Received: 28 May 2018 Revised: 24 September 2018 Accepted: 9 October 2018

DOI: 10.1002/csr.1700

RESEARCH ARTICLE

How and when corporate social responsibility affects

salespeople's organizational citizenship behaviors?: The
moderating role of ethics and justice
Sandra Castro‐González1 | Belén Bande2 | Takuma Kimura3

1
School of Business Administration,
Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Abstract
Lugo, Spain The influence of corporate social responsibility (CSR) on salespeople's organizational
2
Universidad Internacional de la Rioja/
citizenship behaviors (OCBs) has been widely neglected by academic literature. This
Universidade de Santiago de Compostela,
Business and Communication School Logroño, paper analyzes the influence of salespeople's perceived dimensions of CSR on the
Spain
salespeople OCB through organizational commitment. Additionally, the study pro-
3
Department of Business Organization and
Commercialisation, Hosei University, Tokyo,
poses that interpersonal justice and ethical climate have a moderate effect on the
Japan relationship between CSR and commitment, and consequently, the relationship
Correspondence between CSRs and OCBs. The empirical analysis is based on dyadic data from 176
Sandra Castro‐González, Assistant Professor
of Marketing, Department of Business salespeople and their supervisors from 96 companies. The findings not only confirm
Organization and Commercialisation, the importance of the social, environmental, and economic actions to influence on
Universidade de Santiago de Compostela,
School of Business Administration, Avda. salespeople OCBs, but also, it reveals unexpected conclusions about moderating var-
Alfonso X el Sabio, s/n, 27002 Lugo, Spain iables. In addition, the paper identifies the main implications of these results for man-
Email: sandra.castro@usc.es
agement and makes some suggestions for future studies.
Funding information
Xunta de Galicia (Consellería de Cultura,
Educación y Ordenación Universitaria) KEY W ORDS

corporate sustainability, CSR, ethical climate, interactive justice, organizational citizenship

behaviors, organizational commitment

1 | I N T RO D U CT I O N Panagopoulos (2010) and Bourdeau, Graf, and Turcotte (2013), there

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is now a common issue in busi-
ness practitioners, and academic research have recognized and
revealed that CSR can contribute to a firm's effective functioning
(Malik 2015). From an employee's point of view, the specific benefits
that organizations gain from engaging in CSR practices are becoming
increasingly evident. Various studies demonstrate how perceptions
of CSRs influence different attitudes and behaviors of employees in
the organizational environment, and these attitudes and behaviors
affect the results achieved (Glavas, 2016; Gond, El Akremi, Swaen, &
Babu, 2017). However, several authors continue to advocate the need
to broaden the field of study to understand employees' perceptions
and how they react to the socially responsible practices of their orga-
nization (Glavas, 2016; Gond et al., 2017; Morgeson, Aguinis,
Waldman, & Siegel, 2013; Rupp, Shao, Thornton, & Skarlicki, 2013),
and the need to study these aspects in the field of sales force is espe-
cially relevant. Beyond the studies of Vlachos, Theotokis, and
remains a dearth of research on how CSR perception influences sales-
people's attitudes and behaviors.
Since sales capabilities have significant influences on overall orga-
nizational performance (Guenzi, Sajtos, & Troilo, 2016), it is imperative
that organizations examine how to effectively and efficiently manage
sales teams to improve their performance within the organization.
Current sales, unlike traditional sales, happen through the teamwork
of salespeople. This way of working allows salespeople to combine
their skills and knowledge in a way that generates advantageous syn-
ergies for all (Auh, Spyropoulou, Menguc, & Uslu, 2014). The literature
shows that organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) improve team-
work among salespeople (Netemeyer, Boles, McKee, & McMurrian,
1997). OCBs have important cognitive and affective implications
(Bolino, Turnley, & Bloodgood, 2002) that directly influence aspects
such as salespeople's performance (Marshall, Moncrief, Lassk, & Shep-
herd, 2012; Piercy, Cravens, Lane, & Vorhies, 2006) and turnover
(Piercy, Cravens, & Lane, 2003). These kinds of behaviors can be

Corp Soc Resp Env Ma. 2018;1–11. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/csr © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment 1
2 CASTRO‐GONZÁLEZ
predicted by attitudes such as satisfaction and organizational commit-
ment (Marshall et al., 2012). However, although some authors point to
the relevance of other types of contextual and personal aspects in the
promotion of OCB (see Organ & Ryan, 1995; Wang & Sung, 2016), so
far, to our knowledge, very few studies have considered these aspects.
Scholars have called for research on the influence of perceptions
of CSR on OCBs. Some recent studies consider it necessary to under-
stand why and when CSR influences these types of behaviors (Fu, Ye,
& Law, 2014; Gao & He, 2017), and showed that perception of socially
responsible practices enhances employees' organizational commit-
ment, leading them to further develop OCBs (Choi & Yu, 2014; Fu
et al., 2014). However, as argued by Jones, Newman, Shao, and Lee
(2018), further empirical studies are needed to explore the influence
of unexamined moderators on the effects of perceived CSR.
Previous studies suggest that organizational‐level CSR is not a
sufficient condition for making employees committed and motivated
toward OCB (Scheidler, Edinger‐Schons, Spanjol, & Wieseke, 2018).
According to these studies, multi‐level consistency is important. Spe-
cifically, to motivate employees' OCB, organizational CSR practice
should be associated with group‐level and dyad‐level practices—for
example, workplace ethical climate and interpersonal justice, respec-
tively. However, the importance of between‐level consistency has
been drawn scant attention in empirical studies on CSR.
In order to fill this gap in the field of sales force and CSR studies,
the current work analyzes the influence of CSR perceptions on sales-
people's OCBs through commitment and considers the moderating
influence of supervisor's interpersonal justice and ethical climate (see
Figure 1). In this way, the study directs attention to examining how
and under what circumstances an “organizational‐level variable” trans-
forms into salespeople's attitudes and behaviors that could benefit the
organization. We hope to extend the research that examines the influ-
ence of CSR perceptions and contextual factors on salespeople's atti-
tudes and behaviors in the workplace. Our research aims to explain
these relationships guided by social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner,
1979) and social exchange theory (Blau, 1964).
In this sense, this work contributes to the organizational and sales
literature in several ways. First, the study provides new evidence that
confirms the mediating role of commitment in the relationship
between perception of CSR and the development of OCBs by sales-
people. This evidence is insightful for sales management because
ET AL.
salespeoples' OCBs were found to positively relate to various aspects
of sales performance (Marshall et al., 2012). Second, but not less
important, our work explores the circumstances under which CSR
influences OCBs, and thus contributes to filling one of the gaps iden-
tified as the most important in the literature on CSR and employee
outcomes (Glavas, 2016; Gond et al., 2017). We developed our mod-
erated moderation model by considering the multilevel consistency
of CSR practice that previous studies have not addressed. In this
way, we extend the very limited empirical work that has considered
the moderation effects on this field of research¸ and our findings
regarding the moderated moderation effect add a new piece of empir-
ical evidence suggesting the boundary condition of ethical climate and
a supervisor's interpersonal justice in the relationship between CSR
perceptions and salespeople's OCBs. Third, this study contributes to
broadening the theoretical focus on which these relationships are
based; it provides a comprehensive framework that integrates social
identity and social exchange perspectives towards building salespeo-
ple's organizational commitment and the development of OCBs.
Finally, it should be noted that we use data from multiple sources.
So far, few studies have employed this kind of data, and recent studies
call for a solution to this problem (Jones et al., 2018).
This study begins with a literature review and our conceptual
framework that allows us to develop our two hypotheses, one regard-
ing mediation and the other regarding moderated moderation. Then,
we report the methodological details and the empirical results. Finally,
we discuss the conclusions, managerial implications, and research
limitations.
2 | CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
2.1 | Corporate social responsibility
Several decades ago, Carroll (1979; 1991), who can be can be consid-
ered “the father of CSR”, understood that CSR encompasses the eco-
nomic, legal, ethical, and discretionary expectations that society has of
organizations at any given point in time. Since that time, CSR has been
defined from a wide range of perspectives which makes this concept
seems very fragmented in terms of definition and scope (Johnstone,
2018). Both government and legislators, as well as professionals and
FIGURE 1 Proposed model
CASTRO‐GONZÁLEZ ET AL.
academics, have presented their own definitions of CSR with the inten-
tion of standardizing this concept and trying to find a common founda-
tion that will enable a consensus to be reached on it despite the great
conceptual diversity. For example, in the traditional view, CSR focused
on stakeholder (which can be internal—directly linked to the
organization—and/or external stakeholders—not directly linked to the
organization but affected by its activity) issue; whereas in recent view,
CSR pay attention on environmental issues, which is also covered by
the current definitions and CSR measures (Costa & Torrecchia, 2018;
Turker, 2009b). Nevertheless, it should not be forgotten that this is a
dynamic and continuously developing concept, and new concepts will
continue to emerge. So, in this sense, there is a general consensus on
the multidimensional and multidisciplinary nature of CSR (Öberseder,
Schlegelmilch, & Murphy, 2013). Thus, to make it easier to understand,
what CSR is, Murphy and Schlegelmilch (2013), or more recently, Costa
and Torrecchia (2018) summarize the history and foundations of CSR
from its inception to the last decade and make a revision of the concept.
All in all, from our point of view, in the context of this study,
Aguinis' (2011) definition is the most appropriate. Aguinis understands
CSR as a “context‐specific organizational actions and policies that take
into account stakeholders' expectations and the triple bottom line of
economic, social, and environmental performance” (2011, p. 855).
On a separate issue, it is also important to note that among the
difficulties in conceptualizing CSR is its distinction from other terms
such as corporate sustainability (CS). In this vein, there are scholars
(e.g., Baumgartner, 2014) who use CSR and CS as synonyms, consider-
ing that both refer to social, environmental, and economic aspects.
However, the differences between both variables are quite notable.
For some authors (e.g., Van Marrewijk, 2003), the term CS is much
broader than the term CSR, and therefore it is also more difficult to
define and measure. In fact, Salas‐Zapata and Ortiz‐Muñoz (2018)
underline that “most of the research works whose title includes the
term sustainability do not define what it is, which eventually, consti-
tutes a methodological error” (2018, p. 1). In other cases, when using
the term sustainability, scholars want to focus their attention on the
efficiency and effectiveness of the organization from different socio-
economic and environmental perspectives, but without paying so
much attention to the implications of the triple bottom line on the dif-
ferent stakeholders (e.g., Dyllick & Hockerts, 2002). In fact, it is com-
mon that when the authors refer to the term corporate sustainability
they want to focus mainly on the ecological or environmental aspect
(e.g., Salas‐Zapata & Ortiz‐Muñoz, 2018; Schaltegger & Burritt,
2010), while the CSR goes beyond social, economic, and between
other aspects. In this sense, we should take into account that CSR
include environmental issues, which has been regarded as a part of CS.
2.2 | CSR and OCBs: the mediating role of
organizational commitment
Social identity theory states that individuals tend to identify with groups
that enhance their self‐concept or self‐esteem (Tajfel & Turner, 1979),
such as the organizations for which they work (Ashforth & Mael,
1989). Thus, when employees identify with their company's ideologies,
a sense of belonging and a psychological link between the organization
3
and the employee is created. This identification depends on how indi-
viduals and third parties evaluate that group. If the evaluation is posi-
tive, the individual will identify with the group and define himself in
terms of the group of which he is a member, in this case the organization
(Ashforth & Mael, 1989). This group identification improves individuals'
self‐esteem, and consequently, this connection has important implica-
tions for other fundamental attitudes and behaviors of the individuals.
On the basis of this theory, we propose that employees' percep-
tion of CSR has a positive effect on their organizational commitment.
Meyer and Allen (1991) define organizational commitment as an
employee's emotional attachment to, identification with and involve-
ment in the organization. In this sense, Porter, Steers, Mowday, and
Boulian (1974) state that organizational commitment is the psycholog-
ical union of an employee with his or her organization, formed by his
or her identification with the organization; that is, as an individual's
attitude towards the company. These authors argue that one of the
following conditions is needed to reach a compromise: (a) a strong
belief and acceptance of the organization's objectives and values, (b)
a willingness to exert considerable effort for the organization, and (c)
a strong desire to remain in the organization.
Social identity theory suggests that employees tend to feel a close
bond with an organization that operates in a socially responsible man-
ner towards customers and society in general, as working in such orga-
nizations improves their self‐esteem. Moreover, favorable working
conditions can lead to a good organizational image (Ashforth & Mael,
1989; Lee, Park, & Lee, 2013), and fair management decision enhances
the employees' sense of organizational justice. These factors can make
employees more attached to their organizations.
Currently, one of the most important aspects of employee com-
mitment is the existence of socially responsible policies and practices
within an organization. Typically, when a company promulgates CSR
values, employees connect with those values (McShane & Cunning-
ham, 2012). In line with these arguments, empirical studies showed
that the perception of good socially responsible practices increases
employees' organizational commitment (Ali, Rehman, & Ali, 2010;
Brammer, Millington, & Rayton, 2007; Choi & Yu, 2014; Peterson,
2004; Rupp, Ganapathi, Aguilera, & Williams, 2006; Turker, 2009b).
Furthermore, we propose that organizational commitment,
enhanced by CSR perception, will lead to the engagement in OCB.
OCB is defined as “behavior(s) of a discretionary nature that are not
part of the employee's formal role requirements, but nevertheless pro-
mote the effective functioning of the organization” (Organ, 1988, p. 4).
In the field of sales, OCBs refer to behaviors that are not part of the
task assigned to salespeople; that is, they are not directly related to
sales performance but are nevertheless beneficial to the organization
and its members (Bande, Varela, & Ferrín‐Fernández, 2008).
Social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) proposes that during the ben-
eficiary interaction between two parties, a reciprocal relationship is
formed. The benefits involved in social exchange do not have an exact
price in terms of a single means of quantitative exchange. Thus, social
exchange does not only imply the exchange of material goods but also
considers aspects of symbolic value such as the experience of feelings,
attitudes, and/or behaviors. In this regard, when employees share the
values and behaviors of the organization in which they work, a stron-
ger bond is created between the employees and the organization. For
4 CASTRO‐GONZÁLEZ
this reason, employees experience an increase in their feelings of sol-
idarity, express a willingness to remain in the organization, show inten-
tions for prosocial behavior and make an additional effort directly
related to the organization (Mossholder, Richardson, & Settoon,
2011; Porter et al., 1974). In this sense, employees consider that there
must be a reciprocal relationship; therefore, if the organization is con-
veying different benefits to them and to third parties, the employees
must give something back to the company (Blau, 1964). Thus, social
exchange theory suggests the positive effect of organizational com-
mitment on OCBs and empirical studies supported this argument
(Carmeli, 2005; Dutton, Dukerich, & Harquail, 1994; Gong, Chang, &
Cheung, 2010; O'Reilly & Chatman, 1986).
Therefore, in organizations characterized by socially responsible
behavior, both external CSR or internal CSR employees will show
higher levels of organizational commitment and OCBs. On the basis
of these arguments, and in response to the context‐attitude‐
behavioral framework (Martin & Cullen, 2006) according to which
the organizational context that surrounds employees influences their
attitudes and behaviors, we propose the following hypothesis:
H1. The perception of CSR is positively related to the
performance of OCBs by salespeople through organi-
zational commitment.
2.3 | Ethical climate and interpersonal justice as
moderators
We have proposed that salespeople's perception of CSR, that is, the
salespeople's assessment of their organization's practice, influences
their commitment to the company and its OCBs. Besides, we propose,
as explained below, that this influence is conditioned by salespersons'
workplace perceptions (i.e., perceptions of workplace ethical climate)
and dyad‐level construct between supervisor and salesperson (i.e.,
interpersonal justice).
The existence of an adequate work climate, within which the eth-
ical climate is included, is valued positively by individuals. Victor and
Cullen (1988) define the ethical climate as a shared perception of what
correct behavior is and how situations should be handled in an organi-
zation. The workplace‐level ethical climate represents a specific sub-
culture in each organization, which regulates individuals´ behavior
and how they proceed. So, based on the social identity theory (Tajfel
& Turner, 1979), when salespeople agree with the collective way of
dealing with the day‐to‐day work in their workplace, they will be more
likely to promote positive behaviors. There is evidence that the per-
ception of a good organizational ethical climate positively influences
the behavior and attitudes of employees (DeConinck, 2010; Martin
& Cullen, 2006; Parboteeah et al., 2010; Singhapakdi, Lee, Sirgy, &
Senasu, 2015). According to the literature, among the results of a good
ethical climate are commitment (Mayer, Kuenzi, & Greenbaum, 2009;
Treviño, Butterfield, & McCabe, 1998) and OCBs (Baker, Hunt, &
Andrews, 2006; Turnipseed, 2002). We can expect that a positive per-
ception of workplace ethical climate also positively influences
employees' attitudes and behaviors.
An important construct we should consider here is perceived
organizational hypocrisy. When companies develop CSR practices
ET AL.
they are transmitting a certain way of doing things, employees are
the interest group most able to see if that is really true or not
(Scheidler et al., 2018), for example, through their perception of the
daily work or ethical climate. If there is a misalignment between their
perception of CSR and the workplace ethical climate, they can per-
ceive organizational hypocrisy. This hypocrisy perception will diminish
the positive effect of perceived organizational on an individual's atti-
tudes and behaviors (Philippe & Koehler, 2005). Therefore, an
employee's perception of the workplace ethical climate will moderate
the positive effect of the perception of organizational CSR on commit-
ment and OCB.
Individual attitudes and behaviors are affected by perceptions of
supervisors' behaviors as well (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978). Thus, we also
propose that dyad‐level environment will have significant influences
on employees' attitudes and behavior. As a dyad‐level construct, we
focus on interpersonal justice since the empirical evidence showed
its positive effect on organizational commitment (Simons & Roberson,
2003) and OCBs (Duane‐Hansen, Dunford, Alge, & Jackson, 2016).
Following the operationalization by Colquitt (2001), in this study, we
conceptualized interpersonal justice as the extent to how an individual
is treated by his/her supervisor (authority figure by Colquitt’ use of
terms), with dignity, respect, and politeness.
Social comparison theory (Festinger, 1954) proposed that individ-
uals tend to choose referents in their work group for social compari-
son information. In this sense, individuals will be affected by not
only how they are treated but also whether there is a discrepancy
between their treatment and the treatment of the other group mem-
bers (Mayer, Nishii, Schneider, & Goldstein, 2007). Therefore, work-
place ethical climate will not lead to an individual's positive attitudes
and behavior if he/she perceives a low level of interpersonal justice.
Combined with the perception of ethical climate in the workplace
and fair treatment of the supervisor, the perception of organizational
CSR practice has significant effects on an individual's attitudes and
behavior. Specifically, it is expected that when the ethical climate is
high, and supervisors demonstrate high interpersonal justice, the
effect of CSR perception on salespeople's commitment and, conse-
quently, their OCBs are stronger and/or positive.
Thus, we propose the following hypothesis:
H2. Ethical climate and supervisor's interpersonal jus-
tice moderate the relationship between CSR percep-
tion and organizational commitment. Specifically,
when ethical climate and interpersonal justice are high,
the relationship between CSR and salespeople's com-
mitment is stronger.
3 | M E TH OD O LO GY
3.1 | Sample
The data were provided by salesperson–supervisor dyads working in
96 companies. We contacted 227 companies located in Spain and
received a total of 246 matched supervisor–subordinate question-
naires. From this pool, we removed questionnaires with a large
CASTRO‐GONZÁLEZ ET AL. 5

number of missing responses. Altogether, we retained 176 dyadic
questionnaires, which composed the final sample. The firms operate
in various fields, including the financial services industry (51.14%),
the insurance industry (23.86%), the food and beverage sector
(11.93%), the automotive industry (5.68%), and the pharmaceutical
industry (3.41%) as well as other activity sectors with less weight
within the sample, resulting in a total of 11 different industries. In all
cases, the companies engage in business‐to‐consumer activity. The
questionnaires were distributed with the help of each organization's
human resources department and/or sales managers. The salesperson
sample was composed of 55.1% women, and the majority of the par-
ticipants were between 35 and 44 years old (50.6%), with a mean age
of 41 years. The salespeople's mean organizational experience was
10 years, and their sales experience was 14 years, on average. Among
the supervisors, most were men (67.6%), with an average age of
43 years; their mean organizational experience was 15 years, and their
sales experience was 11 years, on average.
The supervisor questionnaire included demographic questions and
scales that assessed their subordinates' OCBs. The subordinate ques-
tionnaire contained demographic questions and scales that assessed
perceived CSR, organizational commitment, ethical climate, and super-
visor interpersonal justice.
3.2 | Measures
The original scales were written in English and were thus subjected to
a translation process following the methodology proposed by Brislin
(1986). A pretest was also conducted using a sample of 5 pairs of
questionnaires (salesperson–supervisor) from different sectors. All
the variables were measured using a seven‐point scale ranging from
1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
CSR was measured with a 14‐item scale proposed by (Turker,
2009a). Although there are alternative scales, from the point of view
of the employees, and in this case, the sales force, Turker's scale is
one of the scales that best adapts to the conception of this construct.
This scale has 3 dimensions, the social/environmental/nongovernmen-
tal organizations (NGOs) dimension (six items), the employee
dimension (five items), and the customer dimension (three items),
and the Cronbach's alpha for each dimension was 0.94, 0.90, and
0.70, respectively.
Commitment was measured with a 6‐item scale developed by
Mathews and Shepherd (2002). The Cronbach's alpha for this scale
was 0.87. Ethical climate was measured with a 9‐item multidimen-
sional scale proposed by Babin, Boles, and Robin (2000), and the
Cronbach's alpha for the three dimensions were 0.81, 0.87, and 0.80
(trust/responsibility, peer behavior, and selling practices, respectively).
Interpersonal justice was measured with a 4‐item scale developed by
Colquitt (2001). The Cronbach's alpha for the scale was 0.87.
Finally, the two‐dimensional scale proposed by Lee and Allen
(2002) was used to measure OCB. Both dimensions had eight items,
and the Cronbach's alpha was 0.95 for the OCB‐individuals dimension
and 0.97 for the OCB‐organizational dimension.
Gender and years of service with the company were controlled in
the hypothesis testing. Empirical research on CSR and management
has found that these variables explain reactions to these practices
(Greening & Turban, 2000; Groves & LaRocca, 2011).
3.3 | Scale validity and reliability
A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted using AMOS to
assess the properties of the latent variables. To avoid problems
resulting from the possible nonfulfillment of conditions of multivariate
normality, the bootstrapping technique was used. The parameters of
the latent construct CFA model were estimated using the maximum
likelihood method. Given the size of the model and the sample, the
results indicate an acceptable fit to the data, chi square = 1,753.20;
df = 1,100; p < 0.001; root mean square error of approximation = 0.06;
confirmatory fit index (CFI) = 0.92; incremental fit index = 0.92;
Tucker–Lewis index = 0.92.
With respect to the convergent validity of the scales, all factor
loadings were substantial and statistically significant (p < 0.05), thus
providing valid evidence in favor of the items used to represent the
constructs. Both Cronbach's alpha values and composite reliability
were above 0.7, indicating adequate reliability (Fornell & Larcker,
1981; Hair, Anderson, Babin, & Black, 2010).
To assess discriminant validity, Fornell and Larcker's (1981)
approach was used. The confidence intervals for the correlations
between pairs of variables were calculated. None of the intervals
included the value 1; therefore, discriminant validity between the con-
structs was confirmed. In addition, we compared the average variance
extracted (AVE) for each construct with the shared variance between

TABLE 1 Means, standard deviations, and correlations among variables

Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. CSR 5.38 0.98
2. Commitment 5.57 1.06 0.55**
3. OCB 5.65 1.15 0.19* 0.22**
4. Ethical climate 4.69 1.09 0.50** 0.40** 0.04
5. Justice 6.20 1.15 0.43** 0.47** 0.21** 0.34**
6. Gender 1.55 0.50 −0.05 −0.03 −0.00 −0.01 −0.17*
7. Years of service with the company 9.98 8.81 −0.10 0.00 −0.10 −0.14 −0.01 −0.10

Note. CSR: corporate social responsibility; OCB: organizational citizenship behavior; SD: standard deviation.
**p < 0.01 *p < 0.05
6 CASTRO‐GONZÁLEZ ET AL.

the latent variables, and the AVE for each construct was greater than TABLE 4 Model coefficients for the conditional process analysis
its shared variance with any other construct. Consequences (Model 3)
Table 1 shows the bivariate correlations of all constructs used in
M (Commitment)
the conceptual model.
Antecedents Coeff. SE p
Several approaches were employed to address common method
Constant 5.35 0.23 <.001
variance (CMV). First, we informed the respondents that their answers
CSR 0.40 0.08 <.001
would be anonymous, we included the indicators for the independent
Ethical climate 0.20 0.07 0.01
and dependent variables in different sections of the questionnaire and
Justice 0.35 0.09 <.001
we designed the questionnaire to avoid the introduction of complex
Gender 0.13 0.13 0.32
factors (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Podsakoff, 2012). Second, we used
Years of service with the company 0.01 0.01 0.48
Harman's one‐factor test via CFA. The results showed that CMV is
CSR x Ethical climate −0.06 0.06 0.38
not a serious threat in the study.
RSC x Justice −0.05 0.06 0.43
To test the potential multicollinearity problem, we computed the
Ethical climate x Justice −0.04 0.07 0.60
variance inflation factor (VIF). Among the regressions, the largest VIF
CSR x Ethical climate x Justice −0.19 0.07 0.01
was 1.79, which is well below the cutoff point of 10, suggesting that
R‐squared 0.65
multicollinearity is not a serious concern in this study.
F 17.32
p value <0.001
4 | RESULTS

To contrast the hypotheses raised, which refer to situations of media- TABLE 5 Conditional effects of corporate social responsibility (CSR)
tion and moderation, a mediation analysis and a moderated modera- perception on commitment to justice and ethical climate values
tion analysis (Hayes, 2013), both based on the multiple regression Ethical
analysis, were combined by PROCESS for SPSS. Justice climate Effect SE t p LLCI ULCI

First, for the mediation analysis, we used Model 4 (Hayes, 2013), 5.05 3.59 0.28 0.14 2.03 0.04 0.01 0.55
in which X is the CSR variable, M is compromise, and Y is the OCBs. 5.05 4.69 0.46 0.11 4.09 0.00 0.24 0.68
For the moderated moderation analysis, which addresses H2, we used 5.05 5.78 0.63 0.20 3.20 0.00 0.24 1.03
Model 3 (Hayes, 2013), in which X is the CSR variable, M is ethical 6.20 3.59 0.46 0.09 4.95 0.00 0.28 0.64
6.20 4.69 0.40 0.08 4.89 0.00 0.24 0.56
TABLE 2 Model coefficients for the conditional process analysis 6.20 5.78 0.34 0.12 2.77 0.01 0.10 0.58
Consequences (Model 4) 7.00 3.59 0.59 0.11 5.33 0.00 0.37 0.80

M (Commitment) Y (OCB) 7.00 4.69 0.36 0.09 3.77 0.00 0.17 0.54

Antecedents Coeff. SE p Coeff. SE p 7.00 5.78 0.13 0.14 0.95 0.34 −0.14 0.40

Constant 2.20 0.46 <0.001 4.18 0.62 <0.001

CSR 0.61 0.07 <0.001 0.10 0.11 0.35
climate, W is supervisor's interpersonal justice, and Y is commitment.
Commitment — — — 0.19 0.10 0.05
In addition, to avoid interpretation problems with certain coefficients,
Gender 0.01 0.14 0.94 −0.01 0.17 0.98
given the scales of measurement of certain variables considered, the
Years of service 0.01 0.01 0.38 −0.01 0.01 0.22
with the company variables involved in the interaction terms were centered on the mean.
R‐squared 0.31 0.07 Nonstandardized regression estimates are presented in Table 2.
F 25.57 2.98 The results of the analysis using ordinary least squares show that
p value <0.001 0.02 the perception of CSR is positively related to commitment
(a1 = 0.61, p < 0.001) and that this variable is positively related to
Note. CSR: corporate social responsibility; OCB: organizational citizenship
behavior; SE: standard error. OCBs (b1 = 0.19, p < 0.05). These results support H1, which proposed
that commitment mediates the relationship between perception of
TABLE 3 Direct and indirect effects of corporate social responsibil- CSR and OCBs.
ity (CSR) perception on salespeople's OCB The results show no direct relationship between perception of
Direct effect Effect SE p LLCI ULCI CSR and OCB. However, by constructing bootstrap confidence inter-

CSR‐ > OCB 0.10 0.11 0.35 −0.11 0.31 vals for the indirect effects, and considering that the intervals do not

Indirect effect Effect BootSE p BootLLCI BootULCI include the 0 value, we find that an indirect relationship exists, which

CSR‐ > 0.12 0.06 0.01 0.25 supports H1. As shown in Table 3, the path of indirect influence
commitment ‐ > OCB between perception of CSR and OCBs goes through commitment.
Total effect Effect SE p LLCI ULCI As for moderated moderation, as shown in Table 4, ethical climate
CSR‐ > OCB 0.22 0.09 0.02 0.04 0.39 and supervisor's interpersonal justice moderate the relationship

Note. CSR: corporate social responsibility; OCB: organizational citizenship between perception of CSR and commitment. That is, the interaction
behavior; SE: standard error. between CSR, ethical climate, and supervisor's interpersonal justice
CASTRO‐GONZÁLEZ ET AL.
FIGURE 2 The moderated moderating effect of interpersonal justice
and ethical climate on the relationship of corporate social
responsibility (CSR) and commitment
is significant (b7 = −0.19, p < 0.01). In addition, when considering dou-
ble moderation, there is an incremental increase in R2 of 0.03
(p < 0.01). To test moderation, we used the technique of the regions
of significance employed by Johnson–Neyman (Table 5). The influence
of CSR on commitment is significant in situations in which sellers
report low values for one of the variables and high values for the
other. When ethical climate and justice take high or low values, the
relationship between CSR and commitment is not significant. In con-
trast, we observe that the positive effect of interpersonal justice and
ethical climate on the relationship between CSR and commitment is
stronger when salespeople perceive the low interpersonal justice of
their supervisor and a high ethical climate (justice = 5.05, ethical cli-
mate = 3.59, effect = 0.28), or in situations in which the interpersonal
justice of an employee's supervisor is high and perceived ethical cli-
mate is low (justice = 7.00, ethical climate = 3.59, effect = 0.59).
Figure 2 shows the different possible situations depending on the
levels of ethical climate and interpersonal justice (Dawson, 2014). The
effect of CSR on commitment and, consequently, on OCBs is similar
between individuals who perceive a low ethical climate and the high
interpersonal justice of their supervisor (slope 3) and between those
who manifest a perception of a high ethical climate and low interper-
sonal justice (slope 2). The slope difference test (Dawson & Richter,
2006) shows no significant difference between slope 2 and slope 3
(t = −0.03; p = 0.98). However, individuals who are in the situation
of a low ethical climate and high justice (slope 3) show a higher level
of commitment. The results reveal significant differences between
these two slopes and other situations that arise; for example, the dif-
ference between slope 3 (low ethical climate, high justice) and slope 1
(high ethical climate, high justice) is significant (t = −3.26, p = 0.00), as
is the difference between slope 1 (high ethical climate, high justice)
and slope 2 (high ethical climate, low justice), t = −2.30; p = 0.02.
5 | DISCUSSIONS
5.1 | Theoretical implications
In this section, first, we summarize our findings and then discuss their
theoretical implications. The results of studies in the field of
7
organizational behavior and CSR reveal the importance of these prac-
tices for employees (Albinger & Freeman, 2000; Farooq, Farooq, &
Jasimuddin, 2014; Glavas et al., 2014; McShane & Cunningham,
2012; McWilliams & Siegel, 2010; Peterson, 2004). The results con-
firm that CSR positively influences the development of OCBs by sales-
people, not directly but through their commitment. These results are
consistent with previous studies that demonstrate an indirect relation-
ship between CSR and OCBs for nonsales contexts (e.g., Choi & Yu,
2014). At the same time, the results differ from those of studies that
suggest that CSR also directly influences extra‐role performance
(e.g., Fu et al., 2014).
The results also shed light on the circumstances under which the
influence of CSR practices on employee commitment occur. The
exploration of such circumstances has been referred to as one of the
most important research in the literature on CSR and employee out-
comes (Glavas, 2016; Gond et al., 2017). Past studies on organizational
hypocrisy and social comparison theory suggest that organizational‐
level CSR is not a sufficient condition for making employees commit-
ted and motivated toward OCB. Relying on these perspectives, we
regarded multilevel consistency as important and hypothesized that
workplace ethical climate (group‐level) and supervisor's interpersonal
justice (dyad‐level) interact to strengthen the effect of CSR (organiza-
tion‐level) on organizational commitment.
The results show that the model improves with the consideration
of moderate moderation; however, the relationship does not occur in
the expected direction. The findings indicate that the influence of per-
ception of CSR on commitment is higher when there is a high ethical
climate and low supervisor interpersonal justice, or when the opposite
situation occurs and the working climate is low and supervisor inter-
personal justice is high. The latter is the ideal situation. This contra-
dicts, for example, the results of Mayer et al. (2007), who suggest
that when there is a perception of high interpersonal justice, the cli-
mate of justice is also high.
This unexpected result can be interpreted as follows. When an
employee experience both high levels of ethical climate and interper-
sonal justice, employees are likely to evaluate their work environment
as being managed in a fairly and socially responsible way. Such
positively‐perceived between‐level consistency in the proximal envi-
ronment may weaken the salience of factors in the larger environ-
ment. The reason may be that factors in the proximal favorable
environment are sufficient to form positive attitudes of the
employees. Therefore, in such cases, perceptions of organizational
CSR practice may not have a strong influence on employees' organiza-
tional commitment.
On the contrary, when either workplace ethical climate or interper-
sonal justice is high and the other is low, employees perceive a between‐
level contradiction. Perception of contradiction in the parochial envi-
ronment would draw an employee's attention to organization‐wide
practices as cues for his/her attitude formation toward the organization.
That is, the saliency of organizational practice increases. In such cases, if
employees perceive that their organization does not actively engage in
CSR activities, they are likely to regard their experience of unfairness or
unethicality as a reflection of organizational‐level climate. If employees
perceive that their organization actively engage in CSR activities, they
are likely to regard their experience of unfairness or unethicality as a
8 CASTRO‐GONZÁLEZ ET AL.

parochial phenomenon. Therefore, the perception of CSR has a larger the individualist–collectivist orientation moderates the relationship
effect on employees' commitment in situations, whether ethical climate between the perception of equity and the attitudes of employees,
or interpersonal justice is high and the other is low, than situation where which suggests that the individualist orientation influences the commit-
both of them are high. ment of employees more significantly than the collectivist orientation.
As shown in Figure 2, in situations where both perceptions of eth- However, we cannot examine these arguments in this study
ical climate and interpersonal justice are low, the positive effect of because we did not collect any data on salespeople's individualistic–
CSR perception on organizational commitment is relatively weak, collectivistic orientation. Future research can address this issue.
and the absolute level of commitment is low. Such negatively‐
perceived between‐level consistency in the proximal environment
may weaken the salience of positive factors in the larger environment
5.2 | Practical implications
because employees feel that the organizational practices are just a
In addition to the theoretical implications we have just discussed, this
reflection of organizational hypocrisy. Therefore, in such cases, the
paper has some practical implications. The results indicate that CSR prac-
influence of perceptions of organizational CSR practice on employees'
tices influence the attitudes and behaviors of salespeople. Accordingly,
organizational commitment is small, and the level of commitment is
managers, CSR managers, and/or sales managers must make efforts in
generally low. In short, the result suggests that unfavorability in some
terms of social responsibility and must communicate those efforts appro-
(not all) aspects of the proximal environment activates the salience
priately to employees (Chong, 2009), and in this case, to salespeople.
and impact of the favorability in the distal environment.
Specifically, the results show that the perception of CSR influ-
In addition, our finding of the unexpected interaction effect has
ences commitment. Influencing this attitude is especially important
an implication for future research. We must go a step further to fully
for organizations because, as the literature argues, increasing the orga-
understand this situation. In this sense, the individualist or collectivist
nizational commitment of the sales force is a strategic issue for com-
orientation (Bochner, 1994) of employees and, in this case, of sales-
panies (Menguc & Barker, 2015). Given the specific characteristics of
people, becomes important. When an individual manifests an individu-
the sales position, among which is salespeople's autonomy and expo-
alistic orientation, he is mainly concerned with pursuing and achieving
sure to customers, the people who perform this work must form an
his own interests and objectives. Whereas, for an individual who
emotional attachment to the organization and must be highly commit-
reveals a collectivist orientation, the most important thing is group
ted to the organization (Jaramillo, Mulki, & Marshall, 2005).
harmony, whereby he puts the interests and well‐being of the group
Likewise, the study verifies that perceptions of CSR also promotes
before his own (Ramamoorthy & Flood, 2002).
salespeople's OCBs. This fact is highly conditioned on salespeople
Individuals tend to value interpersonal justice from three funda-
feeling committed to their company. In this sense, we suggest the
mental principles (Skarlicki and Kulik 2004; Deutsch, 1975), among
need for companies to find a way to channel CSR practices into com-
which the principle of equity usually prevails. According to this princi-
mitment so that individuals translate that commitment into OCBs. For
ple, individuals must receive rewards proportionate to their perceived
example, companies can directly engage marketers in their social
effort and performance. From this point of view, interpersonal justice
responsibility actions.
is more related to individualistic orientations. However, when an indi-
In addition, in view of the importance of individuals' individualistic
vidual values the ethical climate, he does so from a group perspective;
or collectivistic orientation, we consider a balance between CSR prac-
he values aspects that affect the behavior and the distinctive character
tices directed at external interest groups and those directed at internal
of the group of which he is a part of. Therefore, ethical climate is more
interest groups to be important. The CSR strategy of organizations
related to a collectivist orientation. Accordingly, within an organiza-
often tends to focus on aspects that directly benefit stakeholders
tion, there will be individualistically oriented salespeople who perceive
who do not maintain a direct link with the company, thereby
their supervisor's interpersonal justice more positively and reduce the
neglecting employees or relegating them to the background. Thus,
ethical climate of the organization and people with a collectivist orien-
the perception of justice among salespeople can fall, as they may feel
tation who value the existence of a good ethical climate more than fair
that they give more to the company than others but do not receive
treatment from their supervisors.
more than others. In this case, the effect of perception of CSR on
In any case, it is important to consider the two perspectives within
the commitment of those members of the sales force with an individ-
an organization. As the findings of our study show, it is the joint con-
ualistic vision will be less, and the same holds in the opposite direction.
sideration of the two variables that effectively influences the relation-
ship between perception of CSR and the commitment of the sales
force. Expressing interest only in individual rewards may negatively 5.3 | Limitations
influence those who manifest a more collectivist orientation, and the
same situation may occur in the reverse context (Oyserman, Coon, & Despite its theoretical contributions and management implications,
Kemmelmeier, 2002). However, the results suggest that the relation- this work has limitations that may constitute future lines of research.
ship between perception of CSR and commitment is stronger when First, the data are transversal, which makes it difficult to generalize
interpersonal justice is high and ethical climate is low, that is, when the results. A longitudinal study would provide more information
the individualistic orientation predominates. This result is in line with regarding how changes in salespeople's OCBs can be triggered by
Ramamoorthy and Flood's (2002) research, which was conducted in a changes in CSR practices. Second, all the variables were measured
context different from that of the current study and considered that based on the perceptions of salespeople and their direct supervisors,
CASTRO‐GONZÁLEZ ET AL.
and although personality data, such as virtues, were measured by
sources other than the individuals themselves as recommended by
some current research (Bozionelos, Bozionelos, Polychroniou, &
Kostopoulos, 2014), future studies should consider other types of
quantitative or more objective measures that complement salespeo-
ple's and supervisors' perceptions of CSR practices as well as other
variables. Third, the study considers commitment only as a mediating
variable between perception of CSR and OCBs; future research could
jointly consider other variables such as identification or trust in the
organization. Likewise, other virtues—equity, empathy, or generosity
—could be introduced as moderating variables.
Fourth, the moderated moderation of ethical climate and supervisor
justice, contrary to expectations, could be due to the lack of consideration
of some variables. Future research should take into account the influence
of salespeople's individualist/collectivist orientation on the relationships.
A moderated mediation of these variables could be proposed.
Finally, because our sample was drawn from companies in Spain, it
has specific characteristics and conditions. Thus, the model should be
replicated in other economic, social, and even cultural contexts to
appropriately generalize the findings.
ACKNOWLEDGEMEN TS
This publication has been funded with support from the Galician Plan
for Research, Innovation and Growth (Plan I2C) of the Xunta de Galicia
(Consellería de Cultura, Educación y Ordenación Universitaria). How
and When Corporate Social Responsibility Affects Salespeople's Orga-
nizational Citizenship Behaviors?: The Moderating Role of Ethics and
Justice.
ORCID
Sandra Castro‐González http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8206-1776
RE FE R ENC E S
Aguinis, H. (2011). Organizational responsibility: Doing good and doing
well. In Maintaining, expanding, and contracting the organization. APA
handbooks in psychology (pp. 855–879).
Albinger, H. S., & Freeman, S. J. (2000). Corporate social performance and
attractiveness as an employer to different job seeking populations.
Journal of Business Ethics, 28(3), 243–253. https://doi.org/10.1023/
A:1006289817941
Ali, I., Rehman, K. U., & Ali, S. I. (2010). Corporate social responsibility influ-
ences, employee commitment and organizational performance. African
Journal of Business Management, 4(2), 2796–2801.
Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organiza-
tion. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 20–39.
Auh, S., Spyropoulou, S., Menguc, B., & Uslu, A. (2014). When and how
does sales team conflict affect sales team performance? Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 42(6), 658–679. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11747‐014‐0368‐7
Babin, B. J., Boles, J. S., & Robin, D. P. (2000). Representing the perceived
ethical work climate among marketing employees. Journal of the Acad-
emy of Marketing Science, 28(3), 345–358. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0092070300283004
Baker, T. L., Hunt, T. G., & Andrews, M. C. (2006). Promoting ethical behav-
ior and organizational citizenship behaviors: The influence of corporate
ethical values. Journal of Business Research, 59(7), 849–857. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.02.004
9
Bande, B., Varela, J. A., & Ferrín‐Fernández, P. (2008). Person‐organization
fit, OCB and performance appraisal: Evidence from matched
supervisor–salesperson data set in a Spanish context. Industrial Market-
ing Management, 37(8), 1005–1019.
Baumgartner, R. J. (2014). Managing corporate sustainability and CSR: A
conceptual framework combining values, strategies and instruments
contributing to sustainable development. Corporate Social Responsibility
and Environmental Management, 21(5), 258–271. https://doi.org/
10.1002/csr.1336
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social lifeTransaction Publishers.
Bochner, S. (1994). Cross‐cultural differences in the self concept: A test of
Hofstede's individualism/collectivism distinction. Journal of Cross‐
Cultural Psychology, 25(2), 273–283. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0022022194252007
Bolino, M. C., Turnley, W. H., & Bloodgood, J. M. (2002). Citizenship
behavior and the creation of social capital in organizations. Academy
of Management Review, 27(4), 505–522.
Bourdeau, B., Graf, R., & Turcotte, M. (2013). Influence of corporate social
responsibility as perceived by salespeople on their ethical behaviour,
attitudes and their turnover intentions. Journal of Business & Economics
Research, 11(8), 353–366.
Bozionelos, N., Bozionelos, G., Polychroniou, P., & Kostopoulos, K. (2014).
Mentoring receipt and personality: Evidence for non‐linear relation-
ships. Journal of Business Research, 67(2), 171–181. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.10.007
Brammer, S., Millington, A., & Rayton, B. (2007). The contribution of corpo-
rate social responsibility to organizational commitment. The
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18(10),
1701–1719. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190701570866
Brislin, R. W. (1986). The wording and translation of research instruments.
In J. W. Berry, & W. J. Lonner (Eds.), Field methods in cross‐cultural
research (pp. 137–164). Beverly Hills: Sage.
Carmeli, A. (2005). Perceived external prestige, affective commitment, and
citizenship behaviors. Organization Studies, 26(3), 443–464. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0170840605050875
Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three‐dimensional conceptual model of corporate
performance. Academy of Management Review, 4(4), 497–505.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1979.4498296
Carroll, A. B. (1991). Corporate social performance measurement: A com-
ment on methods for evaluating an elusive construct. In L. E. En Post
(Ed.), Research in corporate social Perfomance and policy. Emerald.
Choi, Y., & Yu, Y. (2014). The influence of perceived corporate sustainability
practices on employees and organizational performance. Sustainability,
6(1). Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute), 348–364.
Chong, M. (2009). Employee participation in CSR and corporate identity:
Insights from a disaster‐response program in the Asia‐Pacific. Corporate
Reputation Review, 12(2), 106–119. https://doi.org/10.1057/crr.2009.8
Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A
construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3),
386–400. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021‐9010.86.3.386
Costa, M., & Torrecchia, P. (2018). The concept of value for CSR: A debate
drawn from Italian classical accounting. Corporate Social Responsibility
and Environmental Management, 25(2), 113–123. https://doi.org/
10.1002/csr.1443
Dawson, J. F. (2014). Moderation in management research: What, why,
when, and how. Journal of Business and Psychology, 29(1), 1–19.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869‐013‐9308‐7
Dawson, J. F., & Richter, A. W. (2006). Probing three‐way interactions in
moderated multiple regression: Development and application of a slope
difference test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4), 917–926. https://
doi.org/10.1037/0021‐9010.91.4.917
DeConinck, J. B. (2010). The influence of ethical climate on marketing
employees' job attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Business Research,
63(4), 384–391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.11.009
10
Deutsch, M. (1975). Equity, equality, and need: What determines which
value will be used as the basis of distributive justice? Journal of Social
Issues, 31(3), 137–149. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540‐4560.1975.
tb01000.x
Duane‐Hansen, S., Dunford, B., Alge, B. J., & Jackson, C. L. (2016). Corpo-
rate social responsibility, ethical leadership, and trust propensity: A
multi‐experience model of perceived ethical climate. Journal of Business
Ethics, 137(4), 649–662. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551‐015‐2745‐7
Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M., & Harquail, C. V. (1994). Organizational
images and member identification. Administrative Science Quarterly,
39(2), 239–263. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393235
Dyllick, T., & Hockerts, K. (2002). Beyond the business case for corporate
sustainability. Business Strategy and the Environment, 11(2), 130–141.
https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.323
Farooq, M., Farooq, O., & Jasimuddin, S. M. (2014). Employees response to
corporate social responsibility: Exploring the role of employees´ collec-
tivist orientation. European Management Journal, 32(6), 916–927.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2014.03.002
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Rela-
tions, 7(2), 117–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872675400700202
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models
with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Market-
ing Research, 18(1), 39. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312
Fu, H., Ye, B. H., & Law, R. (2014). You do well and I do well? The behav-
ioral consequences of corporate social responsibility. International
Journal of Hospitality Management, 40, 62–70. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijhm.2014.03.004
Gao, Y., & He, W. (2017). Corporate social responsibility and employee
organizational citizenship behavior. Management Decision, 55(2),
294–309. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD‐05‐2016‐0284
Glavas, A. (2016). Corporate social responsibility and organizational psy-
chology: An integrative review. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1–13.
Glavas, A., Kelley, K., Agle, B. R., Mitchell, R. K., Sonnenfeld, J. A., Aguilera,
R. V., et al. (2014). The effects of perceived corporate social responsi-
bility on employee attitudes. Business Ethics Quarterly, 24(2),
165–202. https://doi.org/10.5840/beq20143206
Gond, J.‐P., El Akremi, A., Swaen, V., & Babu, N. (2017). The psychological
microfoundations of corporate social responsibility: A person‐centric
systematic review. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(2), 225–246.
https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2170
Gong, Y., Chang, S., & Cheung, S.‐Y. (2010). High performance work sys-
tem and collective OCB: A collective social exchange perspective.
Human Resource Management Journal, 20(2), 119–137. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1748‐8583.2010.00123.x
Greening, D. W., & Turban, D. B. (2000). Corporate social performance as a
competitive advantage in attracting a quality workforce. Business & Soci-
ety, 39(3), 254–280. https://doi.org/10.1177/000765030003900302
Groves, K. S., & LaRocca, M. A. (2011). An empirical study of leader ethical
values, transformational and transactional leadership, and follower atti-
tudes toward corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics,
103(4), 511–528. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551‐011‐0877‐y
Guenzi, P., Sajtos, L., & Troilo, G. (2016). The dual mechanism of sales
capabilities in influencing organizational performance. Journal of
Business Research, 69(9), 3707–3713. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jbusres.2016.03.033
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Babin, B. J., & Black, W. C. (2010). Multivariate
data analysis: A global perspective. Upper Sadd. NJ: Pearson.
Hayes, A.F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional
process analysis: A regression‐based approach.
Jaramillo, F., Mulki, J. P., & Marshall, G. W. (2005). A meta‐analysis of the
relationship between organizational commitment and salesperson job
performance: 25 years of research. Journal of Business Research, 58(6),
705–714. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2003.10.004
CASTRO‐GONZÁLEZ ET AL.
Johnstone, L. (2018). Environmental management decisions in CSR‐based
accounting research. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental
Management, 1–11.
Jones, D. A., Newman, A., Shao, R., & Lee, F. (2018). Advances in
employee‐focused micro‐level research on corporate social responsibil-
ity: Situating new contributions within the current state of the
literature. Journal of Business Ethics, 1–10.
Lee, E. M., Park, S.‐Y., & Lee, H. J. (2013). Employee perception of CSR activi-
ties: Its antecedents and consequences. Journal of Business Research,
66(10), 1716–1724. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.11.008
Lee, K., & Allen, N. J. (2002). Organizational citizenship behavior and work-
place deviance: The role of affect and cognitions. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 87(1), 131–142. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021‐
9010.87.1.131
Malik, M. (2015). Value‐enhancing capabilities of CSR: A brief review of
contemporary literature. Journal of Business Ethics, 127(2), 419–438.
Marshall, G. W., Moncrief, W. C., Lassk, F. G., & Shepherd, C. D. (2012).
Linking performance outcomes to salesperson organizational citizen-
ship behavior in an industrial sales setting. Journal of Personal Selling
& Sales Management, 32(4), 491–501. https://doi.org/10.2753/
PSS0885‐3134320406
Martin, K. D., & Cullen, J. B. (2006). Continuities and extensions of ethical
climate theory: A meta‐analytic review. Journal of Business Ethics, 69(2),
175–194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551‐006‐9084‐7
Mathews, B. P., & Shepherd, J. L. (2002). Dimensionality of cook and wall's
(1980) British organizational commitment scale revisited. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75(3), 369–375. https://
doi.org/10.1348/096317902320369767
Mayer, D., Nishii, L., Schneider, B., & Goldstein, H. (2007). The precursors
and products of justice climates: Group leader antecedents and
employee attitudinal consequences. Personnel Psychology, 60(4),
929–963. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744‐6570.2007.00096.x
Mayer, D. M., Kuenzi, M., & Greenbaum, R. L. (2009). Making ethical cli-
mate a mainstream management topic: A review, critique and
prescription for the empirical research on ethical climate. In De Cremer
(Ed.), Psychological perspectives on ethical behavior and decision making
(pp. 181–213). Information Age Publishing.
McShane, L., & Cunningham, P. (2012). To thine own self be true?
Employees' judgments of the authenticity of their organization's corpo-
rate social responsibility program. Journal of Business Ethics, 108(1),
81–100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551‐011‐1064‐x
McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. S. (2010). Creating and capturing value: Strategic
corporate social responsibility, resource‐based theory, and sustainable
competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 37(5), 1480–95.6.
Menguc, B. A., & Barker, T. (2015). Critical examination of salesforce com-
mitment and job involvement as contributors to organizational
performance. In H. E. Spotts (Ed.), Creating and delivering value in mar-
keting (pp. 227–227). Springer, Cham.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three‐component conceptualization of
organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1(1),
61–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/1053‐4822(91)90011‐Z
Morgeson, F. P., Aguinis, H., Waldman, D. A., & Siegel, D. S. (2013). Extend-
ing corporate social responsibility research to the human resource
management and organizational behavior domains: A look to the
future. Personnel Psychology, 66(4), 805–824. https://doi.org/
10.1111/peps.12055
Mossholder, K. W., Richardson, H. A., & Settoon, R. P. (2011). Human
resource systems and helping in organizations: A relational perspective.
Academy of Management Review, 36(1). Academy of Management),
33–52.
Murphy, P. E., & Schlegelmilch, B. B. (2013). Corporate social responsibility
and corporate social irresponsibility: Introduction to a special topic sec-
tion. Journal of Business Research, 66(10), 1807–1813. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.02.001
Netemeyer, R. G., Boles, J. S., McKee, D. O., & McMurrian, R. (1997). An
investigation into the antecedents of organizational citizenship
CASTRO‐GONZÁLEZ ET AL.
behaviors in a personal selling context. Journal of Marketing, 61(3), 85.
https://doi.org/10.2307/1251791
Öberseder, M., Schlegelmilch, B. B., & Murphy, P. E. (2013). CSR practices
and consumer perceptions. Journal of Business Research, 66(10),
1839–1851. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.02.005
O'Reilly, C. A., & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and psy-
chological attachment: The effects of compliance, identification, and
internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 71(3), 492–499. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021‐9010.71.3.492
Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta‐analytic review of attitudinal and
dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Person-
nel Psychology, 48(4), 775–802. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744‐
6570.1995.tb01781.x
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier
syndrome. Issues in organization and management series. Lexington.
Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking individ-
ualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and
meta‐analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128(1), 3–72. https://doi.org/
10.1037/0033‐2909.128.1.3
Parboteeah, K. P., Chen, H. C., Lin, Y.‐T., Chen, I.‐H., Lee, Y.‐P., & Chung, A.
(2010). Establishing organizational ethical climates: How do managerial
practices work? Journal of Business Ethics, 9(4), 599–611.
Peterson, D. K. (2004). The relationship between perceptions of corporate
citizenship and organizational commitment. Business & Society, 43(3),
296–319. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650304268065
Philippe, T. W., & Koehler, J. W. (2005). A factor analytical study of per-
ceived organizational hypocrisy. SAM Advanced Management Journal,
70(2), 13–20.
Piercy, N. F., Cravens, D., Lane, N., & Vorhies, D. W. (2006). Driving orga-
nizational citizenship behaviors and salesperson in‐role behavior
performance: The role of management control and perceived organiza-
tional support. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(2),
244–262. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070305280532
Piercy, N. F., Cravens, D. W., & Lane, N. (2003). Sales manager behavior
control strategy and its consequences: The impact of manager gender
differences. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 23(3),
221–237.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of
method bias in social science research and recommendations on how
to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63(1), 539–569. https://
doi.org/10.1146/annurev‐psych‐120710‐100452
Porter, L. W., Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T., & Boulian, P. V. (1974). Organi-
zational commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric
technicians. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59(5), 603–609. https://doi.
org/10.1037/h0037335
Ramamoorthy, N., & Flood, P. C. (2002). Employee attitudes and behavioral
intentions: A test of the main and moderating effects of individualism–
collectivism orientations. Human Relations, 55(9), 1071–1096. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0018726702055009020
Rupp, D. E., Ganapathi, J., Aguilera, R. V., & Williams, C. A. (2006).
Employee reactions to corporate social responsibility: An organiza-
tional justice framework. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(4),
537–543. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.380
Rupp, D. E., Shao, R., Thornton, M. A., & Skarlicki, D. P. (2013). Applicants'
and employees' reactions to corporate social responsibility: The moder-
ating effects of first‐party justice perceptions and moral identity.
Personnel Psychology, 66(4), 895–933. https://doi.org/10.1111/
peps.12030
Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing
approach to job attitudes and task design. Administrative Science Quar-
terly, 23(2), 224–253. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392563
11
Salas‐Zapata, W. A., & Ortiz‐Muñoz, S. M. (2018). Analysis of meanings of
the concept of sustainability. Sustainable Development, 1–9.
Schaltegger, S., & Burritt, R. L. (2010). Sustainability accounting for compa-
nies: Catchphrase or decision support for business leaders? Journal of
World Business, 45(4), 375–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jwb.2009.08.002
Scheidler, S., Edinger‐Schons, L. M., Spanjol, J., & Wieseke, J. (2018).
Scrooge posing as Mother Teresa: How hypocritical social responsibility
strategies hurt employees and firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 1–20.
Simons, T., & Roberson, Q. (2003). Why managers should care about fair-
ness: The effects of aggregate justice perceptions on organizational
outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(3), 432–443. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0021‐9010.88.3.432
Singhapakdi, A., Lee, D.‐J., Sirgy, M. J., & Senasu, K. (2015). The impact of
incongruity between an organization's CSR orientation and its
employees' CSR orientation on employees' quality of work life. Journal
of Business Research, 68(1), 60–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jbusres.2014.05.007
Skarlicki, D. P., & Kulik, C. (2004). Third‐party reactions to employee (MIS)
treatment: A justice perspective. Research in Organizational Behavior,
26, 183–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191‐3085(04)26005‐1
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup con-
flict. In The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47).
Treviño, L. K., Butterfield, K. D., & McCabe, D. L. (1998). The ethical con-
text in organizations: Influences on employee attitudes and behaviors.
Business Ethics Quarterly, 8(3), 447–476. https://doi.org/10.2307/
3857431
Turker, D. (2009a). Measuring corporate social responsibility: A scale
development study. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(4), 411–427.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551‐008‐9780‐6
Turker, D. (2009b). How corporate social responsibility influences organi-
zational commitment. Journal of Business Ethics, 89(2), 189–204.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551‐008‐9993‐8
Turnipseed, D. L. (2002). Are good soldiers good?: Exploring the link
between organization citizenship behavior and personal ethics. Journal
of Business Research, 55(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148‐
2963(01)00217‐X
Van Marrewijk, M. (2003). Concepts and definitions of CSR and corporate
sustainability: Between agency and communion. Journal of Business
Ethics, 44(2–3), 95–105. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023331212247
Victor, B., & Cullen, J. B. (1988). The organizational bases of ethical work
climates. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33(1), 101–125. https://doi.
org/10.2307/2392857
Vlachos, P. A., Theotokis, A., & Panagopoulos, N. G. (2010). Sales force
reactions to corporate social responsibility: Attributions, outcomes,
and the mediating role of organizational trust. Industrial Marketing Man-
agement, 39(7), 1207–1218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.
2010.02.004
Wang, Y. D., & Sung, W. C. (2016). Predictors of organizational citizenship
behavior: Ethical leadership and workplace jealousy. Journal of
Business Ethics, 135(1), 117–128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551‐
014‐2480‐5
How to cite this article: Castro‐González S, Bande B, Kimura
T. How and when corporate social responsibility affects sales-
people's organizational citizenship behaviors?: The moderating
role of ethics and justice. Corp Soc Resp Env Ma. 2018;1–11.
https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1700