {\text{Firm}}\_{\text{age}}_{i} \\ & + \beta_{9} {\text{Work}}\_{\text{tenure}}_{i} + \beta_{10} {\text{Position}}\_{\text{tenure}}_{i} + \beta_{11} {\text{Employees}}_{i} + \beta_{12} {\text{Education}}_{i} \\ & + \beta_{13} {\text{Firm}}\_{\text{revenue}}_{i} + \beta_{14} {\text{Job}}\;{\text{title}}_{i} + \xi_{i} \\ \end{aligned}$$
  1. (2)

    The moderation of the effect of the mediator organizational identification and the moderation of the residual treatment effect of interactional justice on job satisfaction:

    $$\begin{aligned} {\text{Job}}\_{\text{satisfaction}}_{i} = & \, \theta_{0} + \theta_{1} {\text{Interactional}}\_{\text{justice}}_{i} + \theta_{2} {\text{Ethical}}\_{\text{CSR}}_{i} \\ & + \;\theta_{3} {\text{Interactional}}\_{\text{justice}}*{\text{Ethical}}\_{\text{CSR}}_{i} + \theta_{4} {\text{Org}}\_{\text{identification}} \\ & + \;\theta_{5} {\text{Org}}\_{\text{identification}}*{\text{Ethical}}\_{\text{CSR}} + \theta_{6} {\text{Distributive}}\_{\text{justice}}_{i} \\ & + \;\theta_{7} {\text{Procedural}}\_{\text{justice}}_{i} + \theta_{8} {\text{Gender}}_{i} + \theta_{9} {\text{Age}}_{i} + \theta_{10} {\text{Firm}}\_{\text{age}}_{i} \\ & + \;\theta_{11} {\text{Work}}\_{\text{tenure}}_{i} + \;\theta_{12} {\text{Position}}\_{\text{tenure}}_{i} + \theta_{13} {\text{Employees}}_{i} \\ & + \;\theta_{14} {\text{Education}}_{i} + + \theta_{15} {\text{Firm}}\_{\text{revenue}}_{i} + \theta_{16} {\text{Job}}\;{\text{title}}_{i} + \lambda_{i} \\ \end{aligned}$$

    where i refers to the individual, εi, ξi and λi are the error term. The remaining independent variables were described in the previous subsection.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Murshed, F., Cao, Z., Savitskie, K. et al. Ethical CSR, Organizational Identification, and Job Satisfaction: Mediated Moderated Role of Interactional Justice. Soc Just Res 36, 75–102 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-022-00403-5

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-022-00403-5

Keyword

Navigation