Business Ethics Journal Article

ORIGINAL PAPER

Corporate Citizenship and Employee Outcomes: Does a High- Commitment Work System Matter?

Yi-Ting Lin1 • Nien-Chi Liu1

Received: 9 December 2016 / Accepted: 29 June 2017 / Published online: 6 July 2017

� Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Abstract Interest in corporate citizenship (CC) has been

burgeoning in the academic and managerial realms for

decades. While a psychological CC climate has been

conceptualized and has received empirical support for its

relationship with employee outcomes, the organizational

climate perspective of CC has not yet been explored. In the

present study, we develop and examine a mediated mod-

eration model that elaborates the underlying psychological

process and the contingency of organizational CC climate

and its individual outcomes. We follow 539 employees in

26 firms for approximately one year in Taiwan. We find

that organizational CC climate is positively related to

employees’ organizational identification (OI) and that the

firm’s high-commitment work system (HCWS) can aug-

ment the effect of CC on employees’ OI. In addition,

employees’ OI plays a psychological process role in

mediating the interactive effect of the firm’s CC and

HCWS on employees’ workplace outcomes, including their

job satisfaction (JS) and turnover intention. The findings

shed light on the alignment of CC and human resource

functions and argue that the Confucian Asian context may

act as a stepping stone for the impact of CC on employees’

attitudes. The study offers valuable implications for both

researchers and practitioners.

Keywords Corporate citizenship � High-commitment work system � Job satisfaction � Organizational identification � Turnover intention

Introduction

In recent decades, corporate citizenship (CC), which refers

to discretionary actions on the part of a firm that appear to

advance economic, societal and stakeholders’ well-being

(Lin et al. 2010; Vlachos et al. 2013), has attracted the

attention of both scholars and practitioners. Burgeoning

academic research on this topic reflects the fact that a

growing number of companies engage in CC and view it as

a strategic anchor for the sustainability of an organization’s

operations (Newman et al. 2015). CC that introduces

socially responsible policies and processes has been proven

to benefit companies not only by minimizing the negative

impact of business operations on environment and com-

munities, but also by satisfying primary stakeholders’ (i.e.,

employees) psychological needs and bolstering their posi-

tive work attitudes and behaviors (Bauman and Skitka

2012). Empirical studies also show evidence that CC is

positively associated with workplace outcomes of indi-

vidual employees, such as task performance, organizational

citizenship behaviors (OCB), perceived organizational

justice and organizational commitment (e.g., Hofman and

Newman 2014; Moon et al. 2014; Rupp et al. 2013, 2015;

Wong and Gao 2014; Zhang et al. 2014).

Despite the growing attention given to CC by academics

and practitioners, there still remain challenges for explor-

ing the relationship between CC and employees’ outcomes.

First, in the human resource management (HRM) and

organizational behavior (OB) disciplines, most scholars

conceptualize CC as a psychological climate based on the

& Yi-Ting Lin [email protected]

Nien-Chi Liu

[email protected]

1 Graduate Institute of Human Resource Management,

National Central University, No. 300, Zhongda Rd., Zhongli

District, Taoyuan City 32001, Taiwan, ROC

123

J Bus Ethics (2019) 156:1079–1097

DOI 10.1007/s10551-017-3632-1

assumption that employees’ perceptions of the extent to

which their organizations fulfill CC have implications for

individual outcomes (e.g., Chen and Lin 2014; Newman

et al. 2015; Wang et al. 2013). Although prior literature

supports this psychological climate assumption, these

results are unable to establish firm and solid relationships

between CC and employee consequences, since the nature

of CC should be considered a ‘‘corporation’s’’ or an ‘‘or-

ganization’s’’ attribute that is beneficial for important

stakeholders and social needs (Duane Hansen et al. 2016;

Newman et al. 2015), rather than the limited view of

‘‘employees’’’ psychological perception. Prior studies

focusing too heavily on the psychological CC climate may

overlook the shared assignment of employee perceptual

agreement (Schneider et al. 2013) and leave CC out of a

higher level of organizational phenomenon. To expand on

prior studies, the present research, based on business ethics

and strategic HRM literature, conceptualizes CC as an

organizational climate theoretically and investigates the

influence of organizational CC climate on individual sub-

sequent workplace attitudes empirically.

Second, even if scholars have recognized some out-

comes of CC’s impact on employees’ attitudes and

behaviors, the underlying mechanism that drives employ-

ees’ desired responses to CC remains little examined (De

Roeck and Delobbe 2012). Social identity theory is usually

embraced as a focal theory in explaining CC issues (Bau-

man and Skitka 2012). However, most prior research is

only theoretically rooted in social identity and does not

empirically verify its intermediating role in the CC–em-

ployee outcomes linkage (e.g., Evans and Davis 2011; Lin

et al. 2010; Moon et al. 2014; Newman et al. 2015), which

makes the actual identity mechanism difficult to support.

Thus, to fill this deficiency, the present study draws on

social identity theory to discuss the CC phenomenon

through mechanisms of inter-organizational distinctiveness

and intra-organizational similarity (Bauman and Skitka

2012) and empirically ascertains the intermediating effect

by examining the psychological process of OI through

which the organizational CC climate relates to employees’

JS and turnover intention.

Third, the path between CC and employee outcomes

should include not only the underlying process but also the

contingency effect (Aguinis and Glavas 2012). However,

we find that most prior research simply adopts one of the

two effects when discussing how employees respond to CC

(e.g., Evans and Davis 2011; Lin et al. 2010; Rupp et al.

2013), which may block our thorough understanding of the

important facts in terms of how CC results in desired

employee work outcomes. Unlike prior research, we not

only propose that the impact of CC on employee outcomes

occurs by way of employees’ OI but also that it is condi-

tioned by the extent of a firm’s investment in HCWS. That

is, a firm’s investment in a well-functioning HR system

may act as a complement to CC by leaning on its human

capital-, motivation- and opportunity-enhancing processes

(Jamali et al. 2015; Voegtlin and Greenwood 2016; Yeh

et al. 2014) and cooperative norms (Shen and Benson

2014). Our third objective is to present a thorough model,

which is a mediated moderation framework that considers

the underlying process effect of OI and the contingency

effect of HCWS together to explore the influence of CC on

employees’ subsequent reactions.

Finally, CC has been noteworthy in the West; however,

the awareness of its importance still remains relatively low

in Confucian Asia (Kang and Liu 2014). Some scholars

indicate that Confucian culture has a positive influence on

business ethics due to its focus on collectivism, nature

worship and social harmony (e.g., Lam 2003; Chung et al.

2008; Wei et al. 2014). However, some offer an opposite

view that Confucianism may bring about crony capitalism,

which can wreak havoc in the ethical foundation of CC

because resource distributions overwhelmingly hinge on

personal opportunism or affective guanxi (Ip 2008).

Accordingly, whether Confucian culture causes an upward

lift or a downward plunge for the impact of CC on

employees’ attitudes should be determined by more

extensive research in Asian Confucian societies. Taiwan,

though deep nurtured by traditional Confucian culture, is

characterized by a Western civilization and free market

system, which is a context that contributes to the effec-

tiveness of CC (Wei et al. 2014). The Taiwanese sample

used in the current study can therefore be seen as appro-

priate and valid representative for investigating whether

Confucian culture is a burden or a catalyzer for the impact

of CC on employees’ outcomes.

By integrating the aforementioned arguments, the pre-

sent study conducts a time-lagged multilevel examination

in Taiwan to prove a mediated moderation model regarding

whether and how organizational CC climate can interact

with an organization’s HCWS to impact employees’ JS and

turnover intention through employees’ personal identifica-

tion with their organizations. Figure 1 outlines the pro-

posed research model of this study.

Literature Review and Hypotheses Development

Corporate Citizenship

Although CC has become a significant issue, the concept

has continued to evolve for decades. As far back as the

1930s, CC has been introduced to corporations to educate

businessmen regarding the need for concern for social

welfare (Carroll 1979). By the 1950s, after Bowen’s (1953)

Social Responsibility of the Businessman was published,

1080 Y.-T. Lin, N.-C. Liu

123

discussions of CC were publicized widely, marking the

arrival of the modern era of CC. During the period between

the 1960s and 1970s, scholars proposed numerous defini-

tions of CC. In this period, a fierce critique began when

Friedman (1962) asserted that social responsibility is a

‘‘fundamentally subversive doctrine.’’ He claims that the

only social responsibility for businesses is to use their

resources to maximize their economic profits (Friedman

1962, 1970). McGuire (1963) and Backman (1975) admit

the primary economic concerns that Friedman mentions but

accommodate a broader view that corporations should have

certain social responsibilities beyond economic and legal

obligations. Other scholars regard CC as simply involving

purely voluntary activities, thus defining it as something

corporations consider over economic and legal criteria

(e.g., Manne and Wallich 1972). Sethi (1975) takes a dif-

ferent path in defining CC. He puts forward a three-state

schema (i.e., social obligation, social responsibility and

social responsiveness) to classify how corporations respond

to social needs. Social obligation implies the adaptation of

corporation behavior to market forces or legal constraints.

Social responsibility involves corporate behavior that

accords with social norms, values and expectations. Social

responsiveness, the third state of the schema, elaborates the

philosophy of corporate behavior in response to social

dynamism rather than the kinds of social issues that cor-

porations should address. Therefore, corporations have to

be ‘‘anticipatory’’ and ‘‘preventive’’ (Sethi 1975).

Considering various views on what CC defines, Carroll

(1979) proposes a social performance model that elaborates

the full range of corporations’ obligations to society. The

model conceptualizes CC as comprising four main social

responsibilities of corporations, including economic, legal,

ethical and discretionary responsibilities, which are partly

consistent with some of the antecedent definitions but in a

more exhaustive manner. Discretionary responsibility, the

fourth category of CC, is termed philanthropic responsi-

bility by Carroll (1998), but is exactly synonymous with his

definition in 1979. Specifically, economic responsibility

implies that corporations have to be profitable and produce

goods and services that are needed in society. Legal

responsibility requires that corporations meet their eco-

nomic targets within the requirements of laws and regula-

tions. Ethical responsibility suggests that corporations must

meet the modes of conduct and moral expectations that are

above and beyond legal requirements. Finally, discre-

tionary responsibility reflects the desire to see corporations

voluntarily involved in prosocial activities beyond previous

former three responsibilities. These four types of respon-

sibilities are not mutually exclusive; rather, they always

exist simultaneously in business organizations (Carroll

1979). Carroll’s comprehensive definition of CC helps us

to understand the trends of CC over time and provides a

whole classification scheme for corporations’ different

types of social obligations.

The conceptualization of CC has progressively evolved

as the public’s expectations of economics, legality, social

norms and philanthropy have changed over time (Lee and

Carroll 2011). In its initial stage, a narrow economic and

legal view of CC is dominant, which upholds that corpo-

rations are socially responsible when they maximize their

profits and comply with the law (e.g., Easterbrook and

Fischel 1996; Friedman 1962, 1970). From this perspec-

tive, economic exchange is socially desirable because

profitable corporations can deliver profitability that their

stakeholders seek and need (Bauman and Skitka 2012;

Firm Level

Individual Level

Corporate Citizenship

Turnover Intention

Organizational Identification

Job Satisfaction

High Commitment Work System

Fig. 1 Research framework of the present study

Corporate Citizenship and Employee Outcomes: Does a High-Commitment Work System Matter? 1081

123

Matten and Crane 2005). In the late 1970s, the idea of

corporations as social actors began to emerge, welcoming

the new era of the equivalent view of CC (Lee and Carroll

2011; Matten and Crane 2005). Proponents of the equiva-

lent view contend that corporations should use their

resources for the betterment of broad social ends and not

simply for the economic bottom line of private firms

(Bauman and Skitka 2012). This perspective is especially

evident in Carroll’s (1979, 1998) articles, which integrate

economic performance and legal requirements into social

performance, in addition to placing ethical and discre-

tionary expectations into a self-interested economic and

legal approach. Nowadays, the four dimensions of CC are

generally considered essential obligations that firms should

fulfill and perform (Lee and Carroll 2011). In a variety of

CC or corporate social responsibility studies, scholars also

adopt the four-faceted definition to discuss the business–

society relationship (e.g., Boddy et al. 2010; Evans and

Davis 2014; Lee and Carroll 2011; Maignan and Ferrell

2000).

Corporate Citizenship and Individual Level

of Analysis

Prior academic efforts to comprehend the antecedents and

consequences of CC have mostly focused on the organi-

zational level of analysis in recent years (Aguinis and

Glavas 2012). That is, burgeoning empirical studies indi-

cate that CC can lead to positive firm reputation and

financial performance, causing many to believe and

espouse the notion that CC benefits firm-level outcomes

(e.g., Margolis and Walsh 2003; Orlitzky and Benjamin

2001; Orlitzky et al. 2003; Peloza 2009). Nevertheless,

some researchers address some limitations with regard to

these organization-level studies; for instance, crucial con-

trol variables are missing, thus confounding the association

between CC and firm outcomes; mediating or moderating

variables are absent, making it difficult to clarify through

what processes or under what conditions the effect of CC

occurs; and theoretical arguments to account for the rela-

tionship between CC and organizational performance are

lacking (Aguilera et al. 2007; Aguinis and Glavas 2012;

Bauman and Skitka 2012). Moreover, there is doubt

regarding whether these existing studies well-operational-

ize the CC construct (Bauman and Skitka 2012; Margolis

and Walsh 2003; Peloza 2009). Previous organization-level

studies therefore respond to questions about CC with

equivocal answers.

A relatively underutilized method of understanding the

potential advantages of CC for firms is to explore the

influence of CC on employee work outcomes (Bauman and

Skitka 2012). While research often addresses the impact of

CC on a firm’s important stakeholders, such as investors

and consumers (e.g., Graves and Waddock 1994; Sen and

Bhattacharya 2001), the critical role that CC plays in

employee consequences is rarely discussed (Aguilera et al.

2007; Aguinis and Glavas 2012). Based on the content

analysis, Aguinis and Glavas (2012) reveal that only 4% of

their reviewed articles publish CC research at the individ-

ual level of analysis, including micro-OB, micro-HRM,

and industrial/organizational (IO) psychology. Therefore,

scholars could make a great contribution in CC research if

they found employee attitudes and behaviors would be far-

reaching consequences of CC. If CC could help firms to

attract candidates, increase firm members’ job satisfaction

and retain talented employees, firms that possess CC

activities or climate would operate better than those that do

not. Moreover, the individual level of analysis of how

employees conceptualize their alignment with firms can

help to complement existing organizational-level studies

by exploring missing psychological processes and bound-

ary conditions and by explaining additional variance in

how employees respond to CC (Bauman and Skitka 2012).

Therefore, it is of great importance for the individual level

of analysis to accede to CC research.

Organizational Climate Perspective of Corporate

Citizenship

Taking an overview of past studies analyzing individual-

level CC research, we find that most of them regard CC as

a psychological climate (e.g., Chen and Lin 2014; Evans

and Davis 2014; Newman et al. 2015; Wang et al. 2013).

The psychological climate view of CC refers to an indi-

vidual’s interpretation and evaluation of situational

occurrences (e.g., events, policies and organizational

emphases) that create the meaning of CC for an individual

(Evans et al. 2011a, b). Based on Carroll’s (1979, 1998)

social performance model, researchers have conceptualized

the psychological CC climate as an individual’s perception

of the degree to which the organization fulfills processes,

activities and policies typified by economic, legal, ethical

and discretionary responsibilities (Evans and Davis 2011;

Maignan and Ferrell 2000). Specifically, perceived eco-

nomic CC is concerned with an individual’s interpretation

of whether a firm meets the obligation to maintain opera-

tional efficiency and economic competitiveness. Perceived

legal CC is related to an individual’s interpretation of the

degree to which a firm meets the obligation to comply with

government policies and regulations. Perceived ethical CC

considers the extent to which an individual perceives a firm

as complying with moral rules. Finally, perceived discre-

tionary CC refers to the extent to which an individual

perceives a firm as encouraging non-mandated activities to

promote the well-being of employees and society. Since

organizations are typically engaged in CC activities that are

1082 Y.-T. Lin, N.-C. Liu

123

multidimensional and amalgamated, perceptions of the four

CC dimensions are united to form one’s evaluation of the

organization (e.g., Evans et al. 2011a, b; Evans and Davis

2011, 2014; Moon et al. 2014).

Empirical work has also shown the impact of psycho-

logical CC climate on the workplace outcomes of indi-

vidual employees. For example, employees’ perceived CC

is found to be positively related to their OCB (Lin et al.

2010; Evans and Davis 2014; Evans et al. 2011b; Rupp

et al. 2013) and negatively related to their deviance (Evans

and Davis 2014; Evans et al. 2011b) and organizational

cynicism (Evans et al. 2011b). It is also proven to be a

crucial antecedent of organizational commitment and OI

(Turker 2009; Wong and Gao 2014). Moreover, scholars

reveal that psychological CC climate plays a role in the

formation of work engagement (Lin et al. 2010) and

organizational trust (Lin et al. 2010; De Roeck and

Delobbe 2012), and conclude that psychological CC cli-

mate can effectively reinforce employees’ perception of

organizational prestige (De Roeck and Delobbe 2012).

However, despite these rich findings, we still cannot

answer with certainty the pivotal question of ‘‘Do CC-ac-

companied firms contribute to positive employee conse-

quences?’’, since psychological climate is an individual-

differences-oriented attribute rather than a unit or organi-

zational phenomenon (Schneider et al. 2013). Prior studies

overly emphasizing psychological climate may ignore the

term ‘‘organizational’’ and leave the ‘‘sharedness’’ nature

of individuals’ perceptions aside (Patterson et al. 2005;

Schneider et al. 2013). To compensate for this deficiency,

the organizational climate view of CC can be an antidote.

Organizational climate refers to employees’ shared

perceptions of organizational events, practices and proce-

dures, which form an aggregate unit of analysis (Patterson

et al. 2005). Its rationale is perceptual agreement which

implies that a shared assignment of psychological meaning

enables individual perceptions to be aggregated and to

serve as a higher-level construct (Patterson et al. 2005).

Climate researchers indicate that organizational climate is

conceptually appropriate, since collectives have their own

unique climate and individual perceptions can yield

improved consensus when aggregated (LeBreton and

Senter 2008; Patterson et al. 2005; Schneider et al. 2013).

Therefore, most studies now focus on organizational cli-

mate instead of psychological climate (Patterson et al.

2005; Schneider et al. 2000, 2013).

CC is a term adopted to capture an ‘‘organizational’’

intent, beyond the pursuit of financial profit, to achieve

positive social welfare through ‘‘organizational’’ policies

and actions (Duane Hansen et al. 2016). Since it is viewed

as comprising ‘‘organizational’’ actions and policies that

are beneficial for the sustainability of business operations

(Newman et al. 2015), as well as ‘‘organizational’’

obligations that corporations should fulfill for important

stakeholders and social needs (Carroll 1979, 1998), the

essence of CC is seen as more similar to an organizational

phenomenon or context (i.e., organizational climate) than

to an individual attribute (i.e., psychological climate). The

organizational climate perspective of CC can signal a

social information process (Schneider et al. 2013), which

helps to explain how the collective meaning that employees

attach to CC processes and activities influences their sub-

sequent attitudes and behaviors.

In addition, the organizational climate perspective

echoes the concept of legitimacy—a chief principle for

defining CC and determining its successful implementation

in firms (Lee and Carroll 2011). Legitimacy is described as

‘‘a generalized perception or assumption that the actions of

an entity are desirable, proper or appropriate within some

socially constructed system of norms, values, beliefs and

definitions’’ (Suchman 1995). Legitimacy is socially con-

structed because it connotes congruence between social

values of organizational activities and shared beliefs of

stakeholders (Suchman 1995), which accordingly implies

that firms can achieve success in CC when their CC

activities meet the social norms and expectations of their

stakeholders, including their employees (Lee and Carroll

2011). On the other hand, organizational climate refers to

the shared meaning attached to the activities and processes

employees experience and certain behaviors they observe

being supported and expected (Schneider et al. 2013),

which hints that firms can build a strong CC climate when

employees collectively perceive that involvement in CC

activities is accompanied by support and anticipation.

According to these definitions, the concept of organiza-

tional climate has in common with legitimacy within cor-

porations and may serve as one of the root causes of

legitimacy. First, the two concepts stand for the higher-

level context, which focuses on employees’ generalized or

shared perception of whether CC activities and processes

are appropriate or expected. Second, both concepts can be

used as organizational strategic resources to achieve sup-

port and approval from employees, which then translates

into positive employee satisfaction and long-term sustain-

ability (Bowen and Ostroff 2004; Zhang et al. 2015). De

Roeck and Delobbe (2012) argue that organizations’ strong

engagement in CC activities can support organizational

legitimacy, which in turn encourages employees to identify

with their organizations and improve organizational per-

formance. In this vein, firms with a sound organizational

CC climate signify that they have the capability to achieve

higher internal legitimacy with their employees, which can

further boost favorable workplace consequences for

employees. Based on these discussions, we argue that the

organizational climate perspective is more responsive to

the nature of CC and should be more applicable to expound

Corporate Citizenship and Employee Outcomes: Does a High-Commitment Work System Matter? 1083

123

the association between CC and the outcomes of individual

employees, than psychological climate is.

Although the organizational climate perspective reflects

the essence of CC, and its significance for employee out-

comes is addressed in previous research (Morgeson et al.

2013), empirical studies exploring the influence of orga-

nizational CC climate on employees’ reactions are

noticeably missing. While some terms, such as ethical

climate and collective OCB, are seemingly similar to CC,

and although prior studies have extensively examined their

influences on employee behaviors and attitudes (e.g.,

Nedkovski et al. 2017; Wang and Hsieh 2012, 2013), these

results do not analogize the impact of organizational CC

climate, since they are conceptually different from CC

climate. First, the focus of ethical climate, defined as ‘‘the

shared perception of what is correct behavior and how

ethical situations should be handled in an organization’’

(Victor and Cullen 1987, p. 51), is somewhat narrow,

considering merely the ethicality of the policies and pro-

cedures existing within the organization while disregarding

the economic, legal and discretionary responsibilities for

internal and external stakeholders. Second, OCBs are

defined as discretionary behaviors that cannot be directly

spurred by a formal reward system and that, in aggregate,

can promote the functioning of the organization (Organ

1988). Despite the fact that the voluntary nature of OCB is

similar to CC, its voluntary subject is restricted to

employees’ affiliated organization (OCB-O) and within-

organizational members (OCB-I) (Williams and Anderson

1991). Moreover, collective OCB mainly focuses on

employees’ discretionary actions, excluding Carroll’s

(1979, 1998) other three dimensions of CC. Compared with

ethical climate and collective OCB, organizational CC

climate emerges as a more comprehensive term, involving

broad intra- and inter-organizational social roles and

widely responding to far-flung requirements of stakehold-

ers. Consequently, organizational CC climate should be

considered as distinct from organizational ethical climate

and collective OCB and in fact can act as an important

antecedent of the two (Chun et al. 2013; Duane Hansen

et al. 2016).

Based on the above discussion, in the study we con-

ceptualize CC as the organizational climate, which serves

as the means to help to achieve positive employee out-

comes. It is the right time to provide empirical evidence of

the association between organizational CC climate and

consequences of individual employees and to investigate

when, why and how this association occurs. The present

study accordingly develops a mediated moderation model

that simultaneously considers an important boundary con-

dition of HCWS and the psychological process of OI in

order to fill prior research gaps, arguing that the interactive

effect of CC and HCWS can be mediated by employees’

OI, which further influences two critical employee atti-

tudes, JS and turnover intention.

Corporate Citizenship and Organizational

Identification

The relationship between CC and OI can be viewed

through the lens of social identity theory (Tajfel and Turner

1986). Social identity theory suggests that the self may be

defined in social groups to a greater or lesser degree (Tajfel

and Turner 1986). The self-conception with regard to ‘‘we’’

rather than ‘‘I’’, in which social group membership

becomes self-referential, is referred to as social identity

(Tajfel and Turner 1986). Accordingly, social identity

implies a psychological merging of the self and social

groups that leads individuals to perceive themselves as

belonging to a certain group (Turner et al. 1987). Two

primary mechanisms, intergroup distinctiveness and intra-

group similarity, can explain why relationships with groups

are essential to people’s self-concept (Bauman and Skitka

2012). First, group membership is important for people to

define themselves and understand their social environment,

including the surrounding in which they work (Tajfel and

Turner 1979). They may feel a sense of connectedness with

the group to which they belong and view its fate as their

personal fate (Ashforth and Mael 1989; Dutton et al. 1994;

Tajfel and Turner 1979). Therefore, they may care deeply

about the question of ‘‘Who are we?’’ and ‘‘How good are

we?’’ in comparison with other groups (Ashforth et al.

2008). In short, people attempt to build positive social

identity through affiliating with admirable groups (referred

to as ‘‘basking in reflected glory’’ by Cialdini et al. 1976),

which reflects the implication of intergroup distinctiveness.

Second, intra-group similarity refers to how similar

employees perceive between themselves to be to the group

(Bauman and Skitka 2012). Self-categorization theory, a

part of social identity perspective, explains how and when

people regard themselves as members of the group (Turner

et al. 1987, 1994). According to this theory, people may see

organizations as prototypes, which are used to judge the

amount of similarity between the self and the group

(Turner 1987). When people perceive that they are proto-

typical, they may feel safe and secure about their self-

concept and be more likely to identify with the group

(Dutton et al. 1994; Hogg and Terry 2000). In contrast,

once they feel that they are not prototypical, they may

experience a sense of uncertainty about their self-concept

and have less social identification. On the whole, intra-

group similarity implies that people desire to affiliate with

a group that resembles themselves.

Ashforth and Mael (1989) argue the organizational

identification is one of the specific forms of social identi-

fication and that, therefore, social identity theory can be

1084 Y.-T. Lin, N.-C. Liu

123

applied to the organizational context to elucidate why

employees are willing to affiliate with certain organiza-

tions. OI occurs when employees perceive a sense of

oneness with their organizations, as a result of which their

beliefs about the organization become self-referential or

self-defined (Ashforth and Mael 1989). Through OI,

employees may perceive themselves as psychologically

intertwined with the organization’s success or failure, and

they are intrinsically motivated to sacrifice for the collec-

tive (Ashforth and Mael 1989). Grounded in social identity

theory, CC can be associated with positive OI, since it

provides employees with a source of pride and also

engenders a sense of belongingness and social validation of

important beliefs and values, with the former specifically

reflecting inter-organizational comparisons and the latter

mirroring intra-organizational similarity (Bauman and

Skitka 2012). With regard to inter-organizational distinc-

tiveness, employees can regard CC as a source of organi-

zational distinctiveness that promotes the firm’s image

relative to others and makes membership in the organiza-

tion more desirable (Bauman and Skitka 2012). Employees

affiliated with a socially responsible organization are

therefore more likely to build up their perceived external

prestige, feel a sense of pride at being part of the organi-

zation, and experience increased identification with the

organization (Turker 2009). In sum, CC provides

employees with opportunities to classify themselves into a

salient organizational demographic through social com-

parisons, which enhances their self-esteem and organiza-

tional identification (Newman et al. 2015). Regarding intra-

organizational similarity, CC may affect OI through per-

ceived prototypicality (Bauman and Skitka 2012). CC

projects that leading employees to participate in socially

responsible activities together may affect OI by reinforcing

employees’ sense that they are like others in the organi-

zation (Bartel 2001; Bauman and Skitka 2012). To the

extent that CC transmits the company’s values and affects

employees’ prototypes of their corporations, it may result

in value congruence between employees and organizations

and increase the sense of belongingness (Bauman and

Skitka 2012). Therefore, CC satisfying employees’ needs

for belongingness and promoting feelings of organizational

fit should be positively associated with employees’ OI.

In summary, the social identity perspective can help to

illustrate why CC facilitates employees’ OI. CC can serve

as a source of inter-organizational comparisons and of a

sense of esteem. Besides, it also shapes perceived simi-

larity and the sense of belongingness between employees

and the organization. As a means to achieve favorable

inter-distinctiveness and intra-similarity, CC can increase

the extent to which employees identify with their organi-

zations. Following the above discussion, we advance the

following hypothesis:

H1 Corporate citizenship is positively related to

employees’ organizational identification.

High-Commitment Work System

HCWS refers to a certain kind of employment mode that is

implemented to elicit employees’ commitment to their

organizations (Xiao and Tsui 2007). Relative to a control-

oriented people management system, HCWS emphasizes

internal development and long-term relationships with

employees (Kim and Wright 2010; Xiao and Tsui 2007).

Thus, HCWS underlies an employment relationship that is

clan-like and is imbued with strong norms of cooperation

and reciprocity (Xiao and Tsui 2007). The conceptual and

empirical understanding of HCWS includes a bundle of

internally consistent HR practices, such as selective staff-

ing, comprehensive training, compensation management,

developmental performance appraisal, internal promotion,

team-based work and employee participation (Chang et al.

2014; Chiang et al. 2014; Lepak and Snell 2002; Takeuchi

et al. 2007).

Selective staffing and comprehensive training are

designed to increase employees’ knowledge, skills and

abilities (KSAs), which affect employees’ human capital

(Chang et al. 2014; Jlang et al. 2012; Subramony 2009).

These practices promote desired employee outcomes by

attracting and selecting highly qualified applicants capable

of ongoing learning, as well as by ensuring that those

applicants keep their task-related and organization-relevant

KSAs after they are hired in order to maintain high levels

of performance (Batt 2002; Jlang et al. 2012; Subramony

2009). Compensation, developmental performance apprai-

sal and internal promotion are implemented to direct

employees’ endeavors to accomplish work objectives and

provide them with inducements to promote work motiva-

tion (Chang et al. 2014; Chiang et al. 2014). These prac-

tices motivate employees to achieve desired outcomes by

signaling what behaviors are expected, supported and

rewarded (Chiang et al. 2014). In addition, team-based

work and employee participation are designed to encourage

participation among employees and empower them to

improve their job objectives (Chang et al. 2014; Chiang

et al. 2014; Subramony 2009). These HR practices are

intended to delegate decision-making authority and

responsibility to the employees, thus enhancing employee

outcomes by restructuring and reprogramming work to

increase the frequency of employee involvement (Huselid

1995; Mathieu et al. 2006; Subramony 2009). Since all of

these HR practices influence employees by simultaneously

enabling, motivating and empowering them, they are

expected to be complementarily amalgamated together to

form HCWS (Chang et al. 2014; Chiang et al. 2014; Lepak

and Snell 2002).

Corporate Citizenship and Employee Outcomes: Does a High-Commitment Work System Matter? 1085

123

The value of a commitment system lies in employee

well-being and the belief that employees are capable,

empowered and intrinsically motivated (Mossholder et al.

2011). Since employees in HCWS-embedding organiza-

tions are controlled through reciprocal culture and role

expectations rather than rigid rules of job descriptions,

there is an atmosphere of trust and strong norms of col-

laboration to bolster favorable employee attitudes (Xiao

and Tsui 2007). For example, various socialization mech-

anisms such as information sharing, participation in deci-

sion making and social gathering may promote employees’

identification with their organizations because HCWS

strengthens employees’ common identity by involving

them in collaborative relationships (Xiao and Tsui 2007).

Moreover, this clan-like work system values human

attachment, affiliation, collaboration and support, which

produces positive affective attitudes such as employee

satisfaction and commitment to the organization (Hartnell

et al. 2011; Xiao and Tsui 2007). The mutual commitment

between organizations and employees blurs the line

between self and others, thus minimizing the need for

control mechanisms such as external motivation and

monitoring (Mossholder et al. 2011). To embrace a long-

term orientation toward employees, therefore, firms there-

fore have to rely on this commitment-oriented management

system.

The Moderating Role of High-Commitment Work

System

Although the interface and convergence between CC and

HRM remains underdeveloped, this area of research has

been conceptually argued in recent studies (Branco and

Rodrigues 2006; Greenwood 2013; Morgeson et al. 2013).

The contribution of HRM to CC may benefit from a better

understanding of how organizations interpret and translate

CC principles into managerial actions through the system-

atic leveraging of organizational resources. While HRM has

traditionally been inwardly focused and CC has been

externally focused, the two domains overlap in terms of

some key issues of CC, such as employee motivation and

engagement, diversity and equal opportunity, security

practices and human rights awareness (Jamali et al.

2015, 2008). HR functions equipped with well-developed

human capital, motivational and empowerment mechanisms

in relation to employee engagement, organizational learning

and culture change are indispensable for CC. In addition,

HRM and CC share a common concern with responsible

employment practices (Jamali et al. 2015) as well as indi-

vidual and organizational growth and revitalization (Collier

and Esteban 2007). Therefore, CC and HCWS may com-

plement each other, thus further generating favorable out-

comes that are essential to an organization.

Selective staffing and comprehensive training can add to

the values of CC by attending to workforce diversity and

selecting employees with sensitivity toward and apprecia-

tion of CC issues (Gully et al. 2013). Moreover, they can

help to develop employees’ KSAs in effective stakeholder

engagement and communication (Degli Antoni and Portale

2011). Within compensation practices, developmental

performance appraisal and internal promotion, they can

contribute to CC by formulating criteria based on both

economic and social performance, as well as by providing

employees with inducements for their behaviors consistent

with CC values (Becker 2011; Davies and Crane 2010;

Voegtlin and Greenwood 2016). Team design and

employee participation help to facilitate the organization’s

internal social structure (Combs et al. 2006), which leads to

better communication and cooperation in CC projects

(Degli Antoni and Portale 2011). In addition, work teams,

employee participation and upward feedback systems can

promote the values of CC by providing employees with the

autonomy to engage in socially responsible events or

innovation. Taken together, all these interventions of

HCWS functions can help to ensure the alignment of

human capital, motivational and opportunity perspectives

with espoused CC goals.

In this research, we argue that the complementary

effects of CC and HCWS may enhance employees’ iden-

tification with their organizations. As discussed above, the

role of HCWS in internalizing the values of CC in the

organizational culture is immense. Functions of HCWS’s

capabilities and incentives in executing organizational

strategies, participating in change management facilitation

and enhancing managerial responsibility can facilitate the

integration of CC within the climate and fabric of the

organization (Jamali et al. 2015). A stronger CC climate

accentuated by HCWS signals the organization’s willing-

ness to fulfill processes and policies typified by CC

responsibilities, which raises the levels of employees’

psychological needs for inter-organizational distinctiveness

and intra-organizational similarity and further promotes

employees’ identification with their organizations (Bauman

and Skitka 2012).

Furthermore, HCWS features largely in cooperative

norms, which may function as the glue that facilitates the

consolidation of group cohesion (Shen and Benson 2014;

Xiao and Tsui 2007). In organizations with strong group

cohesion, employees will be more likely to define them-

selves in terms of their organizations (Farooq et al. 2014;

Xiao and Tsui 2007). Therefore, when organizations pos-

sess sound cooperation-featured HCWS, employees’ OI

should be upheld by CC. On the other hand, researchers

argue that employees are important stakeholders who cre-

ate demand for CC programs, which implies that CC does

act as an employee participation mechanism, encouraging

1086 Y.-T. Lin, N.-C. Liu

123

employees to perform socially responsible services (Jones

2010). HCWS that involves cooperative norms naturally

facilitates this employee participation mechanism and

strengthens the relationship between CC and OI, as it helps

employees to engender greater interdependence and

membership when they engage in citizenship activities.

The above discussion suggests that the strength of the

relationship between CC and employees’ OI may vary

depending on HCWS.

In summary, with the assistance of HCWS, organiza-

tions may form a climate of CC in their business man-

agement and create awareness of the need to achieve

business goals in a moral and ethical manner (Jamali et al.

2015), which accounts for employees’ OI by increasing

their perceptions of self-esteem stemming from a positive

social identity and feelings of belongingness and the social

validation of important social values (Bauman and Skitka

2012). Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H2 High-commitment work system positively moderates

the relationship between corporate citizenship and

employees’ organizational identification, such that higher

high-commitment work system is associated with a more

positive relationship.

Organizational Identification, Job Satisfaction

and Turnover Intention

Based on social identity theory, employees with high OI

are inclined to incorporate the organizations’ norms and

values into their own self-concept, making them psy-

chologically intertwined with their organizations (Tajfel

and Turner 1986). In this vein, employees who strongly

identify with their organizations tend to take pride in

their organizational membership and to be predisposed to

evaluate their jobs in a positive manner, which should be

positively associated with JS (Loi et al. 2014). Moreover,

researchers propose that OI should promote JS, since

identified employees are likely to view their job as a

proof of their membership, and a positive evaluation of

their job will thus be in accord with their organizational

identity (Loi et al. 2014; Van Dick et al. 2004). Similarly,

self-categorization theory suggests that identified

employees have higher perceived value similarity and a

higher sense of belongingness with their organizations

(Bauman and Skitka 2012), which may result in a strong

intention to stay with the organization (De Moura et al.

2009; Van Dick et al. 2004). Consequently, withdrawal

from the organization may violate one’s self-concept

because it symbolizes a loss of a part of one’s self (Van

Dick et al. 2004). Thus, the following hypotheses are

proposed:

H3a Employees’ organizational identification is posi-

tively related to their job satisfaction.

H3b Employees’ organizational identification is nega-

tively related to their turnover intention.

Organizational Identification as the Mediating

Variable

In this study, we contend that OI may mediate the rela-

tionships between CC and employees’ JS and turnover

intention. As noted in the previous paragraphs, CC is

expected to be associated with OI because it causes

employees to derive esteem from inter-organizational

comparisons and to be reassured by intra-organization

similarity (Bauman and Skitka 2012). In addition, accu-

mulating evidence shows that highly identified employees

tend to perceive their job circumstances more positively

and to be more likely to stay with their organizations,

because doing so is viewed as a proof of their organiza-

tional membership (De Moura et al. 2009; Loi et al. 2014;

Van Dick et al. 2004). For this reason, OI can lead to

increased JS and reduced turnover intention. Social

identity theory therefore explicates the mediating effect of

OI on the relationship between CC and JS/turnover

intention.

Although CC is believed to have a positive effect on

desired organizational attitudes, the boundary condition

that can accentuate this effect is rarely discussed. Prior

research suggests that the allocation and investment of

organizational resources can facilitate the effect of CC on

employees’ attitudes and behaviors; moreover, among

various organizational resources, HR practices in particular

are addressed (Jamali et al. 2015; Morgeson et al. 2013;

Voegtlin and Greenwood 2016). HCWS as an organiza-

tion’s internal managerial function can help to gauge the

social and moral benefits introduced by CC; in addition, it

plays an important role in creating supportive conditions

under which missions and objectives of CC can be suc-

cessfully implemented and further lead to employee out-

comes that are appreciated (Jamali et al. 2015). Drawing on

social identity theory, we argue that CC actions and climate

of change, as translated by HCWS, may strengthen the

bond between employees and their organizations, espe-

cially at the OI level. That is, the integration of CC with

HCWS strengthens employees’ membership by satisfying

their psychological needs for inter-organizational distinc-

tiveness and intra-organizational similarity, and it can thus

contribute to building JS and diminishing employees’

intention to leave. As a result, we further contend that the

interaction between CC and HCWS influences employees’

OI, which in turn has an impact on their JS and their

Corporate Citizenship and Employee Outcomes: Does a High-Commitment Work System Matter? 1087

123

propensity to leave. Hence, the following hypotheses are

proposed:

H4a Employees’ organizational identification mediates

the interactive effect of corporate citizenship and high-

commitment work system on their job satisfaction.

H4b Employees’ organizational identification mediates

the interactive effect of corporate citizenship and high-

commitment work system on their turnover intention.

Method

Corporate Citizenship in Taiwan

Taiwan is deeply nurtured by Confucian culture. In the

Taiwanese context, the traditional Confucian culture is

alive and is deeply rooted in organizational and individual

behaviors (Ip 2008; Kang and Liu 2014). However, CC is

not a novel concept in Taiwan. The government of Taiwan

continues to lead enterprises to adopt CC-oriented princi-

ples. Some nonprofit organizations also function as an

influential business voice regarding the CC field. In addi-

tion, Taiwanese firms have started to disclose their CSR

reports which are usually in accordance with GRI (Global

Report Initiative) G4 and with AA1000 Type II third-party

verification. Some firms have even established the CSR

committee to fulfill and implement their CC policies. CC is

therefore increasingly accepted and legitimized in Tai-

wanese enterprises. Overall, the business ethos in Taiwan is

a blend of Western civilization and Eastern Confucianism,

which gives Taiwanese enterprises an appropriate context

for investigating whether Confucian culture is an stumbling

block or a stepping stone for the impact of CC on

employees’ attitudes.

Participants and Procedures

This study was conducted in Taiwan’s publicly listed firms.

We collected data via questionnaire survey in two waves.

At time 1, we collected data regarding the firm’s HCWS

and human capital. At time 2, we collected employees’

perceptions of CC, OI, JS and turnover intention.

In the first wave, we contacted firms that consistently

engaged in CC activities gathered from the alumni direc-

tory of an Executive MBA in Northern Taiwan and invited

them to participate in this research. Fifty-seven firms listed

on the Taiwan Stock Exchange (TWSE) acknowledged

their willingness to participate in the time 1 survey. We

contacted these firms in advance, explained the purpose of

the study and then distributed a survey package containing

questionnaires to each firm. A cover letter attached to each

questionnaire explained the objective of the survey and

assured participants of the confidentiality of their respon-

ses. To avoid single-informant bias, two HR managers for

each firm were invited to participate in our time 1 survey.

Thus, from the 57 firms, we asked 114 HR managers to rate

the items related to the firm’s HCWS and human capital.

Each participant received a gift certificate to thank them for

their participation. Ultimately, a total of 86 valid ques-

tionnaires from the 57 firms were returned, representing a

response rate of 75.4%.

Approximately one year later, we implemented the

second wave survey. We contacted the 57 firms that had

participated in the time 1 survey, explained the purpose of

the time 2 survey to them and invited them to participate in

this research. Potential participants were informed that they

would be given a gift certificate to thank them for their

participation. Ultimately, 26 firms responded that they

were willing to participate in the time 2 survey. For each

firm, 25 randomly selected employees from different

departments were asked to rate items related to the per-

ception of CC, OI, JS and turnover intention. Thus, we

asked a total of 650 employees to participate in the time 2

survey. All participants were informed about the objective

of the survey and assured of the confidentiality of their

responses. We ultimately collected 539 valid question-

naires (for a response rate of 82.9%) from the 26 firms.

After matching the respondent firms from time 1 and

time 2, we ultimately retained 52 HR manager samples

from the 26 firms. Of the 26 firms, the average firm assets

amounted to US$12.8 million, and the average firm size

was 5343 employees. Of the 539 employees, 45.8% were

male, the average age was 34.8 years, and the average firm

tenure was 10.4 years. More precise profiles of the back-

ground characteristics are presented in Tables 1 and 2.

Measures

This study focused on five major variables: CC, HCWS,

OI, JS and turnover intention. All variables in the study

were measured using established scales proposed by ante-

cedent studies. All items apart from participants’ demo-

graphic characteristics were measured on a 7-point Likert

scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly

agree).

Perceived Corporate Citizenship

We adopted the 15-item scale from Maignan and Ferrell

(2000) to assess employees’ perceptions of the four sub-

dimensions of CC: economic (3 items), legal (3 items),

ethical (5 items) and discretionary (4 items) citizenship.

The Cronbach’s alpha for the 15-item scale was .92.

To assess the appropriateness of aggregating the indi-

vidual-level perceived CC to the organization-level CC, we

1088 Y.-T. Lin, N.-C. Liu

123

calculated within-group agreement (rwg; James et al. 1993),

intra-class correlations (ICC[1]) and the reliability of the

means (ICC[2]) (Bliese 2000). The mean value of rwg was

.94, and the ICC[1] and ICC[2] coefficients were .45 and

.89, respectively, providing empirical justification for cre-

ating the organization-level CC via aggregation.

High-Commitment Work System

We adopted 21 HR practice items from Lepak and Snell’s

(2002) commitment-oriented HR configuration. This

HCWS scale was chosen for the present study because

antecedent studies have adopted this scale in research in the

Asian context (e.g., Chiang et al. 2014; Takeuchi et al.

2007), which can ensure the survey’s external validity

across similar cultures. The Cronbach’s alpha for the scale

was .90.

Human Capital

Youndt and colleagues’ human capital scale (e.g., Subra-

maniam and Youndt 2005; Youndt et al. 2004) was used to

evaluate the average level of human capital in the organi-

zation. The Cronbach’s alpha for the five-item scale was

.90.

Organizational Identification

We adopted the 6-item scale from Mael and Ashforth

(1992) to assess organizational identification. The Cron-

bach’s alpha for the scale was .89.

Job Satisfaction

We adopted the 3-item scale from Seashore et al. (1982) to

assess job satisfaction. The Cronbach’s alpha for the scale

was .90.

Turnover Intention

A 3-item version of the turnover intention scale from

Colarelli (1984) was used in the present study. The Cron-

bach’s alpha for the scale was .89.

Control Variables

In the study, some firm-level variables, such as firm size,

firm assets and human capital were controlled for by cap-

turing organizational resources related to the implementa-

tion of HCWS, CC and individual variables. In addition,

some employees’ demographic variables were also con-

trolled, including gender (male = 1; female = 0), age,

education, firm tenure, managerial position (yes = 1,

no = 0) and working hours per week (e.g., Shen and

Benson 2014; Takeuchi et al. 2007).

Results

Based on Anderson and Gerbing’s (Anderson and Gerbing

1988) suggestion, we first implemented CFA to verify the

construct validity before testing the hypotheses. For indi-

vidual-level variables, the results indicated that the

Table 1 Profile of the organizational characteristics

Organizational characteristics Frequency Valid percentage (%)

Firm size

Less than 1000 employees 5 19.23

1000–3999 employees 11 42.31

4000–6999 employees 4 15.38

7000–9999 employees 3 11.54

More than 10,000 employees 3 11.54

Firm assets

Less than US$1,000,000 8 30.77

US$1,000,000–US$9,999,999 10 38.46

US$10,000,000–US$19,999,999 4 15.37

US$20,000,000–US$39,999,999 2 7.70

More than US$40,000,000 2 7.70

Industry

Technology 14 53.85

Transportation 3 11.54

Finance 4 15.38

Manufacture 4 15.38

Service 1 3.85

Corporate Citizenship and Employee Outcomes: Does a High-Commitment Work System Matter? 1089

123

hypothesized 3-factor measurement model (OI, JS and

turnover intention) fit the data (v2(51, N = 539) = 157.26, p \ .01, NNFI = .98, CFI = .99, RMSEA = .06, SRMR = .04). The second-order CFA of perceived CC

was also examined. The result met the model-fit indices

(v2(86, N = 539) = 395.10, p \ .01, NNFI = .97, CFI = .98, RMSEA = .08, SRMR = .05) as well. Factor

loadings of all the items were above .50 and significant on

the corresponding factors. Moreover, none of the confi-

dence intervals of the correlations covered the value of 1

for each pair of factors. All these results revealed that

convergent and discriminant validities were both

supported.

For firm-level variables, given the small sample size

(N = 52) and the large number of items included in HCWS

and human capital, we could not use CFA to test construct

validity; instead, we performed the factor analysis with the

principal axis method by imposing a single-factor solution

(e.g., Takeuchi et al. 2007). The 5 items of human capital

had factor loadings ranging between .84 and .89, and this

factor explained 72.32% of the variance. All 21 of the

items of HCWS had factor loadings ranging between .33

and .82 on a single factor, and this factor explained 36.03%

of the variance, which is higher than Takeuchi et al.’s

(2007) 35.82%. The scale had a reliability of .90, which is

comparable to that Lepak and Snell (2002) and Takeuchi

et al. (2007) obtained for their commitment-based HR

system scale (a = .89 and a = .90, respectively). Table 3 presents descriptive statistics, internal consis-

tency coefficients and correlations among the variables. At

the individual level (Level 1), OI was positively correlated

with JS (r = .44, p \ .01) and negatively correlated with turnover intention (r = -.35, p \ .01). At the firm level (Level 2), human capital was found to be positively cor-

related with CC (r = .63, p \ .01) and HCWS (r = .63, p \ .01). In addition, CC was positively correlated with HCWS (r = .60, p \ .01). The Cronbach’s a coefficients among the factors ranged between .89 and .92, exceeding

the .70 threshold recommended by Hair et al. (1998).

In this study, our hypothesized model is multilevel in

nature, with constructs spanning both the individual level

(OI, JS and turnover intention) and the firm level (CC and

HCWS) of analysis. Therefore, hierarchical linear model-

ing (HLM) was suggested to test our hypotheses (Bryk and

Raudenbush 1992).

Before testing our hypotheses, we determined whether

HLM was appropriate to analyze our data by examining

three null models. The results indicated 6.80% of variance

in OI that resided between firms (v2ð25Þ ¼ 62:93, p \ .01, ICC[1] = .07) and 8.21% of variance in JS that resided

between firms (v2ð25Þ ¼ 70:77, p \ .01, ICC[1] = .08). Analyses also identified 5.20% of variance in turnover

intention that resided between firms (v2ð25Þ ¼ 53:37, p \ .01, ICC[1] = .05). These results provided justifica- tion for using HLM for hypothesis estimation (Hofmann

1997).

The Main Effect of Corporate Citizenship

Hypothesis 1 posits that CC is positively related to OI. As

shown by Model 1 in Table 4, CC had a positive rela-

tionship with OI (c = .33, p \ .01). Therefore, Hypothesis 1 was supported.

The Moderating Effect of High-Commitment Work

System

Hypothesis 2 proposes that HCWS positively moderates

the effect of CC on OI. Model 2 in Table 4 showed support

for this hypothesis as well (c = .19, p \ .05). We plotted the significant moderating effect in Fig. 2.

Table 2 Profile of the individual characteristics

Individual characteristics Frequency Valid percentage (%)

Gender

Male 247 45.83

Female 292 54.17

Age

Less than 30 years 121 22.45

30–39 years 302 56.03

40–49 years 93 17.25

50–59 years 22 4.08

More than 60 years 1 .19

Education

Junior high school 22 4.08

Senior high school 55 10.20

Bachelor’s degree 238 44.16

Master’s degree 221 41.00

Doctoral degree 3 .56

Firm tenure

Less than 5 years 246 45.64

5–9 years 153 28.39

10–19 years 106 19.67

20–29 years 25 4.64

More than 30 years 9 1.66

Managerial position

Yes 93 17.25

No 446 82.75

Working hours per week

Less than 40 h 91 16.88

40–49 h 306 56.77

More than 50 h 142 26.35

1090 Y.-T. Lin, N.-C. Liu

123

Table 3 Means, standard deviations and correlations among variables

Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Individual level (N = 539)

1. Gender .46 .50

2. Age 34.79 7.05 .09*

3. Education 16.49 1.63 .13** -.40**

4. Firm tenure 6.99 6.57 .01 .73** -.47**

5. Managerial position .17 .38 .03 .36** .01 .35**

6. Working hours per week 41.67 15.40 .03 -.00 .01 .07 .04

7. OI 4.96 .94 -.09* .03 -.04 .01 .08 �

.03 (.89)

8. JS 5.04 1.09 .02 .13** .01 .09* .08 �

.04 .44** (.90)

9. Turnover intention 3.39 1.32 -.03 -.12** -.06 -.06 -.06 -.01 -.35** -.67** (.89)

Firm level (N = 26)

1. Firm size 7.90 1.22

2. Firm assets 18.19 1.93 .81**

3. Human capital 3.73 .47 .32 .37 �

(.90)

4. CC 5.16 .35 .52** .51** .63** (.92)

5. HCWS 3.69 .37 .33 �

.44* 63** .60** (.90)

Cronbach’s a coefficients were reported in the parentheses. Age, education and firm tenure were calculated in years. Gender: 0 = female, 1 = male; Managerial position: 0 = no, 1 = yes; Firm size: natural logarithm of the number of employees; Firm assets: natural logarithm of

total assets � p \ .10; * p \ .05; ** p \ .01

Table 4 Hierarchical linear modeling results

Variable OI JS Turnover intention

M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6

Level 1 (N = 539)

Intercept 4.99** 4.91** 4.91** 4.97** 3.59** 3.56**

Gender -.08* -.08* -.01 .03 -.00 -.04

Age .05 .06 .18* .13* -.23** -.21**

Education -.04 -.05 .04 .09 -.08 -.11 �

Firm tenure .05 .02 -.04 -.06 .06 .08

Managerial position .09 �

.09 �

.03 .01 -.01 .00

Working hours per week -.06 -.05 -.02 -.00 .09 .07

OI .45** -.33**

Level 2 (N = 26)

Firm size -.21* -.21** .11 .21** .05 -.03

Firm assets -.06 -.04 -.23* -.21** .03 .03

Human capital .02 .02 .02 -.04 .09 .11*

CC .33** .27** .13* .08 �

-.08 -.03

HCWS -.01 -.12 -.11 -.01 .01 -.04

CC 9 HCWS .19* .20** .05 -.25** -.16**

Model deviance 1514.71 1516.46 1518.88 1396.72 1519.00 1454.46

Standardized coefficients were reported. Age, education and firm tenure were calculated in years. Gender:

0 = female, 1 = male; Managerial position: 0 = no, 1 = yes; Firm size: natural logarithm of the number

of employees; Firm assets: natural logarithm of total assets � p \ .10; * p \ .05; ** p \ .01

Corporate Citizenship and Employee Outcomes: Does a High-Commitment Work System Matter? 1091

123

The Effect of Organizational Identification on Job

Satisfaction and Turnover Intention

Hypotheses 3a and 3b suggest that OI is positively related

to JS and negatively related to turnover intention. Results

from Models 4 and 6 in Table 4 reveal a positive rela-

tionship between OI and JS (c = .45, p \ .01) and a neg- ative relationship between OI and turnover intention

(c = -.33, p \ .01), thus supporting Hypotheses 3a and 3b.

The Mediating Effect of Organizational

Identification

Mediated moderation is formed when the interaction

between the independent and moderating variables influ-

ences the mediating variable, which in turn has an impact

on the dependent variable (Muller et al. 2005; Preacher

et al. 2007). Hypotheses 4a and 4b predict two mediated

moderation effects, namely OI mediates the interactive

effect of CC and HCWS on employees’ JS and turnover

intention. Following the suggestions of Preacher et al.

(2007) and previous studies (e.g., Liu and Fu 2011; Kirk-

man et al. 2009), we first tested Hypotheses 4a and 4b

based on Mathieu and Taylor’s (2007) procedure to test the

cross-level mediation. Next, the Sobel (1982) test was

applied to confirm the support of the indirect effect of the

interaction on the dependent variable via the mediator.

Cross-level mediation is supported if four conditions are

met (Mathieu and Taylor 2007): (1) the independent vari-

able (i.e., the interaction of CC with HCWS) significantly

relates to the mediator (i.e., OI); (2) the independent

variable significantly relates to the dependent variable (i.e.,

turnover intention); (3) the mediator significantly relates to

the dependent variable; and (4) the effect of the indepen-

dent variable on the dependent variable becomes weaker or

is no longer significant.

Since the previous result supported Hypothesis 1, the

first condition was met. Results from Model 3 and Model 5

in Table 4 revealed that the interaction between CC and

HCWS was positively related to employees’ JS (c = .20, p \ .01) and negatively related to turnover intention (c = -.25, p \ .01), which satisfied the second condition. As Hypotheses 3a and 3b were supported by the previous

data analysis, the third condition was also satisfied. In the

last step, with the inclusion of OI in Model 4 and Model 6

of Table 4, the interactive effect of CC with HCWS on JS

(c = .05, n.s.) and turnover intention (c = -.16, p \ .01) became weaker. Furthermore, the Sobel (1982) test yielded

support for the indirect effect of the interaction between

CC and HCWS on JS (Z = 2.71, p \ .01) and turnover intention through OI (Z = -2.65, p \ .01). Accordingly, Hypotheses 4a and 4b were supported.

Discussion

In support of the social identity theoretical framework, the

present study reveals that organizational CC climate is

positively associated with employees’ identification with

their organizations, and this association is accentuated by

organizations’ commitment-oriented employment mode.

Overall, employees’ OI translated the interplay between

organizations’ CC and HCWS into their JS and turnover

intention. These findings also suggest that HR does not

simply play the role of administrative management. Rather,

it appears to be a strategic lever that internalizes the values

of social responsibility within the organizational climate

and catalyzes the social identity mechanism that connects

CC with employees’ work outcomes. On the other hand,

the current study reveals that CC can yield positive

employee work consequences in the context of the Tai-

wanese business ethos as in that of Western societies. This

may imply that CC is not a luxury in Confucian Asia, but,

rather, is imperative in order to encourage employees to

intertwine their self-concept with the organization, respond

positively to their jobs and remain in their firms. Our study

offers an integration of the business ethics, strategic HRM

and OB literature to extend the existing CC research with

valuable insights and implications.

Theoretical Implications

The first contribution of the present study is in applying the

organizational climate perspective to CC research.

Although CC has attracted many researchers’ attention,

previous research has focused heavily on individuals’

psychological CC climate (e.g., Evans et al. 2011a; Evans

and Davis 2011, 2014; Moon et al. 2014), whereas little is

known about whether and how the organizational climate

perspective of CC influences employees’ outcomes (Rupp

et al. 2013). Excessive emphasis on individual psycho-

logical climate may fail to capture the richness of the

-2

-1

0

1

2

Low High

O I

CC

High HCWS Low HCWS

Fig. 2 Moderating effect of HCWS on the relationship between CC and OI

1092 Y.-T. Lin, N.-C. Liu

123

organizational context (Schneider et al. 2013) and is unable

to reflect the legitimacy of organizations’ implementation

of CC strategies. In contrast, organizational CC climate

ensures the shared assignment of employees’ CC percep-

tions and confirms the appropriateness of aggregating the

psychological CC climate to a higher organizational level

of analysis (Morgeson et al. 2013), which enables us to

take a more macro-perspective on the CC topic. Moreover,

conceptualizing CC as the organizational climate responds

to the concept of legitimacy, which ensures that CC can be

desirable and proper in organizations (Lee and Carroll

2011) and manifests the value of CC more than psycho-

logical climate does. Because of this multilevel research

approach, our study also helps bridge the macro–micro-

divide in the field of ethics and HRM.

Second, the present study helps to ascertain the under-

lying psychological process between CC and employees’

outcomes. Social identity theory is theoretically applied to

expound the association between CC and employees’ atti-

tudes; however, prior research has seldom actually exam-

ined its mediating role (e.g., Lin et al. 2010; Moon et al.

2014; Newman et al. 2015). Even if OI is treated as the

mediator, most research operationalizes CC in terms of

individual psychological climate (e.g., Brammer et al.

2015; Evans and Davis 2014), which may inflate CC’s

effect on individual variables and keep CC within an

individual attribute only. Our research compensates for

these deficiencies by unpacking OI’s pivotal mediating role

in aligning organizational CC climate with employees’ JS

and turnover intention. This study provides empirical evi-

dence that OI through mechanisms of inter-organizational

distinctiveness and intra-organizational similarity can

mediate the relationships between the consensus of

employees’ CC perceptions and employees’ JS and

propensity to leave.

Third, the study extends prior work by elaborating on a

certain contingency, a firm’s HCWS, under which the

social identity mechanism embedded in CC can be facili-

tated and further can boost employees’ outcomes. Some

scholars, based on samples of TWSE and GreTai Securities

Market (GTSM) listed companies, find that the shortage of

human resources is the chief obstacle for CC implemen-

tation in Taiwan (Yeh et al. 2014). The success of CC in

Taiwanese corporations is thus contingent on effective HR

system. HCWS, a vital contingency discussed in the study,

is argued to play a strategic role in bolstering CC policies

and translating CC vision and aspiration to members of the

organization. Many HCWS functions, such as human

capital-, motivation- and opportunity-enhancing practices,

can reinforce the CC–employee outcomes relationship by

fostering the shared values of social responsibility toward

employees (Jamali et al. 2015; Voegtlin and Greenwood

2016). The internal foundations and dynamics of CC,

bolstered and translated by HCWS, strengthen the bond

between employees and the organization, thus fostering

individual commitment to and identification with the

organization (Jamali et al. 2015). On the other hand, in a

commitment-oriented HR system, employees and their

organizations are regarded as holding high regard for one

another (Mossholder et al. 2011). The cooperative norm

developed by HCWS produces a sense of communal

sharing and feelings of solidarity that blur the employee–

organization distinction (Mossholder et al. 2011; Shen and

Benson 2014), which then reinforces the association

between CC and OI. Under circumstances of high HCWS,

employees may be more responsive to the organizational

CC climate and thus encouraged to bring forth more OI,

which influences subsequent employee attitudes, JS and

turnover intention. Our time-lagged mediated moderation

study not only sheds light on the promise of applying social

identity theory to ethics research but also advances our

understanding by verifying the fact that HCWS can facil-

itate the strength of social identity by complementing

organization-level CC, as strategic HRM theory implies.

Finally, an important contribution of the study is that the

hypotheses are proved by a Taiwanese sample, which

implies that corporations in this Confucian society can also

benefit from CC devotion, just as the Western society does.

Though Chinese Confucian culture may expose corpora-

tions to crony capitalism (Ip 2008), the upward-lift ele-

ments of integrity, loyalty and cooperation in Confucian

culture seem superior and thus invulnerable to the down-

ward pull of self-serving personal relationships and rent-

seeking behaviors. Our study therefore helps to ensure the

scientific validity and explain the variation of CC in the

Asian context. Moreover, these empirical findings identify

that the Confucian context may stand on a bright force of

CC efforts.

Managerial Implications

The present study gives rise to some important managerial

implications. We suggest that, in addition to pursuing

profit-oriented activities, firms should recognize the bene-

fits of investing in CC since it is a crucial precursor to

cultivating employees’ strong identification with their

organizations, which brings about their satisfaction with

their jobs and attenuates their intention to leave. To

strengthen the organizational climate of CC, firms can

consider devoting themselves to socially responsible

activities directed toward economic, legal, ethical and

discretionary aspects. For example, firms should seek to

maximize their profitability under the condition of com-

plying with laws and regulations. In addition, firms may

consider investing in environmentally protected activities

and charitable initiatives in the communities where they are

Corporate Citizenship and Employee Outcomes: Does a High-Commitment Work System Matter? 1093

123

located. Firms can also endeavor to improve the organi-

zation–employee relationship by balancing work and per-

sonal life and ensuring job security. These practices help to

bring forth an organizational CC climate that makes

membership in the organization more desirable, which in

turn leads to favorable employee outcomes that are bene-

ficial for business operations.

In addition, the study implies that it is important for

firms to formulate and implement CC strategies based on

the HRM perspective. As the findings demonstrate, firms

should not simply focus on CC alone but should give heed

to the soundness of their HCWS functions in order to

facilitate the impact of CC on employee OI. Thus, orga-

nizations should endeavor to strengthen integration and

alignment between HR and CC departments and make the

best use of the HR profession to internalize prosocial

norms in employees’ daily work. To cultivate highly

identified employees and further encourage their enjoy-

ment of their jobs, HR management needs to leverage and

strengthen internal consistencies of HCWS in relation to

CC strategy development and implementation. The co-

creation perspective that nurtures the involvement of

HCWS in CC provides managers with a road map to

understand how social responsibility is integrated into

management systems and employee relationships.

Finally, though CC in Asia is not as mature or taken for

granted as in the West, we suggest that multinational cor-

porations approaching the Confucian Asian market should

include the adoption of CC policies. Our findings reveal

that the organizational CC climate in a Confucian Asian

context is associated with enhanced employees’ OI and job

satisfaction and decreased employees’ turnover intention.

Consequently, multinational corporations investing in

Confucian Asia have to be aware of the influence of the

societal context on the implementation of culturally fitted

CC policies. Moreover, they should regard CC involvement

as a critical business strategy, because CC does not nec-

essarily conflict with their economic growth but, rather, can

pave the way for their employee retention.

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

While the present study makes notable contributions, it also

has some limitations, which provide directions for future

research. First, the present study was conducted in a single

country, and the data analyzed in the study were from 26

organizations, both of which limit the generalizability of

our research to other geographic contexts. Future research

can replicate this research framework in cross-cultural

contexts over a larger number of organizations.

Second, although we infer the presence of the social

identity perspective, some other theories may also be

applicable to explain the CC phenomenon. For example,

organizational CC climate delivers a clear message to

employees that firms will no longer take advantage of them

but will be willing to satisfy their needs for work safety and

security (Bauman and Skitka 2012), which may lead

employees to engage in positive attitudes in a reciprocal

manner. Accordingly, social exchange theory might be

considered as an alternative theory for future research to

discuss the association between CC and employee

outcomes.

Third, in the study, we used a subjectively based scale to

measure CC, which may have stronger implications for

employees’ subsequent reactions than the firm’s actual CC

behaviors do. This raises the question of to what extent the

psychological ratings from employees respond to the actual

CC actions of the firms (Morgeson et al. 2013). To over-

come the dilemma of measurement choices, future research

can adopt different measurement approaches ranging from

subjective to objective indices, as well as experimental

designs, in order to clarify the conceptualization of CC.

Funding This study was funded by the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan, under the Grant Number 102-2410-H-008-034-

SSS.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of

the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964

Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable

ethical standards. This article does not contain any studies with ani-

mals performed by any of the authors.

Informed Consent Informed consent was obtained from all indi- vidual participants included in the study.

References

Aguilera, R., 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 Manage-

ment Review, 32, 836–863.

Aguinis, H., & Glavas, A. (2012). What we know and don’t know

about corporate social responsibility: A review and research

agenda. Journal of Management, 38, 932–968.

Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation

modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step

approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411–423.

Ashforth, B. E., Harrison, S. H., & Corley, K. G. (2008). Identifi-

cation in organizations: An examination of four fundamental

questions. Journal of Management, 34, 325–374.

Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the

organization. Academy of Management Review, 14, 20–39.

Backman, J. (1975). Social responsibility and accountability. New

York: New York University Press.

1094 Y.-T. Lin, N.-C. Liu

123

Bartel, C. A. (2001). Social comparisons in boundary-spanning work:

Effects of community outreach on members’ organizational

identity and identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46,

379–413.

Batt, R. (2002). Managing customer services: Human resource

practices, quit rates, and sales growth. Academy of Management

Journal, 45, 587–597.

Bauman, C. W., & Skitka, L. J. (2012). Corporate social responsi-

bility as a source of employee satisfaction. Research in

Organizational Behavior, 32, 63–86.

Becker, W. S. (2011). Are you leading a socially responsible and

sustainable human resource function? People & Strategy, 34,

18–23.

Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and

reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In K.

J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory,

research, and methods in organizations (pp. 349–381). San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Boddy, C. R., Ladyshewsky, R. K., & Galvin, P. (2010). The

influence of corporate psychopaths on corporate social respon-

sibility and organizational commitment to employees. Journal of

Business Ethics, 97, 1–19.

Bowen, D. E., & Ostroff, C. (2004). Understanding HRM-firm

performance linkages: The role of the strength of the HRM

system. Academy of Management Review, 29, 203–221.

Bowen, H. R. (1953). Social responsibilities of the businessman. New

York: Harper & Row.

Brammer, S., He, H., & Mellahi, K. (2015). Corporate social

responsibility, employee organizational identification, and cre-

ative effort: The moderating impact of corporate ability. Group

and Organization Management, 40, 323–353.

Branco, M., & Rodrigues, L. (2006). Corporate social responsibility

and resource-based perspectives. Journal of Business Ethics, 69,

111–132.

Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear

models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of

corporate performance. Academy of Management Review, 4,

497–505.

Carroll, A. B. (1998). The four faces of corporate citizenship.

Business and Society Review, 100(101), 1–7.

Chang, S., Jia, L., Takeuchi, R., & Cai, Y. (2014). Do high-

commitment work systems affect creativity? A multilevel

combination approach to employee creativity. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 99, 665–680.

Chen, M., & Lin, C. (2014). Modelling perceived corporate citizen-

ship and psychological contracts: A mediating mechanism of

perceived job efficacy. European Journal of Work and Organi-

zational Psychology, 23, 231–247.

Chiang, Y., Shih, H., & Hsu, C. (2014). High commitment work

system, transactive memory system, and new product perfor-

mance. Journal of Business Research, 67, 631–640.

Chun, J. S., Shin, Y., Choi, J., & Kim, M. (2013). How does corporate

ethics contribute to firm financial performance? The mediating

role of collective organizational commitment and organizational

citizenship behavior. Journal of Management, 39, 853–877.

Chung, K. Y., Eichenseher, J. W., & Taniguchi, T. (2008). Ethical

perceptions of business students: Differences between East Asia

and the USA and among ‘‘Confucian’’ cultures. Journal of

Business Ethics, 79, 121–132.

Cialdini, R. B., Borden, R. J., Thorne, A., Walker, M. R., Freeman, S.,

& Sloan, L. R. (1976). Basking in reflected glory: Three

(football) field studies. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 34, 366–375.

Colarelli, S. M. (1984). Methods of communication and mediating

processes in realistic job previews. Journal of Applied Psychol-

ogy, 69, 633–642.

Collier, J., & Esteban, R. (2007). Corporate social responsibility and

employee commitment. Business Ethics: A European Review,

16, 19–33.

Combs, J., Liu, Y., Hall, A., & Ketchen, D. (2006). How much do

high-performance work practices matter? A meta-analysis of

their effects on organizational performance. Personnel Psychol-

ogy, 59, 501–528.

Davies, I. A., & Crane, A. (2010). Corporate social responsibility in

small- and medium-size enterprises: Investigating employee

engagement in fair trade companies. Business Ethics: A Euro-

pean Review, 19, 126–139.

Degli Antoni, G., & Portale, E. (2011). The effect of corporate social

responsibility on social capital creation in social cooperatives.

Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40, 566–582.

De Moura, G. R., Abrams, D., Retter, C., Gunnarsdottir, S., & Ando,

K. (2009). Identification as an organizational anchor: How

identification and job satisfaction combine to predict turnover

intention. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 540–557.

De Roeck, K., & Delobbe, N. (2012). Do environmental CSR

initiatives serve organizations’ legitimacy in the oil industry?

Exploring employees’ reactions through organizational identifi-

cation theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 110, 397–412.

Duane Hansen, S., Dunford, B. B., Alge, B. J., & Jackson, C. L.

(2016). Corporate social responsibility, ethical leadership, and

trust propensity: A multi-experience model of perceived ethical

climate. Journal of Business Ethics, 137, 649–662.

Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M., & Harquail, C. V. (1994). Organiza-

tional images and member identification. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 39, 239–263.

Easterbrook, F. H., & Fischel, D. R. (1996). The economic structure

of corporate law. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Evans, W. R., & Davis, W. D. (2011). An examination of perceived

corporate citizenship, job applicant attraction, and CSR work

role definition. Business and Society, 50, 456–480.

Evans, W. R., & Davis, W. (2014). Corporate citizenship and the

employee: An organizational identification perspective. Human

Performance, 27, 129–146.

Evans, W. R., Davis, W. D., & Frink, D. D. (2011a). An examination

of employee reactions to perceived corporate citizenship.

Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41, 938–964.

Evans, W. R., Goodman, J. M., & Davis, W. D. (2011b). The impact

of perceived corporate citizenship on organizational cynicism,

OCB, and employee deviance. Human Performance, 24, 79–97.

Farooq, M., Farooq, O., & Jasimuddin, A. M. (2014). Employees

response to corporate social responsibility: Exploring the role of

employees’ collectivist orientation. European Management

Journal, 32, 916–927.

Friedman, M. (1962). Capitalism and freedom. Chicago: University

of Chicago Press.

Friedman, M. (1970, September 13). The social responsibility of

business is to increase profits. New York Times Magazine, 32–33,

122–126

Graves, S. B., & Waddock, S. A. (1994). Institutional owners and

corporate social performance. Academy of Management Journal,

37, 1034–1046.

Greenwood, M. (2013). Ethical analyses of HRM: A review and

research agenda. Journal of Business Ethics, 114, 355–366.

Gully, S. M., Phillips, J. M., Castellano, W. G., Han, K., & Kim, A.

(2013). A mediated moderation model of recruiting socially and

environmentally responsible job applicants. Personnel Psychol-

ogy, 66, 935–973.

Corporate Citizenship and Employee Outcomes: Does a High-Commitment Work System Matter? 1095

123

Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998).

Multivariate data analysis. New York: Macmillan Publishing

Company.

Hartnell, C. A., Ou, A. Y., & Kinicki, A. (2011). Organizational

culture and organizational effectiveness: A meta-analytic inves-

tigation of the competing values framework’ theoretical suppo-

sitions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 677–694.

Hofman, P., & Newman, A. (2014). The impact of perceived

corporate social responsibility on organizational commitment

and the moderating role of collectivism and masculinity:

Evidence from China. International Journal of Human Resource

Management, 25, 631–652.

Hofmann, D. A. (1997). An overview of the logic and rationale of

hierarchical linear models. Journal of Management, 23,

723–744.

Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. (2000). Social identity and self-

categorization processes in organizational contexts. Academy of

Management Review, 25, 121–140.

Huselid, M. A. (1995). The impact of human resource management

practices on turnover, productivity, and corporate financial

performance. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 635–672.

Ip, K. (2008). Corporate social responsibility and crony capitalism in

Taiwan. Journal of Business Ethics, 79, 167–177.

Jamali, D. R., EI Dirani, A. M., & Harwood, I. A. (2015). Exploring

human resource management roles in corporate social respon-

sibility: The CSR-HRM co-creation model. Business Ethics: A

European Review, 24, 125–143.

Jamali, D., Safieddine, A., & Rabbath, M. (2008). Corporate

governance and corporate social responsibility synergies and

interrelationships. Corporate Governance, 16, 443–459.

James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1993). Rwg: An assessment

of within-group interrater agreement. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 78, 306–309.

Jlang, K., Lepak, D. P., Hu, J., & Baer, J. C. (2012). How does human

resource management influence organizational outcomes? A

meta-analytic investigation of mediating mechanisms. Academy

of Management Journal, 55, 1264–1294.

Jones, D. A. (2010). Does serving the community also serve the

company? Using organizational identification and social

exchange theories to understand employee responses to a

volunteerism programme. Journal of Occupational and Organi-

zational Psychology, 83, 857–878.

Kang, H., & Liu, S. (2014). Corporate social responsibility and

corporate performance: A quantile regression approach. Quality

& Quantity, 48, 3311–3325.

Kim, S., & Wright, P. M. (2010). Putting strategic human resource

management in context: A contextualized model of high

commitment work systems and its implications in China.

Management and Organization Review, 7, 153–174.

Kirkman, B. L., Chen, G., Farh, J. L., Chen, Z. X., & Lowe, K. B.

(2009). Individual power distance orientation and follower

reactions to transformational leaders: A cross-level, cross-

cultural examination. Academy of Management Journal, 52,

744–764.

Lam, K. C. J. (2003). Confucian business ethics and the economy.

Journal of Business Ethics, 43, 153–162.

LeBreton, J. M., & Senter, J. L. (2008). Answers to twenty questions

about interrater reliability and interrater agreement. Organiza-

tional Research Methods, 11, 815–852.

Lee, S. Y., & Carroll, C. E. (2011). The emergence, variation, and

evolution of corporate social responsibility in the public sphere,

1980–2004: The exposure of firms to public debate. Journal of

Business Ethics, 104, 115–131.

Lepak, D. P., & Snell, S. A. (2002). Examining the human resource

architecture: The relationships among human capital,

employment, and human resource configurations. Journal of

Management, 28, 517–543.

Lin, C., Lyau, N., Tsai, Y., Chen, W., & Chiu, C. (2010). Modeling

corporate citizenship, organizational trust, and work engagement

based on attachment theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 94, 517–531.

Liu, D., & Fu, P. (2011). Motivating protégés’ personal learning in

teams: Multilevel investigation of autonomy support and auton-

omy orientation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 1195–1208.

Loi, R., Chan, K. W., & Lam, L. W. (2014). Leader-member

exchange, organizational identification, and job satisfaction: A

social identity perspective. Journal of Occupational and Orga-

nizational Psychology, 87, 42–61.

Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A

partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identi-

fication. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 103–124.

Maignan, I., & Ferrell, O. C. (2000). Measuring corporate citizenship

in two countries: The case of the United States and France.

Journal of Business Ethics, 23, 283–297.

Manne, H., & Wallich, H. C. (1972). The modern corporation and

social responsibility. Washington, DC: American Enterprise

Institute for Public Policy Research.

Margolis, J. D., & Walsh, J. P. (2003). Misery loves companies:

Rethinking social initiatives by business. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 48, 268–305.

Mathieu, J., Gilson, L., & Ruddy, T. (2006). Empowerment and team

effectiveness: An empirical test of an integrated model. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 91, 97–108.

Mathieu, J. E., & Taylor, S. R. (2007). A framework for testing meso-

mediational relationships in organizational behavior. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 28, 141–172.

Matten, D., & Crane, A. (2005). Corporate citizenship: Toward an

extended theoretical conceptualization. Academy of Management

Review, 30, 166–179.

McGuire, J. W. (1963). Business and society. New York: McGraw-

Hill.

Moon, T., Hur, W., Ko, S., Kim, J., & Yoon, S. (2014). Bridging

corporate social responsibility and compassion at work: Rela-

tions to organizational justice and affective organizational

commitment. Career Development International, 19, 49–72.

Morgeson, F. P., Aguinis, H., Waldman, D. A., & Siegel, D. S.

(2013). Extending corporate social responsibility research to the

human resource management and organizational behavior

domains: A look to the future. Personnel Psychology, 66,

805–824.

Mossholder, K. W., Richardson, H. A., & Serroon, R. P. (2011).

Human resource systems and helping in organizations: A

relational perspective. Academy of Management Review, 36,

33–52.

Muller, D., Judd, C. M., & Yzerbyt, V. Y. (2005). When moderation

is mediated and mediation is moderated. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 89, 852–863.

Nedkovski, V., Guerci, M., De Battisti, F., & Siletti, E. (2017).

Organizational ethical climates and employee’s trust in col-

leagues, the supervisor, and the organization. Journal of

Business Research, 71, 19–26.

Newman, A., Nielsen, I., & Miao, Q. (2015). The impact of employee

perceptions of organizational corporate social responsibility

practices on job performance and organizational citizenship

behavior: Evidence from the Chinese private sector. Interna-

tional Journal of Human Resource Management, 26, 1226–1242.

Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good

soldier syndrome. Toronto, ON: D.C. Heath.

Orlitzky, M., & Benjamin, J. D. (2001). Corporate social performance

and firm risk: A meta-analytic review. Business and Society, 40,

369–396.

1096 Y.-T. Lin, N.-C. Liu

123

Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., & Rynes, S. R. (2003). Corporate social

and financial performance: A meta-analysis. Organization Stud-

ies, 24, 403–441.

Patterson, M. G., West, M. A., Shackleton, V. J., Dawson, J. F.,

Lawthom, R., Maitlis, S., et al. (2005). Validating the organi-

zational climate measure: Links to managerial practices, pro-

ductivity and innovation. Journal of Organizational Behavior,

26, 379–408.

Peloza, J. (2009). The challenge of measuring financial impacts from

investments in corporate social performance. Journal of Man-

agement, 35, 1518–1541.

Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing

moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and pre-

scriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42, 185–227.

Rupp, D., Shao, S., Thornton, M. A., & Skarlicki, D. P. (2013).

Applicants’ and employees’ reactions to corporate social respon-

sibility: The moderating effects of first-party justice perceptions

and moral identity. Personnel Psychology, 66, 895–933.

Rupp, D. E., Wright, P. M., Aryee, S., & Luo, Y. (2015).

Organizational justice, behavioral ethics, and corporate social

responsibility: Finally the three shall merge. Management and

Organization Review, 11, 15–24.

Schneider, B., Bowen, D. E., Ehrhart, M. G., & Holcombe, K. M.

(2000). The climate for service: Evolution of a construct. In N.

M. Ashkanasy, C. P. M. Wilderom, & M. F. Peterson (Eds.),

Handbook of organizational culture and climate (pp. 21–36).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Schneider, B., Ehrhart, M. G., & Macey, W. H. (2013). Organiza-

tional climate and culture. Annual Review of Psychology, 64,

361–388.

Seashore, S. E., Lawler, E. E., Mirvis, P., & Cammann, C. (1982).

Observing and measuring organizational change: A guide to

field practice. New York: Wiley.

Sen, S., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2001). Does doing good always lead

to doing better? Consumer reactions to corporate social respon-

sibility. Journal of Marketing Research, 38, 225–243.

Sethi, S. P. (1975). Dimensions of corporate social responsibility.

California Management Review, 17, 58–64.

Shen, J., & Benson, J. (2014). When CSR is a social norm: How

socially responsible human resource management affects

employee work behavior. Journal of Management, 42,

1723–1746.

Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect

effects in structural equation models. In S. Leinhardt (Ed.),

Sociological methodology (pp. 290–312). Washington, DC:

American Sociological Association.

Subramaniam, M., & Youndt, M. A. (2005). The influence of

intellectual capital on the types of innovative capabilities.

Academy of Management Journal, 48, 450–463.

Subramony, M. (2009). A meta-analytic investigation of the rela-

tionship between HRM bundles and firm performance. Human

Resource Management, 48, 745–768.

Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institu-

tional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20,

571–610.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup

conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social

psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA:

Brooks-Cole.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of

intergroup behaviour. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.),

Psychology of intergroup relations (2nd ed., pp. 7–24). Chicago:

Nelson-Hall.

Takeuchi, R., Lepak, D. P., Wang, H., & Takeuchi, K. (2007). An

empirical examination of the mechanisms mediating between

high-performance work systems and the performance of

Japanese organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92,

1069–1083.

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

organizational commitment. Journal of Business Ethics, 89,

189–204.

Turner, J. C. (1987). A self-categorization theory. In J. C. Turner, M.

A. Hogg, P. J. Oakes, S. D. Reicher, & M. S. Wetherell (Eds.),

Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory (pp.

43–67). Oxford: Blackwell.

Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell,

M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-catego-

rization theory. Oxford: Blackwell.

Turner, J. C., Oakes, P. J., Haslam, S. A., & McGarty, C. (1994). Self

and collective: Cognition and social context. Personality and

Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 454–463.

Van Dick, R., Christ, O., Stellmacher, J., Wagner, U., Ahlswede, O.,

Grubba, C., et al. (2004). Should I stay or should I go? Explaining

turnover intentions with organizational identification and job

satisfaction. British Journal of Management, 15, 351–360.

Victor, B., & Cullen, J. B. (1987). A theory and measure of ethical

climate in organizations. Research in Corporate Social Perfor-

mance and Policy, 9, 51–71.

Vlachos P. A., Panagopoulos N. G., & Rapp A. A. (2013). Feeling

good by doing good: Employee CSR-induced attributions, job

satisfaction, and the role of charismatic leadership. Journal of

Business Ethics, 118, 577–588.

Voegtlin, C., & Greenwood, M. (2016). Corporate social responsi-

bility and human resource management: A systematic review

and conceptual analysis. Human Resource Management Review,

26, 181–197.

Wang, Y., & Hsieh, H. (2012). Toward a better understanding of the

link between ethical climate and job satisfaction: A multilevel

analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 105, 535–545.

Wang, Y., & Hsieh, H. (2013). Organizational ethical climate,

perceived organizational support, and employee silence: A cross-

level investigation. Human Relations, 66, 783–802.

Wang, Y., Tsai, Y., & Lin, C. (2013). Modeling the relationship

between perceived corporate citizenship and organizational

commitment considering organizational trust as a moderator.

Business Ethics: A European Review, 22, 218–233.

Wei, Y., Egri, C. P., & Lin, C. Y. (2014). Do corporate social

responsibility practices yield different business benefits in eastern

and western contexts? Chinese Management Studies, 8, 556–576.

Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and

organizational commitment as predictors of organizational

citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17,

601–617.

Wong, I. A., & Gao, J. H. (2014). Exploring the direct and indirect

effects of CSR on organizational commitment. International

Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 26, 500–525.

Xiao, Z., & Tsui, A. S. (2007). When brokers may not work: The

cultural contingency of social capital in Chinese high-tech firms.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 52, 1–31.

Yeh, S., Chen, Y., Kao, Y., & Wu, S. (2014). Obstacle factors of

corporate social responsibility implementation: Empirical evi-

dence from listed companies in Taiwan. North American Journal

of Economics and Finance, 28, 313–326.

Youndt, M. A., Subramaniam, O., & Snell, S. A. (2004). Intellectual

capital profiles: An examination of investments and returns.

Journal of Management Studies, 41, 335–361.

Zhang, M., Fan, D. D., & Zhu, C. J. (2014). High-performance work

systems, corporate social performance and employee outcomes:

Exploringthemissinglinks.JournalofBusinessEthics,120,423–435.

Zhang, Q., Luo, Y., & Maksimov, V. (2015). Achieving legitimacy

through corporate social responsibility: The case of emerging

economy firms. Journal of World Business, 50, 389–403.

Corporate Citizenship and Employee Outcomes: Does a High-Commitment Work System Matter? 1097

123

Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.