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
Say Keat Ooi
Graduate School of Business, Universiti Sains Malaysia
11800 Penang, Malaysia
Saima Khalid
Dallah Hospital
Al-Nakheel, Riyadh, SaudiArabia
Bilqees Ghani
College of Business Management, Institute of Business Management
Korangi Creek, Karachi, 7519, Pakistan
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
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
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 /
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.
2.1. 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 /
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).
3.1. 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
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 /
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
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
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
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
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 /
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
Service Tenure (years)
Below Bachelors
Management Level
Middle / Lower Management
Non-Management Lower
Level Staff
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).
5.1. 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
Std. Deviation
Promotive voice behavior
Organizational trust
Psychological empowerment
Organizational justice
Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management /
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
Organizational justice
Psychological empowerment
Organizational trust
Promotive voice behavior
**. 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
# of
Average Variance Extracted
Cronbach Alpha values
1. CSR
2. PVB
4. Org.justice
5. Org. Trust
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
Psy. Empow
Org. Trust
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: 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 (CSRorg.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 psych.empow, and other from psych.empow PVB). Table 4
indicates that the relationship between CSR is positive and significant at p<.001 (H1
accepted) and the relationship between org. trustpsych.empow is also significant and positive at
p<0.05(H2 accepted) whereas the relationship between psych.empowPVB 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.trustpsych.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.
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,
T Statistics
CSR O.Trust
O.Trust Psy.Empow
Psy.Empow PVB
Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management /
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).
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 /
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.
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). Leadermember 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, 201208.
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), 946967.
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-
Cramer, J. (2005). Company Learning about Corporate Social Responsibility. Business Strategy and
the Environment, 14, 255266
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, 113.
Detert, J. R., & Burris, E. R. (2007). Leadership behavior and employee voice: Is the door really open?
Academy of Management Journal, 50(4), 869884.
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:
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, 4149.
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
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, 787798.
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, 377396.
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, 2945. 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 leadermember exchange and
electronic communication on employee psychological empowerment and work outcomes.
Leadership Quarterly. doi:
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, 326336.
Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management /
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
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, 189202.
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), 404424.
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), 117127.
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
behaviora 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), 373412.
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, 216234.
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-
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,
Rousseau, D. M. (1989). Psychological and implied contracts in organizations. Employee
Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 2, 121139.
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, 537543
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), 9811003.
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:
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, 121131.
Turker, D. (2009). How corporate social responsibility influences organizational commitment. Journal
of Business Ethics, 89(2), 189204.
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), 187206.
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-
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-
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, 166176
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 /
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), 159182.
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: