Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management, Volume 16, Issue 1, 2021

Mediation - Moderation mechanism between the

relationship of corporate social responsibility and

employees’ promotive voice behavior

Khalid Rasheed Memon*

Graduate School of Business, Universiti Sains Malaysia

11800 Penang, Malaysia

Tel: +923008071613

Email: khalidilm@hotmail.com

Say Keat Ooi

Graduate School of Business, Universiti Sains Malaysia

11800 Penang, Malaysia

Email: ooisaykeat@usm.my

Saima Khalid

Dallah Hospital

Al-Nakheel, Riyadh, SaudiArabia

Email: drsaima.memon@gmail.com;

Bilqees Ghani

College of Business Management, Institute of Business Management

Korangi Creek, Karachi, 7519, Pakistan

Email: bilqees.ghani@gmail.com

Memon,Ooi,Khalid,Ghani

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to explore the impact of corporate social responsibility on employees’

promotive voice behavior through the mediation-moderation mechanism within the framework of a

developing country. This is an empirical study, administered through two self-reported questionnaires.

Employees of 25 manufacturing units of Pakistan are the source of data collection for this research.

Data analysis was performed using SEM through SMART PLS 3. The results show a positive role of

CSR for the development of employees’ promotive voice behavior through indirect mechanism. The

employees get psychologically empowered through organizational trust developed as a result of

corporate CSR activities. Further, the employees were found to be inclined more towards the activities

of personal care, concern and safety (through organizational justice used as moderator) for the

development and enhancement of psychological empowerment leading towards voice behavior. The

findings of the study contribute to the literature on corporate social responsibility and provide practical

implications. Further, the study persuades practitioners to practice new ways of conveying the feelings

of care, concern and safety, which, in turn, increase employees’ psychological empowerment.

Keywords: corporate social responsibility, voice behavior, psychological empowerment, social

exchange theory, organizational justice

Khalid Rasheed Memon, Say Keat Ooi, Saima Khalid and Bilqees Ghani

1. INTRODUCTION

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has now become the mandatory business practice across

the globe (Hansen et al, 2011; Mallory & Rupp, 2014; Zulfiqar et al, 2019) due to increasing pressure

from various stakeholders, including internal (top management, executive boards) and external

(shareholders, third party agencies) ones, to operate in ways that are considered to be socially and

environmentally responsible (Ooi et al, 2020; Zulfiqar et al, 2019; Ilkhanizadeh & Karatepe, 2017;

Aguilera et al, 2007; Appelbaum et al, 2007; Cramer, 2005; Welford & Frost, 2006). Nowadays,

organizations are known not only because of their financial performance but also for “doing good”.

Due to such increased focus on, as well as the involvement of various stakeholders in CSR activities,

ranging from shareholders through consumers to local community members to those directly influenced

by social (ir) responsibility, CSR has now become one of the subjects of greater interest among various

disciplines like marketing, OB, HR, industrial organization and now psychology (Ergeneli et al, 2007;

Hansen et al., 2011; Rupp et al, 2013)

Unfortunately, little empirical research has directly investigated CSR from an internal

stakeholders' or employees’ viewpoint, i.e. how employees view the communal performance of their

organization or how CSR perceptions influence their everyday attitudes and behaviors (Zulfiqar et al,

2019; Hansen et al, 2011; Aguilera et al, 2007). It is surprising that workers who are one of the key

stakeholders of the organizations are overlooked and perceived to be the least relevant. However, as

one of the direct stakeholders of the organizational CSR operations, they should be deemed equally

relevant (Shiun & Ho, 2012).

Recently some research has been conducted to measure the effect of CSR on employee attitudes

and behaviors, like employee knowledge sharing behavior (M. Farooq et al, 2014), affective

organizational commitment (O. Farooq et al, 2013), OCB (Azim et al, 2014; Shiun & Ho, 2012;

Wenbin et al, 2012; Ghani & Memon, 2020), employee motivation (Skudiene & Auruskeviciene, 2012)

and employee work engagement (Zulfiqar et al, 2019; Memon et al, 2020). However, scholars need to

explore the behavioral impacts of CSR activities in depth, to extend the social exchange relationships

among various organizational stakeholders (Mallory & Rupp, 2014). Specifically, this article

investigates the relationship between the perceptions of CSR from the employees’ perspective and their

influence on employees’ promotive voice behavior, which has not previously been discussed in the

literature.

Promotive voice behavior is a relatively new construct and aims at bringing positive change in the

organization through behavior that resists the status quo. It consists of such behaviors as speaking up

regarding organizational issues and suggesting modifications to standard operating procedures.

(Whiting et al, 2012; Maynes and Podsakoff, 2014). Further, the literature reflects on voice behavior as

a form of extra-role behavior (Liu et al, 2010) representing the reciprocated behavior of employees, in

reaction to the favors the organization and their leaders/supervisors have done to them. The employees

as a custom do raise their voice intensely (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005).

Today’s employers demand to have employees who are more innovative, who generate ideas, take

the initiative and responsibility and speak up. Those employees can bring improvement in the

organization to gain sustainable competitive advantage during the era of digitalization and

technological advancement (Nikolaou, et al, 2008).

The CSR literature considers CSR as an alternative to perceived organizational support, since it

invokes both types of social exchanges i.e. generalized and restricted exchange (O. Farooq et al., 2013).

Further, CSR has been considered as a special form of organizational justice, since CSR advocates the

fair treatment of an organization with its various internal as well as external stakeholders (Mallory &

Rupp, 2014). However, the emergence of social exchanges due to the experience of justice from

leaders is already established (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). Therefore this particular research

proposes an important breakthrough for the organizations pursuing CSR activities. It proposes that

perceived CSR can positively influence employees’ voice behavior through social exchange

relationships based on a justice framework. Such exchange relationships would result in bringing about

positive change in employees. Accordingly, employees’ reluctance to share new and innovative ideas

would be diminished and may lead the organization towards better performance and competitive

advantage. So, exploration of the role of CSR activities on employees’ positive job outcomes, i.e.

Promotive Voice Behavior, is the key issue of this study.

The significance of this article entails the exploration of the relationship between perceived CSR

and employees’ promotive voice behavior in the light of Social Exchange theory, using a justice

framework. Most of the previous systematic research on voice behavior has concentrated on individual

differentiation (Detert & Burris, 2007) like personality, as correlates of voice (J. A. LePine, & Van

Dyne, L, 1998 &2001) rather than the contextual factors (i.e. the organizational conditions that make

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

possible or restrain voice behavior). Further, no study has been conducted until now, to the best of our

knowledge, empirically measuring the relationship between CSR and promotive voice behavior

through mediation moderation mechanisms, on the basis of social exchange theory. Previous studies

were either based on social identity theory (Zagenczyk et al, 2011) or voice behavior has been studied

with different constructs, for instance psychological contract violations (Turnlay and Feldman, 2000;

Knights and Kennedy, 2005), performance appraisal (Zhang et al., 2014), job satisfaction (Nikolaou et

al., 2008). Moreover, the promotive voice behavior construct is relatively uncommon and rarely used in

organizational behavior research (Memon & Ghani, 2020). Additionally, the present study is also

significant for research in an Asian country like Pakistan since previous research on voice behavior has

mostly been conducted in the USA or UK or other developed countries (Antonaki & Trivellas, 2014).

In this regard, research measuring the relationship of CSR and promotive voice behavior within the

context of a developing country like Pakistan will surely add a distinctive contribution to the body of

knowledge. Infact, the developing countries have different cultural, economic and social conditions,

therefore this would work to expand the boundary conditions of previous studies (O. Farooq et al, 2017;

Zulfiqar et al, 2019).

Thus the study presents a unique and innovative idea while it tries to explore and measure the

different effects of the relationship between CSR and promotive voice behavior. It is worthwhile to

explore such relationships since CSR can be a source of bringing about positive change in employee

behaviors (Memon et al, 2020). Further, the research presents CSR as a source of employees’

psychological empowerment using justice framework, leading towards employees’ promotive voice

behavior. The promotive voice behavior provides innovative ideas to organizations and may lead the

organization towards better performance and competitive advantage.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Corporate Social Responsibility

The conceptualizations of the term CSR has become broader and more dynamic (Graafland &

Schouten, 2012; Hansen et al., 2011) due to its implications at the micro (individual), meso

(organizational), macro (country) and supra (transnational) levels (Aguilera et al., 2007). Much

research has been done during the last quarter century on CSR and its growing concerns regarding

stakeholder relations, firm performance, its implications for business ethics, the external environment,

corporate citizenship etc (Graafland & Schouten, 2012; Matten & Moon, 2008). Further, it has

variations in its understanding and implications (Dahlsrud, 2008) with regards to geographical

locations as well as across continents and cultures (Wei et al, 2009). However it may be defined as

“actions that appear to further some social good, beyond the interests of the firm and that which is

required by law” (McWilliams & Siegel, 2001). Thus CSR corresponds to a form of corporate

behavioral outlook towards stakeholders (i.e. both external and internal) such as consumers, employees,

and the general public (O. Farooq et al, 2013; M. Farooq et al, 2014).

CSR programs may include volunteer activities or policies within the firm, such as incorporating

greater environmental and safety standards, human employee treatment, efforts to improve employee

diversity, etc. Similarly, the activities outside the firm may include cause related marketing activities,

community outreach programs, generous and philanthropic contributions to local communities etc.

(Hansen et al., 2011; Zheng et al, 2014). In any case, CSR efforts are usually projected to represent an

illustration of a corporation as quick to respond to the requirements of the society it depends on for

endurance (Ellen et al, 2006; Manika et al, 2020).

CSR builds up the significance of an organization’s implicit claims with its stakeholders. For

instance, while an employee’s wages can be predetermined in his contract, it is difficult to specify

working conditions. An organization with a good reputation for caring and consideration for its

employees will be able to implicitly ensure superior working conditions, a cooperative environment

aiding better recruitment etc. (Edmans, 2012).

This article focuses on micro level i.e. internal stakeholders (individual employees) and CSR

(internal and external) activities. Internal CSR means an internal code of conduct, health and safety

programs and policies, working time & environmental policies, fair pay and benefits, redundancy and

unfair dismissals (Basil & Erlandson, 2008; Campbell, 2007; Matten & Moon, 2008; Manika et al,

2017), while external refers to the company’s behavior towards external operations i.e. customers, local

communities and business partners and environmental issues (Skudiene & Auruskeviciene, 2012).

Khalid Rasheed Memon, Say Keat Ooi, Saima Khalid and Bilqees Ghani

2.2. Voice Behavior (Promotive)

The focus of our study is one of the recently recognized constructs, Voice Behavior, which has

gained great importance for organizational change researchers and theorists (Nikolaou et al., 2008).

The authors Premeaux and Bedeian (2003) defined speaking up as “openly stating one’s views or

opinions about workplace matters, including the actions or ideas of others, suggested or needed

changes and alternative approaches or different lines of reasoning for addressing job-related issues”.

The voice is accentuated to be a “positive voice” as recognized by NG and Feldman (2011),

“expressing change-oriented ideas, opinions, and suggestions intended to improve the situation at

work”, thus taken as a whole, this corresponds to the type of voice that brings about constructive

change in firms and jobs. Whiting et al (2012) consider the promotive voice as behavior that confronts

the status-quo with the intention of bringing about improvement rather than condemning any situation

and it consists of such behaviors as speaking up about organizational issues and suggestions for

modifications to standard operating procedures. Promotive voice behavior has been considered as

constructive and to have fruitful results for the organization and the team in the long run (Maynes &

Podsakoff, 2014). It is discretionary behavior of employees i.e. extra-role behavior, a type of behavior

that will help the organization to meet business challenges but is not explicitly recognized and

rewarded (Nikolaou et al., 2008; Liu et al, 2010). Further, a positive link has been suggested between

voice and change-oriented OCB (LePine, & Van Dyne, 2001; Nikolaou et al., 2008).

Liu et al (2010) argue that organizations require novel ideas and superior practices because of

turbulent marketplace conditions and competitiveness. Therefore, promotive voice behavior performs a

pivotal role for the survival/sustainability of the organizations. The authors have emphasized the

significance of the role of leaders (transformational leadership) since they inspire their workers and

empower them to raise their voice for the benefit of the organizations. A number of studies have shown

the relationship between perception about raising the voice and the superiority of one's relationship

with one’s boss (Morrison, 2011). Furthermore, upward information flow is best achieved whilst the

leader is concerned and provides fair consideration and meaning to the worker’s ideas and suggestions.

Such behavior of leaders convey a sensation of worth and the safety of the voice (Morrison, 2011)

whilst conceding psychological empowerment to the employee, permitting him to raise his voice.

Moreover, researchers have considered promotive voice behavior to be based on social exchange

theory (Blau, 1964) in lieu of the reciprocal behavior of employees against the favors the organization

and their supervisors have done to them and thus as a custom they do raise their voice powerfully

(Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005; Memon & Ghani, 2020).

2.3. Organizational justice

Organizational justice has been classified as procedural, interpersonal, informational and

distributive justice (Colquitt, 2001). Earlier studies focused on only two dimensions i.e. procedural and

interactional, for instance (Moorman, 1991) or procedural and distributive (Niehoff and Moorman

(1993). However, the definition of organizational justice and the measurement scale as designed by

Colquitt (2001) presents a very valuable tool that may be generalized for various industries,

occupations and geographic locations. (Shibaoka et al, 2010)

Distributive Justice emphasizes the fairness of rewards or punishments (Alexander & Ruderman,

1987) whereas procedural justice elucidates the fairness of procedures through which a reward is to be

disseminated. One must inspect the method as well as the end result, to comprehend the function of the

perceived fairness of justice in human interaction (Alexander & Ruderman, 1987). Greenberg and

Tyler (1987) define procedural justice as “the perceived fairness of the means used to make decisions”

(p. 129). This suggests that it is a crystal-clear decision-making process that takes into account an

individual employee’s suggestions and opinions. Leventhal (1980) argued that a fair process is based

on six factors: it should be consistent, accurate, correct, unbiased, representative & ethical.

Interactional justice is concerned with the treatment of their employees by decision makers, with a

high opinion and warmth and makes meticulously clear the grounds for decisions (Colquitt, 2001).

Some researchers consider it as a separate dimension (for instance, Skarlicki & Folger, 1997) whereas

others like (Niehoff and Moorman, 1993) treat it as a part of procedural justice. Informational justice is

more inclined towards the determining of information passed to the subordinate in a proper and timely

manner with reasonable and thorough explanation of the procedures involved. It includes justification,

truthfulness of the authority figure and the timeliness. Thus this study measures the procedural,

interpersonal, informational and distributive justice of the organization and its impacts as the perceived

fairness of the system on employee attitudes & behaviors.

Wu and Chaturvedi (2009) argue that when an organization develops systems and procedures,

communicating the sense of care and concern for the employee as explained by Social Exchange

Theory ((Blau, 1964) that portrays the mechanism of justice perception. Furthermore, those systems

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

and procedures that involve employee meetings, engaging &connecting employees, getting their

feedback, accentuating human development activities (people-centered practices) may develop a

sentiment of fairness in the organization (Cropanzano & Rupp, 2003).

3. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT

3.1. CSR and Employees’ Organizational Trust

According to Whitener et al (1998), “Trust” is one of the most important and crucial elements of

social exchange relationships and develops the roots of cooperation. Trust has a significant relationship

with a range of organizational constructs, for instance, performance, quality communication,

citizenship behavior, job satisfaction etc (Dirks & Ferrin, 2001) and it can be defined as having three

facets:1) trust in the other party to act benevolently, 2) willingness to be vulnerable and risk being

deceived, and 3) dependency on each other.

According to the Social Exchange Theory, as long as the employee feels the care, concern and

support from the organization, reciprocity occurs and the employee performs well by hard work instead

of withholding efforts (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005; Mount et al, 2006). The results of Colbertet al

(2004) are also consistent with our proposed model and their findings also demonstrate that employees

who negatively perceive organizational support are less likely to show devotion instead being involved

in deviant behaviors, whereas employees with high perceived organizational support perform their

duties with commitment, loyalty and hard work, which are the foundations of the Social Exchange

principal and perceived organizational support.

(M. Farooq et al., 2014; O. Farooq et al., 2013) argue that the rule of Social Exchange Theory is

also applicable in the case of CSR activities, though CSR activities are voluntary activities beyond

legal obligations and in return they invoke an obligation to reciprocate. Further, the authors have

discussed the applicability of forms of exchanges, i.e. restricted and generalized social exchange. Both

forms are invoked due to CSR activities. Restricted social exchange is invoked while internal CSR

activities are performed since those activities are directly perceived. Generalized social exchange is

invoked while external CSR activities are performed since employees consider themselves as a part of

society / community.

Perceived organizational support is applied in exchanges which are only for employees i.e.

restricted exchanges. Since CSR activities invoke both forms of exchanges, organizational trust is most

appropriate to validate our study (Liu et al, 2010; O. Farooq et al., 2013; M. Farooq et al., 2014). In

support of this view, other authors also proposed that trust is the ‘‘first result of a firm’s CSR

activities’’ or the direct or most contiguous result of CSR activity (Yu & Choi, 2014) (with attitude,

behaviors, and financial performance being more distal CSR outcomes) (Mallory & Rupp, 2014;

Hansen et al., 2011). Other authors also consider the development of organizational trust as an

immediate outcome of such exchanges (Blau, 1964; Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). Hence, we present

our hypothesis as:

Hypothesis 1: Employees’ perceptions of the firm’s CSR activities (internal and external)

positively influence employees’ organizational trust.

3.2. Employees’ organizational trust and psychological empowerment (perceived)

Several researchers explain that empowerment is a psychological phenomenon which should be

felt by an employee instead of compelling him to be empowered. (Raub & Robert, 2012). It consists of

belief in the decentralization of decision-making and responsibility to lower level employees,

permitting them to think of their own and discretionary become responsible for the their tasks’ quality

so as to improve the organization's performance (Barton & Barton, 2011). Oladipo (2009) defines

psychological empowerment as “an individual’s cognitive state characterized by a sense of perceived

control, competence, and goal internalization”. The definition of psychological empowerment is

operationalized through the conception, as elucidated by Raub and Robert (2012) that:

“Psychological empowerment can be seen as a single higher order construct composed of the

following four dimensions. Meaning refers to the value an individual attributes to a work goal or

purpose. Competence reflects the belief that one is capable of successfully carrying out a task. Self-

determination reflects a feeling of autonomy or a sense of choice in initiating work actions. Finally,

impact refers to the degree to which an individual believes that he or she can influence work

outcomes”.

Khalid Rasheed Memon, Say Keat Ooi, Saima Khalid and Bilqees Ghani

Psychological empowerment is not something that an organization does to employees, but a frame

of mind that employees have regarding their role in the organization, a form of intrinsic motivation

termed `psychological empowerment' (Barton & Barton, 2011).

The authors Rousseau et al. (1998:395) define trust as “a psychological state comprising the

intention to accept vulnerability based upon positive expectations of the intentions or behavior of

another”. Further, Yu and Choi (2014) define organizational trust as “employees’ willingness to be

vulnerable to the organization’s actions” where this willingness can be provided only when the

organization clearly exchanges and conveys its dealings to employees. Therefore, the organizational

trust plays a critical role in organizational stability and employee welfare since trustworthy

organizations are thought to be caring and supportive and have no harmful policies. Further,

organizational trust becomes more important while the organizations grow larger in terms of human

resources, since social relations become more complex and differentiation is more noticeable, resulting

in insufficiency of interpersonal relationships. (Findikli et al., 2010). Additionally, employees expect

from their organizations something which operates over and above the prescribed written contract of

employment while establishing a psychological link and contract (Rousseau, 1989). These beliefs and

expectations invoke reciprocal obligations between the employee and employer (Rousseau, 1989) and

form the basis of trust, leading towards communal cooperation inducing norms of reciprocity (Barton

& Barton, 2011; Hui et al, 2004; Fischer et al, 2020). Accordingly, the believes of employees in long

term obligations (e.g. relational contracts) may drive an employee to be more engaged in OCB and

work engagement related behavior, whereas short-term obligations (e.g. transactional contracts) may

reduce this feeling/behavior of employee engagement (Hui et al., 2004; Fischer et al, 2020).

As discussed, organizational trust is a result of CSR activities, which are voluntary actions by the

organization based on shared values and norms and strategic embedding within the organization of the

three pillars “people”, “planet” and “profit” (Cramer, 2005). Therefore, it is proposed that

organizations performing CSR practices act as trustees for the interests of employees and all

stakeholders. Such organizations work for the betterment and welfare of the employees so as to meet

employee / stakeholder expectations. However, the stakeholders adhere vigilantly to the CSR-related

practices of their organizations due to the social exchange relationship and greater expectations

(Cramer, 2005; Dirks & Ferrin, 2001; Yu & Choi, 2014). Due to this bondage of exchange relationship,

the organization tries to strengthen this relationship especially through internal CSR (for its employees).

Research shows that the fulfillment of psychological contracts by the organization (through CSR

activities) are related to several positive employee reactions like job satisfaction, trust, in-role and

extra-role performances, intention to remain with the organization, (Hui et al., 2004) organizational

citizenship behavior (Antonaki & Trivellas, 2014; Hui et al., 2004; Mallory & Rupp, 2014; Turnley et

al, 2003), organizational commitment(O. Farooq et al., 2013), employee performance, employee

contract behavior, employees' perceived organizational support (Coyle-Shapiro & Kessler, 2000).

CSR activities directly influence the attitudes and behaviors of internal as well as external

stakeholders where several studies have associated CSR with cognitive, emotional, and behavioral

reactions (Cramer, 2005; Hansen et al., 2011). This particular research also reveals that attitudes and

behaviors follow perceptions or cognitions. The researchers associate the feelings of organizational

trust with psychological empowerment since employees feel supported while receiving due care and

selflessness from the organization (Findikli et al., 2010; Seibert et al, 2011; Memon et al, 2020). Trust

is cognition based since employees choose whom to trust, and under what conditions they trust. Choice

is based on the cognitive judgment of all empirical indications of trustworthiness, including

competence, responsibility, reliability and dependability. In addition, evidence that the trust partners`

behavior is reliable and dependable, with norms of reciprocity and fairness, is essential to the

development of trust (Barton & Barton, 2011).

Empowerment is a psychological variable relating to the employee's self-perceptions. Therefore

the employee should feel psychologically what the organization is trying to make its employees feel.

Ergeneli et al. (2007) refer to this approach as the cognitive or motivational approach, where the

cognitive approach puts emphasis on open communication, sentimental and emotional support to

reduce stress and anxiety, inspired goals to enhance loyalty and participation, rather than the

transmission of power. The cognitive approach aims to boost the employee's feeling of self-efficacy.

Further, the authors report that researchers have examined many firms and found that the lack of trust

within an organization is a key element of failure being an invisible obstacle preventing personnel

empowerment efforts whereas empowerment is the fruit of trust (Ergeneli et al., 2007; Erturk, 2010).

Thus, the creation of a trusting organizational environment results in the psychological empowerment

of the employees (Whitener et al., 1998). Similarly, Ugwu et al (2014) have studied the relationship

between trust, psychological empowerment and employee engagement through social exchange theory.

The authors argue that if employees recognize the organization as trustworthy, the employees are more

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

likely to reciprocate trust by becoming more engaged in extra role behaviors (i.e. promotive voice

behavior). Further, employees feel psychologically empowered in an environment of self-efficacy and

trustworthiness. (Ugwa et al, 2014). Similarly, Erturk (2010) explains that the only way organizations

can benefit from empowerment is through a high-level of trust culture. Organizational effectiveness is

closely linked with empowerment while employees work in a trust based environment, resulting in an

amplified sense of ownership and attachment. Therefore, we present our second hypothesis as:

Hypothesis 2: There is a positive and significant relationship between employees’ trust in an

organization and employees’ perceptions of psychological empowerment.

3.3. Moderation of organizational justice between organizational trust and psychological

empowerment

Previous researchers have demonstrated that employees may deem it mandatory to exhibit positive

attitudes and behaviors for the reason that of fair social exchange experiences. For instance, a well-

made performance appraisal system may amplify the discernment of procedural and interactive justice

among employees, consequential to employee reciprocator behavior of OCB, organizational

commitment (Cropanzano & Rupp, 2003; Alexander & Ruderman, 1987). Therefore, the greater the

extent to which employees are involved and engaged in HR systems (e.g. performance appraisal), the

greater the motivation will be to make their voices heard in the decision-making processes, which

eventually boosts the overall feeling of procedural & interactive justice (Wu & Chaturvedi, 2009).

Seibert et al (2011) argue that high performance managerial practices including open information

sharing, extensive training, participative decision making, decentralization and contingent

compensation increase employees' motivation to higher levels and become the source of a superior

level of psychological empowerment. These fair practices of an organization enhance the employees'

feeling of having control of their work, the information they possess and the job related skills,

knowledge and abilities (Singh & Singh, 2019).

Employees may get psychologically empowered in terms of initiation and consistency towards

their task behavior, if they are allowed to participate in suggesting their thoughts, raising their voice for

communicating dynamic changes, and to discuss the issues related to their organization (Spreitzer,

1995). Moreover, permitting and encouraging employees to raise their voice and pass judgment on the

procedure (their legitimacy) for fairness purposes, rather than criticizing, is heartening for the

employees. This may result in an increase in perceived fairness (procedural, interpersonal,

informational and distributive) and employee satisfaction (Folger, 1977). Thus, this feeling of

satisfaction, safety and care develops psychological empowerment in employees. Hence, we present

our hypothesis as:

H3: Organizational justice moderates the relationship of organizational trust and psychological

empowerment.

3.4. Psychological empowerment and promotive voice behavior

Morrison (2011) recognizes voice behavior, from the employee perspective, as a point of

apprehension for individual safety as his / her behavior may result in bringing about negative

consequences because of a person present being in a higher post/ position. As a result, employees hold

back their voices due to the apprehension of unfairness from those in positions of authority and the

term “defensive silence”, “quiescent silence” has been used for such types of situation. Thus voice can

bring tension in affairs and reflect unconstructively upon others.

Several studies depict the relationship between perceptions of raising the voice and the quality of

one's relationship with one’s boss (Morrison, 2011; Gao et al., 2011). Additionally, upward

information flow is simply possible where the leader/ supervisor is concerned and values the employees

and provides fair consideration of their ideas and suggestion. Such actions of a supervisor conveys a

feeling of worth and safety of voice (Morrison, 2011) whilst giving psychological empowerment to the

employee and consent to raise his voice. The literature considers promotive voice behavior as extra-

role behavior (Liu et al., 2010) representing the reciprocator behavior of employees, in response to the

favors that organization and their leaders have done to them and thus as a norm they do raise their

voice intensely (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). Organizations and leaders/managers are required to act

in an encouraging manner, demonstrating care and concern, openness and trustworthiness, involvement

in goal setting, communicating their vision to their employees, so as to grant them a sense of

psychological empowerment. Employees’ feelings of being psychologically empowered will enable

them to raise their voice positively (Arnold et al, 2000; Liu et al., 2010; NG & Feldman, 2011).

Therefore we present our fourth hypothesis as:

Khalid Rasheed Memon, Say Keat Ooi, Saima Khalid and Bilqees Ghani

Hypothesis 4: Psychological Empowerment positively influences promotive voice behavior such

that the higher the felt psychological empowerment, the higher will be employees’ voice behavior.

Consequently, according to the above discussion and hypothesis, we wrap up the arguments

through our final hypothesis:

Hypothesis 5: CSR (internal and external) influences employees’ promotive voice behavior such

that CSR positively influences employees’ organizational trust, where organizational trust increases

the perception of psychological empowerment, resulting in the development of promotive voice

behavior.

Figure 1 represents the conceptual framework of our model for the relationship between perceived

CSR and promotive voice behavior, in the light of social exchange theory using the justice framework.

3.5. Conceptual Framework

Figure 1. Proposed model of the relationship between perceived CSR and promotive voice

behavior

4. METHODOLOGY

4.1. Sample and procedures

The study is based on a survey managed through self-reported questionnaires. Our focus is on the

employees of manufacturing units working in FMCG and the telecom sector of Pakistan. These include

both multinational and national level organizations. Their products consist of mineral water, food items

and mobile network services along with mobile phone assembling and selling. These companies are

operating over almost all of Pakistan except a few of the national companies and they have larger sales

volumes due to the fact that Pakistan has a population of approx 220 million inhabitants. 25 companies

were selected on the basis of their CSR information available through secondary data sources, specially

websites, implying that they are involved in CSR activities and their employees are well aware of the

related concepts and activities (M. Farooq et al., 2014; O. Farooq et al., 2013). Further, data has been

collected from non-management staff who are not directly involved in CSR policy making and

implementing but are direct observers and are affected by CSR activities (Rup et al, 2006).

We have used a time lag technique to avoid common method bias and accordingly temporal and

psychological separations of our variables are used (O. Farooq et al, 2017). We divided our variables

into two portions in two different sheets. The first booklet measured the variables of CSR,

organizational trust, psychological empowerment, organizational justice and demographic variables,

whereas the other one measured the promotive voice behavior of employees. We have used a snow ball

sampling method for the collection of data with the help of our field survey team; questionnaires were

handed over to the employees of the relevant organizations working in Pakistan. The questionnaire was

forwarded with a cover letter indicating the rationale for the study and the consent of the employee to

participate in study. Upon handing over the first booklet, each employee was assigned a code so that

the second booklet could be handed over to the same employee. However, the collection of data

included the separation of a time interval of 15 to 20 days between the first and second booklets.

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

Through this procedure, we collected data from 300 employees, in line with the definition of

employee as described by (Rupp et al., 2006), whose responses were completely filled in and could be

used for analysis purposes. Demographic characteristics of the sampled employees are given in table 1.

This shows that the sample comprised 252 males and 48 female respondents, having educational

qualification of bachelors for 141 informants, 126 participants were less educated than bachelors, 27

had masters and the others had MS/MPhils (18 years education). Employees hold various service

tenures i.e. 78 participants had 3-year service, and 51 employees had 4-year experience, 63 respondents

had 5-year employment tenure, 21 had 6 or more years of service, whereas the remaining had less than

3-year service time. 99 of them were functional managers/lower management, whereas the others were

supervisors and operational level staff members.

Table 1. Demographic characteristics of the respondents

4.2. Tools and measurements

A number of tools, whose validity and reliability have already been established, have been adapted,

to test the model. For instance, perceived CSR has been measured through the instrument originally

developed by (Turker, 2009) but adopted from (O. Farooq et al, 2013). Infact, the same was amended

by adding one additional item from Maignan and Ferrell (2000) related to charities and donations to

fulfill the contextual requirements of Pakistan by (M. Farooq et al., 2014; O. Farooq et al., 2013),

therefore the same has been adapted accordingly. This tool includes 16 items in total, with10 items for

External CSR (community, environment and consumers) for example, “Our company implements

special social programs to minimize its negative impact on the natural environment” and 6 for Internal

CSR (Employees), for example “Our company encourages its employees to participate in corporate

volunteerism programs”.

Promotive Voice Behavior: Voice Behavior items have been measured through a 10 item

instrument developed by Maynes and Podsakoff (2014). It measures the promotive voice behavior of

employees as per our operational definition, i.e. voice behavior in a positive and constructive sense, to

be self reported. The actual tool has 20 items, which have been divided into four types of voices with

each type including 5 items. But we restrict ourselves to 2 of these types i.e. supportive and

constructive, since they are defined under the heading of promotive voice behavior. 10 items in total

have been selected, as per our study definition. However, this will not affect the reliability and validity

of the instrument since each of these types has been tested separately by Maynes and Podsakoff (2014).

Psychological Empowerment: The mediating variable of Psychological Empowerment has been

measured with the 12 item scale originally developed and validated by Spreitzer (1995) on 5-point

Likert scales (1 strongly disagree to 5 strongly agree) since it measures the psychological

empowerment as meaning, competence, self-determination and impact as per our operational definition.

Organization Trust: The instrument of organizational trust was actually developed by Mayer et

al. (1995) and Shockley-Zalabak et al. (2000) but the same has now been adopted from Yu and Choi

(2014). Accordingly, four measurement items have been used to measure the CSR-oriented

Demographics

Frequency

Age

18-28

193

29-40

41-55

Gender

Male

252

Female

Service Tenure (years)

Qualification

Below Bachelors

126

Bachelors

141

Masters

MS/Mphil

Management Level

Middle / Lower Management

Supervisor

Non-Management Lower

Level Staff

120

Khalid Rasheed Memon, Say Keat Ooi, Saima Khalid and Bilqees Ghani

Organizational Trust by employing a related question using a five-point Likert-type scale. An example

of the items includes “Our organization treats employees fairly and properly”.

Organizational justice was measured as per our operational definition of organizational justice i.e.

procedural, interpersonal, informational and distributive. It was measured through an instrument

adapted from Colquitt (2001) with all relevant dimensions, in total 20 items categorized and measured

separately. For instance, distributive justice was measured using four items assessing the fairness of

different work outcomes, including pay level, work schedule, work load, and job responsibilities.

Procedural justice was measured with seven items evaluating the degree to which job decisions

included mechanisms that ensured the gathering of accurate and unbiased information, employee voice,

and an appeals process. Informational justice was measured with 5 items determining the information

passed to the subordinate in a proper and timely manner with a reasonable and thorough explanation of

the procedures involved. Interpersonal justice was measured through 4 items gauging the level of

respect, dignity and politeness adopted while enacting the procedure. It has a reliability of .90.

Demographic and control variables: Demographic variables have been measured as per the

practice of (M. Farooq et al., 2014; O. Farooq et al., 2013). Only that information has been sought from

the respondent which has been presented/sought by (M. Farooq et al., 2014; O. Farooq et al., 2013).

Research implies that age, gender, service tenure, type of employment could potentially manipulate

employees’ trust in management and voice behavior (Liang et al, 2012), and therefore we controlled

these demographic variables in the data analysis. For instance, gender (male = 0 and female = 1) type

of employment (part time = 0 and full time = 1) were dummy-coded.

We adapted the instrument and translated it into Urdu (the national language of Pakistan). The

translated questionnaire was then examined by 2 management research experts. We also pre-tested the

instrument through 20 MBA students to identify any potential problems associated with adaptation and

translation. We found some minor problems regarding the translation which were corrected at once.

However, no such problem was found with its structure and flow. Thus, both the expert review and the

pre-test revealed that the questionnaire is readable and comprehensible as well as fit for the Pakistani

contextual requirements.

4.3. Data Analysis

Data was analyzed in-depth through Smart PLS 3 by using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)

using a Structure Equation Modeling (SEM) technique. However, before this data was entered through

SPSS version 22 and initial tests of data normality, correlation etc were tested, later model/hypothesis

testing was performed through PLS 3. The plan was to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the

relationship between corporate social responsibility and employee voice behavior through the

mediation of organizational trust and psychological empowerment and further to test the moderating

effect of organizational justice between organizational trust and psychological empowerment. The

violation of data normality (e.g. studies using employee voice behavior, organizational justice, etc. tend

to have non-normal data) and while the correct model specification cannot be ensured, led us to the

application of Smart PLS (Wong, 2013).

5. RESULTS

5.1. Descriptive Statistics

Table 2 indicates that organizational justice (Mean=3.69, SD= .57) has the highest skewness

(2.02). Psychological empowerment (Mean = 3.45, SD=.62) has the lowest skewness and it is negative

too (-0.423) but the highest kurtosis, which is 1.979. Skewness for all the items is negative apart from

organizational justice, but it has the highest skewnessas stated and the lowest kurtosis is for CSR

(Mean=3.46, SD= .56), which is -0.239. As all the construct are within the range of ±3.5, it is implicit

that the data has a normal tendency (Hair Jr. et al, 2010).

Table 2. Descriptive statistics

Construct

Mean

Std. Deviation

Skewness

Kurtosis

Promotive voice behavior

3.56

0.69

-0.195

0.502

Organizational trust

3.54

0.69

-0.396

0.602

CSR

3.46

0.56

-0.123

-0.239

Psychological empowerment

3.45

0.62

-0.423

1.979

Organizational justice

3.69

0.57

2.02

1.417

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

5.2. Correlation Analysis

Table 3 presents the relationship amongst all the variables through correlation analysis and mainly

these have significant relationships with each other. The relationships were measured at the 95%

confidence level symbolized through a single star whereas 99% confidence levels were symbolized

through a double star. For example, CSR has a strong correlation with all the variables, which is

significant at .01 whereas the dependent variable promotive voice behavior has a significant

relationship with CSR (i.e. 0.408**), organizational trust (.164**) and psychological empowerment

(.455*). Further, except for 3 values out of the total 15 values, all other values are higher than .20,

demonstrating high-quality correlations among all the variables.

Table 3. Summarized correlations

Construct

CSR

Org.trust

PVB

CSR

1.00

Organizational justice

0.181**

1.00

Psychological empowerment

0.487**

0.48*

1.00

Organizational trust

0.529**

0.407**

0.372**

1.00

Promotive voice behavior

0.408**

0.146

0.455*

0.164*

1.00

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)

5.3. Validity and reliability tests

Table 4 presents the validity and reliability of all the constructs included in our study i.e. the outer

model as per the recommendations of Hair et al, 2017 i.e. through the measurement of internal

consistency reliability, convergent validity and discriminant validity. The table 4 shows the values of

construct reliability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE) and Cronbach alpha values, where CR

is an established measure of internal consistency reliability (Hair et al, 2017); AVE and outer loadings

represent the convergent validity of our constructs (Hair et al, 2017) The CR values indicate that

construct reliability of all the variables is greater than 0.7, which is an acceptable standard in terms of

internal consistency. Moreover, average variance extracted values are greater than 0.5 for each

construct, thus indicating that the data has convergent validity.

Table 4. Construct reliability and convergent validity through AVE

Constructs

# of

Items

Construct

Reliability

Average Variance Extracted

(AVE)

Cronbach Alpha values

1. CSR

0.834

0.562

0.82

2. PVB

0.839

0.511

0.88

3.Psy.empow

0.75

0.511

0.85

4. Org.justice

0.824

0.549

0.90

5. Org. Trust

0.882

0.559

0.92

In addition to this, table 5 presents the discriminant validity of the data through the method given

by Fornell and Larker (1981). The values on the diagonal represent the square root of average variance

extracted values, whereas the remaining values represent the correlations between the variables. All

diagonal average variance extracted values are greater than the correlations, which indicate the

existence of the discriminant validity of the data. Moreover, to prove discriminant validity, we also

checked the cross-loadings of all the items. The cross-loadings were appropriate and above 0.7 for each

relevant item of a specific variable.

Table 5. Discriminant validity

CSR

Psy.Empow

Org.Justice

Org.Trust

CSR

0.75

PVB

0.134

0.715

Psy. Empow

0.27

0.016

0.715

Org.Justice

0.253

0.075

0.582

0.741

Org. Trust

0.422

0.177

0.525

0.502

0.748

Furthermore, after checking the reliability and validity of the outer model, we examined whether

any multi-collinearity issue exists in the data. It was examined for both the inner and outer models

through variance inflation factor (VIF) values. The rule states that variance inflation factor values must

Khalid Rasheed Memon, Say Keat Ooi, Saima Khalid and Bilqees Ghani

be below 5, indicating no issue of multi-collinearity; the values for our model lie between 1.0 and 3.5,

which are less than the threshold of 5 (Cohen et al, 2013). Thus, the risk of any problem related with

multi-collinearity is not present. After that we conducted regression tests for the inner model. Results

indicate that the overall model fitness is 31%, which is represented through the value of R square and

depicts a good model fit. In addition to the above test, another test was performed for calculating the F2

(F square values, which represent the contribution of individual variables to R square. F square values

for each variable should be at least 0.02 for a minimum contribution, greater than 0.15 for a moderate

contribution and greater than 0.35 for a high contribution (Cohen et al, 2013). Our data results showed

that F square values for all the variables were above the threshold value, which means that all the

variables contributed to R square.

5.4. Path Coefficients

Table 6 presented below summarizes the acceptance of the hypotheses and our overall regression

results. A bootstrapping method was used with 5000 re-samples and a t-test was employed. In addition,

the Q Square (Geisser Criterion value) is 0.14 i.e. greater than 0 (zero) being its minimum value, which

implies that the latent variables in the model has high predictive ability (Yi, Nataraajan, & Gong, 2011).

Further, Q2 evaluates the predictive validity of a large complex model and shows how well the data

collected empirically can be reconstructed with the help of model using PLS parameters (Hair et al,

2017, p. 202). Q2 values are obtained by using a blindfolding procedure.

Table 6. PLS Structural Model Results

Notes: O.trust=Organizational trust; Psy.Empow= Psychological empowerment; PVB = Promotive voice

behavior; OJ=Organizational justice

Table 6 clearly shows all the regression (direct and indirect) paths, their significance levels, and

standard deviation values of all variables. The first path as per our first hypothesis is from corporate

social responsibility to organizational trust (CSRorg.Trust) i.e. a direct relationship, which has been

shown to be positive and significant at p<0.001 (H1 accepted). Likewise, to demonstrate the mediation

of psychological empowerment between organizational trust and employee voice behavior, we should

see two paths (one from org.trust psych.empow, and other from psych.empow PVB). Table 4

indicates that the relationship between CSR org.trust is positive and significant at p<.001 (H1

accepted) and the relationship between org. trustpsych.empow is also significant and positive at

p<0.05(H2 accepted) whereas the relationship between psych.empowPVB is significantly positive at

p<0.05. This supports our second and fourth hypotheses, that there exists a mediation of employee trust

and psychological empowerment (H3 and H4 accepted). Moreover, we tested the moderating effect of

organizational trust on the direct path (from Org.trustpsych.empow). Results show that

organizational trust moderates the relationship, having a significant impact at p<0.01 (H3 accepted).

Finally, the result of our last hypothesis (H5) was tested through CSR to PVB including multiple

mediation and the same is significant at p<0.001. Hence all of our hypotheses were accepted and have

shown a significant impact on our dependent variable. This also underlines the strength of our

structural model as well as the model fitness.

6. DISCUSSION

This study explores the impact of corporate social responsibility on the promotive voice behavior

of employees working in FMCG and the Telecom sector of Pakistan. Further, we explored whether

employees' trust in their organization plays any role in getting these employees psychologically

empowered based upon their firm’s corporate social responsibility towards them. Accordingly, the

effect of organizational trust was tested on employees’ psychological empowerment. In addition to this,

Coefficients

Standard

Deviation

(STDEV)

T Statistics

Values

2.50%

97.50

CSR O.Trust

0.251

0.041

6.096

0.01

0.168

0.327

O.Trust Psy.Empow

0.219

0.082

5.204

0.03

0.321

0.236

O.TrustO.Trust*OJ

Psy.Empow

0.216

0.089

3.36

0.01

0.238

0.201

Psy.Empow PVB

0.218

0.051

4.309

0.02

0.021

0.214

CSRO.Trust

Psy.EmpowPVB

0.269

0.051

4.317

0.04

0.307

0.119

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

the moderating effect of organizational justice was tested to identify whether this aids in affecting

employees’ psychological empowerment through organizational trust developed as a result of firms’

CSR activities.

Unlike previous studies which incorporated social identity theory, our study employed social

exchange theory to test the above discussed relationships. Results revealed numerous important

findings and thus contributed to the theory in multiple ways. Contrary to previous studies, which have

focused on other constructs for measuring the effect of corporate social responsibility, for instance,

affective organizational commitment (O. Farooq et al., 2013), organizational identification and

knowledge sharing behavior (M. Farooq et al., 2014), our study has focused on the broader construct of

employee promotive voice behavior. Also, the mediation of organizational trust and psychological

empowerment as well as the moderating effect of organizational justice has been measured, whereas

previous studies have not conducted empirical studies by taking into account all these variables.

Our study is consistent with the previous study of Raub and Robert (2012) in the sense that

psychological empowerment has been revealed to be an important predictor of promotive voice

behavior, whereas organizational justice (the moderator in our study) has played a solution providing

role for the development of empowerment leading towards voice behavior, consistent with the study of

Singh & Sing (2019). Research has shown the great impact of organizational support in the form of

organizational trust and social relationships between supervisor and subordinates. This in-turn develops

& increases the perception of having a safe environment and the development of psychological

empowerment, enabling an employee to raise his/her voice (Raub & Robert, 2012). Further, our

research supports the notion that percieved fairness (procedural, interpersonal, informational,

distributive) has become an ever more remarkable construct (Colquitt, 2001) especially in a developing

country like Pakistan, since very rarely do employees get such types of treatment from the employers.

It is very unfortunate that countries like Pakistan, where we have an authoritarian and bureaucratic style

of dealing, employees are less inclined to show postive and constructive voice behavior.

Our results of, for instance, hypothesis 1 and hypothesis 2 are consistent with other studies on

corporate social responsibility conducted in a Pakistani context (M. Farooq et al., 2014; O. Farooq et al.,

2013; Zulfiqar et al, 2019; Memon et al, 2020), suggesting that taking corporate social responsibility

initiatives and showing care and concern for employees leads towards the development of trust and

then getting employees psychologically empowered. However, it is found that due to direct support for

employees through perceived organizational justice (hypothesis 3), the moderating effect of

organizational justice has enhanced the significance and strength of the relationship between

organizational trust and psychological empowerment (Singh & Singh, 2019; Seibert et al, 2011).

This shows that employees in the Pakistani environment are more concerned with activities which

are performed directly for them instead of other employees or external stakeholders, probably due to

having a low economic status and it being a developing nation. Thus our overall results have shown

that CSR is associated with promotive voice behavior; however, employees anticipate the feeling of

care and concern and are likely to raise positive voice for the implementation of sound organizational

changes (Whiting et al, 2012). Nevertheless, this demands first and foremost influencing employees by

valuable organizational justice and a fairness system, allowing them to trust their organizations and

causing them to be empowered and gladly speak out about organizational changes which can trigger

organizational improvement (hypothesis 4 & 5). Yet such feelings of perceived organizational support

and organizational justice can be conveyed by focusing more on internal CSR activities. For example,

researchers compared CSR directed towards employees with High-Performance Work Systems (HPWS)

and claimed that there is significant overlap between Human Resources Management (HRM) and the

internal component of CSR (Cropanzano & Rupp, 2003; Alexander & Ruderman, 1987) Further,

previous studies demonstrate that employees may feel obliged to exhibit positive attitudes and

behaviors for the organizations having good internal practices. (Memon et al, 2020) Moreover,

leadership has the potential to shape employees to speak-up positively, to craft tough psychological

associations, and then happen to be empowered throughout the development of trust in the organization

(Detert & Burris, 2007; Memon et al, 2018).

7. CONCLUSION

The research proposed a mediation-moderation model based on social exchange theory using a

justice framework for investigating the relationship between CSR and employees’ promotive voice

behavior. Based on the results from the data gathered from 300 employees of FMCG and the telecom

sector of Pakistan, the study presents the positive role of CSR for the development of employees’

promotive voice behavior and getting employees psychologically empowered through organizational

justice. Further, CSR activities based on workers themselves had the greatest positive effect on their

conduct, as compared to the CSR activities targeted at society at large. These findings on the

Khalid Rasheed Memon, Say Keat Ooi, Saima Khalid and Bilqees Ghani

differential effects of two types of CSR activities have many implications for managers and researchers,

as discussed below.

7.1. Research implications

This study proposes a model based on the construct of employees' psychological empowerment,

developed as a result of organizational trust and organizational justice, being the fundamental element

of the relationship between corporate social responsibility and employees’ promotive voice behavior.

This empirically tested model within the context of Pakistan provides important implications for

researchers as well as practitioners. The present research has contributed in multiple ways. Firstly, it

explored the effect of firms’ CSR activities on the least explored employee behavior i.e. promotive

voice behavior (Memon & Ghani, 2020; Maynes & Podsokoff, 2014). Secondly, it presented

organizational trust and psychological empowerment as mediators and organizational justice as a

moderator, between CSR and employees’ promotive voice behavior, which is a newly presented

framework (O. Farooq et al, 2013, 2014; M. Farooq et al, 2019; Memon & Ghani, 2020). Thirdly, the

study incorporates the theoretical basis of social exchange theory in explaining the interrelationships

among the stated variables (M. Farooq et al, 2019; Zulfiqar et al, 2019). Finally, the study has been

conducted in a developing country (Pakistan) context, whereas previous studies were done mostly in

the developed countries (Antonaki & Trivellas, 2014; Kim et al, 2017; Maynes & Podsokoff, 2014).

Through this study the emphasis has been on the relationship between corporate social

responsibility and employees’ promotive voice behavior through a social exchange perspective and

considering “organizational trust” and “psychological empowerment” as the critical elements. It has

been proposed that corporate social responsibility plays a major part in gaining employees’ trust in

organizations. Further, it is proposed that employees may perceive corporate social responsibility as

good for identification purposes, but for personal interest and engagement, employees need internal

support and care through internal corporate social responsibility. However, concepts such as

organizational justice through leader member exchange may also play an important role in catalyzing

the relationship and boosting it to the next level.

The domino effect of our research advances the underlying theories on the relationship of CSR,

organizational trust, psychological empowerment, organizational justice and voice behavior. Our study

finds support in the existing literature that perceived fairness at the place of work influences

psychological empowerment (e.g. Singh & Singh, 2019; Ugwu et al, 2014; Seibert et al, 2011) leading

towards voice behavior ((Antonaki & Trivellas, 2014; Seibert et al, 2011; Morrisson, 2011; Liu et al,

2010) and organizational trust (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005; Mountet al, 2006; Colbert et al, 2004;

Liu et al, 2010; Yu & Choi, 2014; Fischer et al, 2020). Similarly we found support for CSR oriented

organizational trust (Zulfiqar et al, 2019; M. Farooq et al., 2014; O. Farooq et al., 2013; Yu & Choi,

2014; Mallory & Rupp, 2014) and psychological empowerment (Hui et al, 2004; Hansen et al, 2011;

Raub & Robert, 2012; Whitener et al., 1998; Seibert et al, 2011; Singh & Singh, 2019).

Therefore, we put forward the suggestion that an organization being socially responsible, both

internally and externally, develops in employees the sense of trust in the organization, that the

organization is reliable and will not deceive people on personnel issues too. This in-turn advances the

feeling of personal care, concern and safety through the support of perceived fairness at the place of

work, resulting in the development of a higher level of psychological empowerment. This

psychological empowerment helps the organization in influencing employees towards the enactment of

organizationally preferred discretionary job behaviors (i.e. promotive voice behavior).

This study persuades practitioners to experience new methodologies of passing on the feelings of

concern, care, and protection. This can be achieved through varied human resource interventions,

supervisor/ leader mentoring behaviors and communication systems being the most gratifying drivers

of employee engagement and promotive voice behavior aiming towards employee performance as well

as gaining the trust of employees (Bedarkar & Pandita, 2014). Further, employees are involved in mid-

year or quarterly review sessions, which result in the assignment of targets/goals and the suggestions

for their performance improvement, if required,. Similarly, training and development activities like on

the job training, rotations, educational opportunities and involvement in the decision making process

will surely develop a sense of shared ownership. Accordingly, employees will perform reciprocally and

will go beyond their work obligations provided they receive a sense of meaningfulness, safety and

availability as proposed by Kahn (1990).

7.2. Limitations and Future Research

As this particular study is only within the context of Pakistan (a developing country), with a

limited number of respondents, the study cannot be generalized to developed settings, where the results

may vary with different contexts and countries. Yet the same model may be tested to compare the

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

variations of results between a developing and developed country’s settings. Further, it may be

extended to the other Asian Countries, specially developing South Asian countries with a similar

infrastructure and economic conditions. Therefore, the authors propose that a survey or interviews with

the co-workers may be carried out to determine the exact reaction and dealing in practical situations for

testing how individuals with different personality traits behave under those circumstances and control

the situation. Accordingly, the validity of these personality traits and the expected performance can be

measured; weak and strong relations can be found as well. The use of other theories like social identity

and employee expectancy theory are also recommended.

REFERENCES

Aguilera, R. V., Rupp, D. E., Williams, C. A., & Ganapathi, J. (2007). Putting the S back in corporate

social responsibility: A multilevel theory of social change in organizations. Academy of

Management Review, 32(3), 836-863.

Antonaki, X.-E., & Trivellas, P. (2014). Psychological Contract Breach and Organizational

Commitment in the Greek Banking Sector: The mediation effect of Job satisfaction. Procedia -

Social and Behavioral Sciences, 148, 354 – 361.

Appelbaum, S. H., Iaconi, G. D., & Matousek, A. (2007). Positive and negative deviant workplace

behaviors: causes, impacts, and solutions. Corporate Governance 7(5), 586-598.

Arnold, J. A., Arad, S., Rhoades, J. A., & Drasgow, F. (2000). The empowering leadership

questionnaire:the construction and validation of a new scale for measuring leader behaviors.

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 249-269.

Aryee, S., & Chen, Z. X. (2006). Leader–member exchange in a Chinese context: Antecedents, the

mediating role of psychological empowerment and outcomes. Journal of Business Research, 59,

793 – 801.

Azim, M. T., Diyab, A. A., & Al-Sabaan, S. A. (2014). CSR, Employee Job Attiture and Behavior:

Saudi Bank Experience. Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, 43(E/2014), 25-47.

Barton, H., & Barton, L. C. (2011). Trust and psychological empowerment in the Russian work context.

Human Resource Management Review, 21, 201–208.

Basil, D. Z., & Erlandson, J. (2008). Corporate Social Responsibility website representations: a

longitudinal study of internal and external self-presentations. Journal of Marketing

Communications, 14(2), 125-137.

Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Campbell, J. L. (2007). Why would Corporations behave in socially responsible ways?An Institutional

Theory of Corporate Social Responisbility Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 946–967.

Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2013). Applied multiple regression/correlation

analysis for the behavioral sciences. Routledge

Colbert, A. E., Mount, M. K., Harter, J. K., Witt, L. A., & Barrick, M. R. (2004). Interactive Effects of

Personality and Perceptions of the Work Situation on Workplace Deviance. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 89(4), 599-609.

Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: a construct validation of a

measure. Journal of applied psychology, 86(3), 386-400.

Coyle-Shapiro, J. A.-M., & Kessler, I. (2000). Consequences of the psychological contract for the

employment relationship: a large scale survey. The Journal of Management Studies, 37(7), 904-

930.

Cramer, J. (2005). Company Learning about Corporate Social Responsibility. Business Strategy and

the Environment, 14, 255–266

Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social Exchange Theory: An Interdisciplinary Review

Journal of Management, 31(6), 874-900.

Dahlsrud, A. (2008). How Corporate Social Responsibility is Defined: an Analysis of 37 Definitions.

Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 15, 1–13.

Detert, J. R., & Burris, E. R. (2007). Leadership behavior and employee voice: Is the door really open?

Academy of Management Journal, 50(4), 869–884.

Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2001). The Role of Trust in Organizational Settings. Organization

Science, 12(4), 450-467.

Khalid Rasheed Memon, Say Keat Ooi, Saima Khalid and Bilqees Ghani

Edmans, A. (2012). The Link Between Job Satisfaction and Firm Value, With Implications for

Corporate Social Responsibility. Academy of Management Perspectives, 1-19. doi:

http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amp.2012.0046

Ellen, P. S., Webb, D. J., & Mohr, L. A. (2006). Building Corporate Associations: Consumer

Attributions for Corporate Socially Responsible Programs. Journal of the Academy of Marketing

Science, 34(2), 147-157.

Ergeneli, A., Ar, G. S., & Metin, S. (2007). Psychological empowerment and its relationship to trust in

immediate managers. Journal of Business Research, 60, 41–49.

Ertürk, A. (2010). Exploring predictors of organizational identification: Moderating role of trust on the

associations between empowerment, organizational support, and identification. European journal

of work and organizational psychology, 19(4), 409-441

Farooq, M., Farooq, O., & Jasimuddin, S. M. (2014). Employees response to corporate social

responsibility: Exploring the role of employees’ collectivist orientation. European Management

Journal, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2014.03.002.

Farooq, O., Payaud, M., Merunka, D., & Valette-Florence, P. (2013). The Impact of Corporate Social

Responsibility on Organizational Commitment: Exploring Multiple Mediation Mechanisms.

Journal of Business Ethics. doi: DOI 10.1007/s10551-013-1928-3

Findikli, M. A., Gulden, A., & Semercioz, F. (2010). Subordinate Trust in Supervisor and Organization:

Effects on Subordinate Perceptions of Psychological Empowerment. International Journal of

Business and Management Studies, 2(1), 55-67.

Fischer, S., Hyder, S., & Walker, A. (2020). The effect of employee affective and cognitive trust in

leadership on organisational citizenship behaviour and organisational commitment: Meta-analytic

findings and implications for trust research. Australian Journal of Management, 00 (0), 1-18.

Gao, L., Janssen, O., & Shi, K. (2011). Leader trust and employee voice: The moderating role of

empowering leader behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 22, 787–798.

Ghani, B., Memon, K.R (2020). The HR practices and organizational citizenship behavior.

International journal of management sciences and business research, 9 (1), 43-52.

Graafland, J., & Schouten, C. M.-V. d. D. (2012). Motives for Corporate Social Responsibility. De

Economist, 160, 377–396.

Hansen, S. D., Dunford, B. B., Boss, A. D., Boss, R. W., & Angermeier, I. (2011). Corporate Social

Responsibility and the Benefits of Employee Trust: A Cross-Disciplinary Perspective. Journal of

Business Ethics, 102, 29–45. doi: 10.1007/s10551-011-0903-0

Hair Jr, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2010). SEM: An

introduction. Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective, 5(6), 629-686.

Hair, J.F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2017), A Primer on Partial Least Squares

Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), 2nd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Hill, N. S., Kang, J. H., & Seo, M.-G. (2014). The interactive effect of leader–member exchange and

electronic communication on employee psychological empowerment and work outcomes.

Leadership Quarterly. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.04.006

Hui, C., Lee, C., & Rousseau, D. M. (2004). Psychological Contract and Organizational Citizenship

Behavior in China: Investigating Generalizability and Instrumentality. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 89(2), 311-321

Ilkhanizadeh, S., & Karatepe, O. M. (2017). An examination of the consequences of corporate social

responsibility in the airline industry: Work engagement, career satisfaction, and voice behavior.

Journal of Air Transport Management, 59, 8-17

Kim, B. P., & George, R. T. (2005). The relationship between Leader-member exchange (LMX) and

psychological empwerment: A quick casual restaurant employee correlation study. Journal of

Hospitality & Tourism Research, 29(4), 468-483.

Knights, J. A., & Kennedy, B. J. (2005). Psychological contract violation: Impacts on job satisfaction

and organizational commitment among Australian senior public servants. Applied HRM Research,

10(2), 57-72

LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. (2001). Voice and cooperative behavior as contrasting forms of

contextual performance: Evidence of differential relationships with Big Five personality

characteristics and cognitive ability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 326–336.

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

LePine, J. A., & Dyne, L. V. (1998). Predicting Voice Behavior in Work Groups. Journal of Applied

Psychology 83(6), 853-868.

Liden, R. C., & Maslyn, J. M. (1998). Multidimensionality of Leader-Member Exchange: An Empirical

Assessment through Scale Development. Journal of Management, 24(1), 43-72.

Liang, J., Farh, C. I., & Farh, J.-L. (2012). Psychological antecedents of promotive and prohibitive

voice: A two-wave examination. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 71–

92.10.5465/amj.2010.0176

Liu, W., Zhu, R., & Yang, Y. (2010). I warn you because I like you: Voice behavior, employee

identifications, and transformational leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 21, 189–202.

Mallory, D. B., & Rupp, D. E. (2014). (in press). Good” leadership: Using corporate social

responsibility to enhance leader-member exchange. In T. N. Bauer & B. Erdogan (Eds.)The

Oxford handbook of leader member exchange.: Oxford University Press.

Manika, D., Gregory-Smith, D., Wells, V. K., Comerford, L., & Aldrich-Smith, L. (2017). Linking

environmental sustainability and healthcare: The effects of an energy saving intervention in two

hospitals. International Journal of Business Science and Applied Management, 11(1), 32-55

Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2008). "Implicit" and "Explicit" CSR:A Conceptual framework for a

comparative understanding of Corporate Social Responsibility. Academy of Management Review,

33(2), 404–424.

Maynes, T. D., & Podsakoff, P. M. (2014). Speaking more broadly: An examination of the nature,

antecedents, and consequences of an expanded set of employee voice behaviors. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 99(1), 87

McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate social responsibility: a theory of the firm perspective.

Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 117–127.

Memon, K. R. (2014a). Effects of Leadership Styles on Employee Performance: Integrating the

Mediating Role of Culture, Gender and Moderating Role of Communication. International Journal

of Management Sciences and Business Research, 3(7), 63-80.

Memon, K. R. (2014b). Strategic role of HRD in employee skill development: An employer

perspective. Journal of Human Resource Management, 2(1), 27-32.

Memon, K. R.,Ghani, B., Kazi, A.A. (2018). Restructuring the relationship between performance

management and employee engagement. Pakistan Business Review, 20(1), 99-109.

Memon, K. R, Ghani, B, Khalid, S (2020). The relationship between corporate social responsibility and

employee engagement-A social exchange perspective. International journal of business science

and applied management. Vol 15, Issue 1, pp.1-16

Memon, K. R., & Ghani, B. (2020). The relationship between psychological contract and voice

behavior—a social exchange perspective. Asian Journal of Business Ethics, 1-18

Moorman, R. H. (1991). Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship

behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship?. Journal of applied psychology,

76(6), 845

Morrison, E. W. (2011). Employee Voice Behavior: Integration and Directions for Future Research.

The Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 373–412.

Mount, M., Ilies, R., & Johnson, E. (2006). Relationship of personality traits and counterproductive

work behaviors: The Mediating effects of job satisfaction. Personnel Pscyhology, 59(599-622).

NG, T. W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2011). Employee voice behavior: A meta analytic test of the

conservation of resources framework. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 216–234.

Nikolaou, I., Vakola, M., & Bourantas, D. (2008). Who speaks up at work? Dispositional influences on

employees’ voice behavior. Personnel Review, 37(6), 666-679.

Oladipo, S. E. (2009). Psychological Empowerment and Development. Edo Journal of Counselling,

2(1), 119-126.

Ooi, S. K., Ooi, C. A., & Memon, K. R. (2020). The role of CSR oriented organisational culture in eco-

innovation practices. World Review of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable

Development, 16(5), 538-556

Premeaux, S. F., & Bedeian, A. G. (2003). Breaking the silence: the moderating effects of self-

monitoring in predicting speaking up in the workplace. Journal of Management Studies, 40, 1537-

1562.

Khalid Rasheed Memon, Say Keat Ooi, Saima Khalid and Bilqees Ghani

Raub, S., & Robert, C. (2012). Empowerment, Organizational Commitment, and Voice Behavior in the

Hospitality Industry: Evidence from a Multinational Sample. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly,

54:136.

Rousseau, D. M. (1989). Psychological and implied contracts in organizations. Employee

Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 2, 121–139.

Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S. and Camerer, C. (1998), “Not So Different After All: A

Cross-Discipline View of Trust”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 393-404

Rupp, D. E., Ganapathi, J., Aguilera, R. V., & Williams, C. A. (2006). Employee reactions to corporate

social responsibility: an organizational justice framework. Journal of Organizational Behaviour,

27, 537–543

Rupp, D. E., Skarlicki, D., & Shao, R. (2013). The Psychology of Corporate Social Responsibility and

Humanitarian Work: A Person-Centric Perspective. Industrial and Organizational Psychology,

6(4), 361-368.

Seibert, S. E., Wang, G., & Courtright, S. H. (2011). Antecedents and Consequences of Psychological

and Team Empowerment in Organizations: A Meta-Analytic Review. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 96(5), 981–1003.

Shah, I. H., Ajmal, M., & Rahman, F. (2010). Structure of Technical Education and Vocational

Training in Pakistan. Journal of Technical Education and Training, 2(1), 63-76.

Shiun, T., & Ho, A. (2012). The Impact of Perceived CSR on Employee Performance and Turnover

Intention: An Examination of the Mediating Effect of Organizational Justice and Organization-

Based Self esteem. Dissertations and Theses Collection (Open Access). doi:

http://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/etd_coll/88

Shibaoka, M., Takada, M., Watanabe, M., Kojima, R., Kakinuma, M., Tanaka, K., & Kawakami, N.

(2010). Development and validity of the Japanese version of the organizational justice scale.

Industrial health, 48(1), 66-73

Skudiene, V., & Auruskeviciene, V. (2012). The contribution of corporate social responsibility to

internal employee motivation. Baltic Journal of Management, 7(1), 49-67.

Singh, S. K., & Singh, A. P. (2019). Interplay of organizational justice, psychological empowerment,

organizational citizenship behavior, and job satisfaction in the context of circular economy.

Management Decision. 57 (4), 937-952

Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and

validation. Academy of Management Journal 38, 1442-1465.

Tims, M., Bakker, A. B., & Xanthopoulou, D. (2011). Do transformational leaders enhance their

followers' daily work engagement? The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 121–131.

Turker, D. (2009). How corporate social responsibility influences organizational commitment. Journal

of Business Ethics, 89(2), 189–204.

Turnley, W. H., Bolino, M. C., Lester, S. W., & Bloodgood, J. M. (2003). The Impact of Psychological

Contract Fulfillment on the Performance of In-Role and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors.

Journal of Management, 29(2), 187–206.

Ugwu, F. O., Onyishi, I. E., & Rodríguez-Sánchez, A. M. (2014). Linking organizational trust with

employee engagement: The role of psychological empowerment. Personnel Review. 43 (3), 377-

400

Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Percieved Organizational Support and Leader-

Member Exchange: A Social Exchange Perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 40(1), 82-

111.

Wei, Y.-C., Egri, C. P., & Lin, C. Y.-Y. (2009). Do Corporate Social Responsibility Practices Make a

Difference in Eastern and Western Contexts? Academy of Management Best Paper Proceedings,

2009, 1-6. doi: 10.5465/AMBPP.2009.44257915

Welford, R., & Frost, S. (2006). Corporate Social Responsibility in Asian Supply Chains. Corporate

Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 13, 166–176

Wenbin, W., Fengjun, L., & Hui, L. (2012). Effect of Corporate Social Responsibility on

Organizational Citizenship Behavior from the Perspective of the Reciprocity Theory.

Contemporary Economy & Management, 11, 006.

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

Whitener, E. M., Brodt, S. E., Korsgaard, M. A., & Werner, J. M. (1998). Managers as Initiators of

Trust: An Exchange Relationship Framework for Understanding Managerial Trustworthy

Behavior. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 513-530. doi: 10.5465/AMR.1998.926624

Whiting, S. W., Maynes, T. D., Podsakoff, N. P., & Podsakoff, P. M. (2012). Effects of Message,

Source, and Context on Evaluations of Employee Voice Behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology,

97(1), 159–182.

Maynes, T. D., & Podsakoff, P. M. (2014). Speaking more broadly: An examination of the nature,

antecedents, and consequences of an expanded set of employee voice behaviors. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 99(1), 87

Wong, K. K. (2013). Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) Techniques

Using SmartPLS. Marketing Bulletin, 24.

Yi, Y., Nataraajan, R., & Gong, T. (2011). Customer participation and citizenship behavioral influences

on employee performance, satisfaction, commitment, and turnover intention. Journal of Business

Research, 64(1), 87-95

Yu, Y., & Choi, Y. (2014). Corporate social responsibility and firm performance through the mediating

effect of organizational trust in Chinese firms. Chinese Management Studies, 8(4), 577-592.

Zagenczyk, T. J., Gibney, R., Few, W. T., & Scott, K. L. (2011). Psychological contracts and

organizational identification: The mediating effect of perceived organizational support. Journal of

labor research, 32(3), 254-281.

Zhang, X., Hu, B., & Qiu, M. (2014). Job Satisfaction As a Mediator In The Relationship Between

Performance Appraisal and Voice Behavior. Social Behavior and Personality, 42(8), 1315-1324

Zheng, Q., Luo, Y., & Maksimov, V. (2014). Achieving legitimacy through corporate social

responsibility: The case of emerging economy firms Journal of World Business doi:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2014.05.001