Next Article in Journal
The Selection Process and Criteria of Impact Accelerators. An Exploratory Study
Previous Article in Journal
Food Waste Generation in Germany in the Scope of European Legal Requirements for Monitoring and Reporting
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 13
Issue 12
10.3390/su13126613
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Employee-Oriented CSR and Unethical Pro-Organizational Behavior: The Role of Perceived Insider Status and Ethical Climate Rules

by
Changqin Yin
1,
Yajun Zhang
2,* and
Lu Lu
2
1
School of Management, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430074, China
2
School of Business Administration, Guizhou University of Finance and Economics, Guiyang 550025, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2021, 13(12), 6613; https://doi.org/10.3390/su13126613
Submission received: 31 March 2021 / Revised: 1 June 2021 / Accepted: 6 June 2021 / Published: 10 June 2021
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Although existing research generally has found that corporate social responsibility (CSR) has a positive impact on organizations and individuals, researchers should still be alert to the potential risks it may bring. This study will explore why employee-oriented corporate social responsibility (employee-oriented CSR) triggers unethical pro-organizational behavior (UPB). Based on the social identity theory, this study establishes a moderated mediation model to explore the impact mechanism of employee-oriented CSR on UPB. We collected survey data from 298 employees of manufacturing organizations to test our research model. The regression statistics results indicate that employee-oriented CSR can indirectly (via perceived insider status (PIS)) affect employees’ UPB. Moreover, ethical climate rules negatively moderate the relationship between PIS and UPB, and negatively moderate the indirect effect of employee-oriented CSR on UPB. This study promotes a full understanding of the impact of CSR, expands the micro-foundation of CSR, and extends the research on the antecedents of employees’ UPB by revealing the social-psychological mechanism of employee-oriented CSR impact UPB, and also gives specific suggestions to put into practice.

1. Introduction

In recent years, emphasizing employee-oriented development of an integrated corporate social responsibility (CSR) strategy to gain competitive advantages has become an important goal of organizational CSR [1]. Employee-oriented CSR is employee-centered, which can best reflect the interests of employees, and provides benefits and preferential treatment to internal employees [1]. As they are among the most important stakeholders of the organization, employees provide positive feedback for the implementation of the organization’s CSR. Its primary manifestation is that employees who believe that their organization has a high level of CSR are more likely to show positive attitudes and behavioral tendencies within the organization, such as organizational identification [2], organizational commitment, psychological capital [3], trust [4], job satisfaction [5], and pro-organizational behavior [6]. Among them, pro-organizational behavior is one of the most positive impacts of CSR on the organization.
Pro-organizational behavior is an important positive result of CSR [6]. Some studies prove that CSR can, directly and indirectly, affect employees’ pro-organizational behavior. Research on the direct relationship between CSR and employee pro-organizational behavior suggests that CSR can directly affect employees’ organizational citizenship behavior [7], organizational citizenship behavior for the environment [6,8,9,10,11], and voluntary pro-environmental behavior [12]. Research on how CSR indirectly affects employees’ pro-organizational behaviors has found that it can affect employees’ organizational citizenship behavior through ethical leadership perception [7], organizational justice [13], and task significance [14]. CSR can also influence the pro-environmental behavior of employees through green practices [15]. Current research concludes overall that CSR has a positive impact on employee behavior. Although researchers generally do not question the positive effects of CSR on the organization, researchers still have to be alert to the risks it may bring.
In recent research, a special pro-organizational behavior has been identified in organizations, called unethical pro-organizational behavior (UPB). UPB is “behavior that intends to promote the effective functioning of the organization or its members but violates core societal values, mores, laws, or standards of proper conduct” [16]. UPB is usually related to employees’ positive attitudes and emotions towards the organization, such as psychological entitlement [17], organizational identification [18], organizational commitment [19], organizational embeddedness [20], organizational support [21], and job satisfaction [21]. Furthermore, existing studies confirm the correlation of CSR with positive emotional factors such as organizational identification [18] and organizational commitment [19]. Compared with other CSR strategies, employee-oriented CSR is directly related to the interests of employees, has a greater impact on employees, and can have a direct impact on employees’ attitudes and behavior. Some researchers confirm that employees with a strong sense of employee-oriented CSR will conduct more pro-organizational behaviors, such as supporting the organization’s external CSR initiatives and other stakeholder-oriented CSR activities [22]. Although UPB is unethical, it is also a pro-organizational behavior. Although researchers generally do not question the positive impact of CSR, given the pro-organizational nature of UPB, there are reasons to suspect that employees who believe that their organization has a high level of CSR may engage in UPB. Therefore, to explore the possible potential risks that CSR brings to the organization, this study will try to establish the connection between employee-oriented CSR and UPB.
Social identity theory posits that individuals improve their self-awareness through organizational identity, and distinguish between insiders and outsiders of their organization [23]. Employees who work for a CSR organization tend to identify with their employing organization more strongly and regard themselves as the “insiders” of the organization. Lin and Cheng (2017) [24] point out that organizational “insiders” receive more organizational care than “outsiders”, and therefore are more likely to engage in UPB than “outsiders”. CSR affects the perception of insider status, which in turn affects UPB. Therefore, researchers understand perceived insider status as the mediating mechanism between employee-oriented CSR and UPB. Second, UPB may seem to be beneficial to the organization, but in the long run, it not only harms the interests of enterprise stakeholders and affects employees’ career planning but also causes adverse effects to the long-term development of the enterprise. Therefore, the purpose of research focused on the antecedents of UPB is not to promote UPB, but rather to inhibit UPB and promote the sustainable development of the organization. Although some studies show that organizational punishment [25], responsible leadership [26], and organizational climate can effectively reduce the occurrence of UPB [27], UPB research is still in its infancy, and more inhibitory factors need to be discovered to help organizations suppress and prevent UPB. Some studies show that an organizational ethical climate can have an inhibitory effect on employees’ unethical behavior [28]. However, existing research generally examines the organizational ethical climate as a whole, while a differently-oriented organizational ethical climate will have different effects on the unethical behavior of employees. As an important part of an organizational ethical climate, ethical climate rules focus on organizational rules and order and have been shown to be able to restrain employees’ unethical behaviors [29]. When ethical climate rules are strong, unethical behavior will decrease, and vice versa. UPB is unethical behavior, and as such may be influenced by the ethical climate rules. Therefore, we introduced ethical climate rules as a moderating variable in this study.
To bridge these knowledge gaps, this study established a moderated mediation model based on social identity theory and put forward five research hypotheses. Subsequently, we collected data through a questionnaire survey to empirically test the research hypotheses. The statistical results show that employee-oriented CSR positively affects UPB through perceived insider status. Ethical climate rules negatively moderate the relationship between PIS and UPB and negatively moderate the indirect effect of employee-oriented CSR on UPB (via PIS). This research makes the following contributions. First, it promotes full understanding of the impact of CSR by exploring the potential risks that CSR may bring to organizations and enriches the research on CSR and UPB literature. Second, it analyzes the formation mechanism of UPB from the perspective of organizational insiders and provides empirical evidence for an in-depth understanding of organizational insiders’ cognitive processes. Finally, it proposes and demonstrates the moderating role of the ethical climate rules in the PIS and UPB, complements the research on the inhibitory factors of UPB of employees, and contributes to the sustainable development of organizations.

2. Literature Review and Hypotheses

2.1. Social Identity Theory

Social identity theory refers to the individual’s self-definition; this theory believes that people tend to define themselves according to the attributes of the organization they belong to [23]. The individual identifies with the organization due to identification with the attributes of the organization, which reflects the homogeneity or similarity of beliefs, attitudes, values, and behaviors of members of the organization [30]. The more that employees identify with their organization or organization members, the easier it is to show obedience, love, or even dependence on the organization or group of organizations. This may be reflected in putting the interests of the organization above the interests of themselves or other organizational stakeholders. In this case, to show loyalty to the organization, employees may sacrifice the interests of others to seek benefits for the organization [31].

2.2. Employee-Oriented CSR Perception and Perceived Insider Status

Employee-oriented CSR is an important type of CSR; it is also called CSR directed toward employees. Turker (2009) [1] defined employee-oriented CSR as a series of organizational policies that commit companies to providing employees with good working conditions, job promotion opportunities, organizational justice, and work-family balance, which is consistent with the definition provided by Shen and Zhang (2017) [22]. CSR may have a variety of different stakeholder orientations, with only employee-oriented CSR directly caring about the interests of employees [32]. Organizations that implement employee-oriented CSR strategies pay close attention to the needs and aspirations of employees, create policies to develop employees’ skills and careers, and provide employees with a healthy and safe working environment as well as fair remuneration and promotion opportunities [22,33]. This study mainly focuses on the employee’s perception of employee-oriented CSR, which has not been studied previously. Perceived insider status (PIS) is the degree to which an employee thinks he or she is a legitimate internal member of a particular organization [33]. PIS emphasizes employees’ definition of their own identity and their sense of belonging to the organization [34,35]. PIS not only represents a sense of employee’s personal space and recognition in the work organization [36] but also reflects the degree of employee affiliation and willingness to contribute intelligence and power to the organization.
In the framework of social identity theory, individuals distinguish between “insiders” and “outsiders”. The more strongly employees identify with their organization, the more likely they regard themselves as legitimate internal members of the organization. Employee-oriented CSR perception stimulates PIS for the following reasons. First, employee-oriented CSR provides employees with skills training, job autonomy, internal promotion, and career development opportunities. The signal from these practices fully demonstrates the organization’s care and support for employees, conveying organizational recognition to employees [37], and making employees feel the relationship between the organization and employees is not purely based on self-interest but rather on mutual trust and mutual benefit of “insiders” [36]. Therefore, when employees perceive that the organization implements employee-oriented CSR policies, they are more likely to gain a sense of insider status. Second, full-time employees are more likely to think of themselves as insiders than part-time employees because they typically receive more benefits, training, and promotion opportunities from the organization than part-time employees [38]. Since training and promotion opportunities are the basic content of employee-oriented CSR [22], we infer that the benefits or preferential treatments provided by organizational employee-oriented CSR will make employees distinguish themselves from organization non-members [22] and make employees more aware of their insider status. Third, employee-oriented CSR provides employees with a series of benefits and preferential treatment related to their own interests [36]. The acquisition of valuable resources within the organization can strengthen employees’ sense of belonging to the organization and can imply that employees have acquired insider status [36]. Therefore, when employees perceive that employee-oriented CSR protects the interests of employees, they will regard themselves as legitimate internal members of the organization. Therefore, the researchers propose the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1 (H1).
Employee-oriented CSR is positively associated with PIS.

2.3. Perceived Insider Status and Unethical Pro-Organizational Behavior

Umphress and Bingham [16] defined unethical pro-organizational behaviors as “behaviors that are intended to promote the effective functioning of the organization or its members and violate core societal values, mores, laws, or standards of proper conduct”. Different from traditional unethical behaviors for self-interest, UPB is altruistic and is unethical behavior for the benefit of the organization or its members [38]. In the short term, UPB may seem to be beneficial to the organization and members, but in the long run, it not only harms the interests of enterprise stakeholders and affects the employees’ career planning but also causes adverse effects to the long-term development of the enterprise [37].
We propose that PIS could influence UPB for the following reasons. First, social identity theory holds that the more that employees see themselves as legitimate members of the organization, the more willing they are to struggle for the benefit of the organization. When employees with high perceived insider status believe they have the respect and recognition of the organization and it meets their needs for emotional connection and belonging, in order to maintain a good relationship with the organization, they may seek positive performance opportunities, positive feedback, and take the initiative to act in a way that is beneficial to the organization, and also may engage in UPB. Second, employees who perceive themselves as organizational insiders may believe that they are an important part of the organization and are closely related to the development of the organization [37,38], and therefore feel obligated to do more to further the organization’s interests [39]. They may internalize the goals of the organization into their own goals, and even sacrifice the interests of others to help the organization achieve its goals. Third, when employees perceive themselves as having insider status in the organization, it means that a trust relationship has been established with the organization, because one of the prerequisites for employees perceiving insider status in an organization is trust [40]. Trust theory holds that when a trust relationship is established with an organization, employees are more willing to engage in behaviors that benefit the organization, even beyond their responsibilities and roles [41,42]. Therefore, the researchers propose:
Hypothesis 2 (H2).
PIS is positively associated with UPB.

2.4. Perceived Insider Status as a Mediator

Based on the above discussion, employee-oriented CSR policies promote the direction of valuable resources and emotional belonging through investment and care towards employees, thereby significantly improving employees’ perception of insider status. In turn, the employees with a higher level of insider status perception will actively implement favorable behavior to reward the organization. Even if this behavior is unethical, as long as it is beneficial to the organization, employees are willing to engage in it [43,44]. Therefore, the researchers propose:
Hypothesis 3 (H3).
PIS mediates the positive link between employee-oriented CSR perception and UPB.

2.5. Ethical Climate Rules Perception as a Moderator

UPB is behavior that is beneficial to the organization and other members of it, but it is essentially unethical behavior. Therefore, although employees with a high perception of insider status are likely to perform UPB in general, there will be differences as a result of different organization ethical climates. Previous research showed that employees’ unethical behavior was influenced by the organizational ethical climate [45]. However, differently oriented organizational ethical climates have different effects on the unethical behavior of employees [46]. Victor and Cullen [46] define the organizational ethical climate as “unified behavioral norms and standards of the organization perceived by employees”. An important part of the organizational ethical climate, ethical climate rules are “unified behavioral norms and standards of the organization rule, regulations, and principles perceived by employees, including the internal rules and regulations of the organization and local social norms, and prove to be able to restrain employees’ unethical behaviors” [44]. This study focuses on ethical climate rules.
We expect that the perception of ethical climate rules acts as a moderator between PIS and UPB. First, when a rule-oriented ethical climate is formed within the organization, employees are required to act following the organizational behavioral rules, regulations, and principles [47]. As UPB is unethical behavior, it may violate the principles of the organization and be forbidden within it. Therefore, when employees are strongly aware of ethical climate rules, even if they are employees with a high perception of insider status, they will not perform UPB, due to the risk of punishment or whistleblowing [46]. Second, the organizational ethical climate is an important factor affecting employees’ ethical behavior [47]. When the behavioral norms and standards of a rules-based ethical climate are accepted by the whole organization, employees will consider organizational rules and ethical norms when making moral decisions, and consciously avoid participating in unethical behaviors [48]. As a result, employees with a high perception of insider status will not engage in UPB. Based on the above discussion, we infer that the perception of ethical climate rules negatively moderates the link between PIS and UPB: when employees have high perception of the ethical climate rules of the organization, the link between PIS and UPB will be weak; conversely, when employees have low perception of the ethical climate rules of the organization, the link between PIS and UPB will be strong. We propose the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 4 (H4).
Ethical climate rules perception acts as a negative moderator between PIS and UPB. The positive link is weaker at high levels of ethical climate rules perception than that at low levels.
Further, as Hypothesis 3 proposes that PIS acts as a mediator between employee-oriented CSR and UPB, and Hypothesis 4 proposes that the ethical climate rules perception negatively moderates the relationship between PIS and UPB, we infer that the ethical climate rules perception also has a moderating effect on the mediating effect (moderated mediation); in other words, the indirect effect of employee-oriented CSR on UPB through perceived insider status will be influenced by the employee’s perception of ethical climate rules. When an employee’s perception of ethical climate rules is low, the indirect effect of employee-oriented CSR on UPB through perceived insider status will be stronger. By contrast, when an employee’s perception of the ethical climate rules is high, this indirect effect will be weaker. Therefore, we propose:
Hypothesis 5 (H5).
Ethical climate rules perception acts as a moderator in the indirect effect of employee-oriented CSR on UPB via PIS. Specifically, the mediator role of PIS is stronger when the perception of ethical climate rules is low than when it is high.
Based on the above theoretical analysis, this study establishes the following research model, as shown in Figure 1.

3. Research Method

3.1. Sample and Procedure

The study used quantitative methods to verify hypotheses and contacted several manufacturing companies to identify respondents. Managers from 10 companies agreed to send questionnaires to some of their employees. These companies included three instrumentation companies, three automotive companies, and four food companies; these manufacturing companies were applying for special subsidies from the state for manufacturing upgrade enterprises. We collected the independent, mediating, moderating, and dependent variables at different time points in order to reduce the common method biases. We distributed a total of 500 questionnaires and received 298 valid responses over 2 months. Out of the 298 responses, 85 came from instrumentation companies, 82 came from automotive companies, and 131 came from food companies. In total, 74.5% of the respondents were male, 73.8% were under 35 years, 59.7% were general staff, and 77.2% had worked in the company for more than one year. The descriptive statistics are shown in Table 1. The Likert seven-point scale was used to compile the questionnaire, all questions the employee answered were rated from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree), with the exceptions of gender (1 = male, 2 = female), age (1 = under 25 years, 2 = 25–35 years, 3 = 35–45 years, 4 = above 45 years), working years (1 = 1–3, 2 = 3–5, 3 = 5–10, 4 = 10 and above), and work position (1 = general staff, 2 = skilled worker, 3 = grassroots management, 4 = middle management and above).

3.2. Measures

The study measured employee-oriented CSR based on the scale developed by Turker (2009) [1]. Five aspects of employees’ physical and mental health and career development from the perceived CSR policies were measured. PIS was measured using the scale adapted from Hui, Lee, and Wang (2015) [49]. The six items from the scale mainly measure employees’ perception of their organizational legitimate member status. Ethical climate rules were measured according to an adaptation of the scale developed by Victor and Cullen (2008) [46]. The four items from the scale mainly measure the degree of the organization’s laws and regulations perceived by employees. UPB was measured according to an adaptation of the scales developed by Fehr et al. (2010) [50]. The six items from the scales mainly measure the degree of beneficial but unethical behavior that employees may engage in. All measured items are shown in Appendix A, Table A1. As demographic characteristics may partly explain differences in conducting unethical behavior, which may affect our hypothesized relationship [16], we introduced gender, age, working years, and working position of employees into our analysis model as control variables.

4. Data Analysis and Results

4.1. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations

Table 2 shows the descriptive statistics, reliabilities, correlations, and the square root of the average variance extracted (AVE) for all variables in our study. The results of the correlation show that employee-oriented CSR was positively associated with PIS (r = 0.53, p < 0.01), providing preliminary evidence for Hypothesis 1. Furthermore, PIS was positively related to UPB (r = 0.50, p < 0.01), providing preliminary evidence for our Hypothesis 2.

4.2. Measurement Model

We used principal component analysis with SPSS 20.0 (IBM, Chicago, USA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with AMOS 23.0 (IBM, Chicago, USA) to test the reliability and validity of the scale. Reliability was mainly tested by Cronbach’s α and composite reliability (CR). Cronbach’s α was used to measure the reliability of the latent variables in the model, and CR was used to measure the internal consistency between the measures of the variables. In our results (see Table 3), the Cronbach’s α and CR of the construct were both higher than the recommended threshold 0.7, thus indicating that these measures have good reliabilities [44].
Validity was examined in terms of the convergent validity and discriminant validity of the scale. Convergent validity was measured by the correlations between the factor cross-loadings and the AVE of each variable. The cross-loadings between latent variables and measurement indicators in this study were all above 0.50 (see Table 3), and the AVE of all variables was higher than 0.62, which implied a good convergent validity. Discriminant validity was measured by comparison of the factor cross-loadings and the square root of the AVE of each variable. The loadings of the measurement indicators on the corresponding latent variables were all higher than the loadings on other variables (the rotating component matrix is shown in Appendix A, Table A2.), which shows that the scale had good discriminant validity. In addition, the square root of the AVE of each variable (Shown in Table 2) was greater than its correlation coefficient with other variables, which once again shows the good discriminant validity of the scale in this study.
Finally, since the sample came from a single source, Harman’s single factor test was conducted to examine common method bias. The most significant factor of the five factors extracted from the data accounted for only 36.854%, which suggested that the overall variance was not affected by one single factor, and therefore that our results were likely not affected by common method bias [51].

5. Hypothesis Testing

5.1. Test of Mediation

We tested the hypotheses with the mixed model analysis developed by Preacher and Hayes (2004) [52] using the PROCESS SPSS tool. Hypotheses 1–3 suggested that the relationship between employee-oriented CSR and UPB would be transmitted by PIS. We first regressed UPB on employee-oriented CSR and then regressed perceived insider status on employee-oriented CSR. Subsequently, we regressed UPB on perceived insider status by controlling for the effect of employee-oriented CSR, and, finally, regressed UPB on employee-oriented CSR by controlling for PIS. Table 4 shows the results of Hypothesis 1–3. As Hypothesis 1 predicted, employee perception of an organization’s employee-oriented CSR was positively associated with PIS (B = 0.43, SE = 0.03, t = 10.81, p < 0.001). As Hypothesis 2 predicted, PIS was positively associated with UPB (B = 0.29, SE = 0.05, t = 5.05, p < 0.001), and as Hypothesis 3 predicted, employee-oriented CSR had a significant indirect effect on UPB (through PIS). The Sobel test showed that the mediated effect is significant (Z = 4.56, SE = 0.02, p < 0.05). Furthermore, the bootstrap 95% confidence intervals for PIS (0.07 to 0.19) did not contain zero. In conclusion, these results supported Hypothesis 1–3. The impression that CSR can bring positive results to organizations is deeply ingrained. Therefore, researchers generally do not believe that CSR has a dark side, just as they have never believed that the positive organizational strategy (such as high-performance work systems [53]) and leadership (such as moral leadership [54] and benevolent leadership [32]) can induce employees’ UPB. Nonetheless, this research once again confirms that positive organizational strategies also can result in employees’ UPB through a variety of employees’ positive emotions towards the organization, such as trust [4], identification [2], and perceived insider status.

5.2. The Moderated Mediation Test

Hypothesis 4 proposed that the positive link between PIS and UPB would be weaker when perception of ethical climate rules was high rather than low. The data analysis results are shown in Table 5, indicating that the interaction of PIS and ethical climate rules perception upon UPB was significant (B = −0.11, SE = 0.04, t = −2.46, p < 0.001).
The results of the moderated mediation (Hypothesis 5) are shown in the lower part of Table 4. They showed that, at low perceptions of ethical climate rules, the indirect link between employee-oriented CSR and UPB (through PIS) was significant (B = 0.14, p < 0.01), and the bootstrap 95% confidence interval did not contain zero (0.08 to 0.22). At high perception of ethical climate rules, the indirect link between employee-oriented CSR and UPB was not significant (through PIS, B = 0.05, p > 0.05). The bootstrap 95% confidence interval contained zero (−0.01 to 0.12). The results revealed that PIS mediates the positive link between employee-oriented CSR and UPB only when an employee’s perception of the ethical climate rules is low (rather than high). In other words, when an employee’s perception of the ethical climate rules is high, the indirect link between employee-oriented CSR and UPB is not significant. Thus, Hypothesis 5 was verified. UPB has adverse effects on both employees and organizations. Therefore, researchers have paid increasing attention to determining how to suppress the occurrence of UPB. Existing studies have showed that organizational punishment [25], responsible leadership [26], and organizational climate [27] can prevent and suppress UPB. The confirmation of the negative moderating role of ethical climate rules adds weight to organizational attempts to prevent and suppress UPB.

6. Discussion

As a widely adopted organizational strategy, CSR usually brings positive results to the organization. However, existing research has ignored the possible risks of CSR. This study explored the possible risks of employee-oriented CSR, that is, the impact of employee-oriented CSR on UPB, from the perspective of social identity. To achieve our goal, based on social identity theory, we developed a moderated mediation model to explore why and when employee-oriented CSR affects employees’ UPB and proposed five hypotheses to help us test the model. The statistical results showed that employee-oriented CSR indirectly (through PIS) affects UPB, supporting Hypothesis 3. This is consistent with previous research. Positive organizational strategies can also lead employees to engage in UPB. For example, Xu and Lv (2018) pointed out that high-performance work systems can also lead to UPB of employees [53]. This study further explored how ethical climate rules influence the occurrence of UPB. The results showed that the perception of ethical climate rules acts as a negative moderator in the link between PIS and UPB. When employees perceive the ethical climate rules at a high level, the lower the influence of perceived insider status on UPB, and vice versa, thereby supporting Hypothesis 4. Hypothesis 5 further revealed that the indirect link between employee-oriented CSR and UPB through PIS is less significant when employees have a low perception of ethical climate rules. This study has produced some theoretical and practical implications.

6.1. Theoretical Implications

This study has the following theoretical implications. First, it combines CSR with UPB, explores the potential risks that CSR may bring to enterprises, provides different understandings of the impact of CSR, promotes the development of micro-CSR, and enriches the literature of CSR. CSR is related to the interests of society, the natural environment, future generations, customers, government, non-governmental organizations, and employees [1]. Among them, employee-oriented CSR is employee-centered, which can best reflect the interests of employees, and provides benefits and preferential treatment to internal employees [1]. The purpose of CSR is mainly to deal with the contradiction between the economy and the environment. With the deepening of CSR research and the confirmation of the important role of employees in organizational development, the focus of researchers has gradually shifted to employee-oriented CSR; however, maximizing the support of employees for the enterprise may bring risks to the enterprise. Drawing on current research on the antecedents of UPB, such as high-performance work systems [53], moral leadership [54], and benevolent leadership [31], the logic of the influence of these factors on CSR focuses on employees’ positive emotions toward the organization or leader, such as organizational identification [18], positive reciprocity belief [16], and trust [4]. When the focus of CSR is on employees, that is, employee-oriented CSR, it is a positive organizational human resources strategy and positive leadership strategy that prompts employees to have positive emotions towards the organization, which creates opportunities and conditions for employees to participate in UPB. Our results confirm this indirect influence of employee-oriented CSR on UPB. Our study challenges current mainstream research findings that CSR brings only positive effects to organizations, and promotes a more balanced understanding of CSR.
Second, this study enriches the research on the possible antecedents of UPB by confirming the indirect impact of employee-oriented CSR on UPB, deepens the understanding of the mechanism of UPB by confirming the mediating role of perceived insider status in the relationship between employee-oriented CSR and UPB, and enriches the literature on UPB. The results provide additional evidence that employees’ motivation for engaging in UPB is different from the motivation to participate in unethical behavior for their own self-interest. In the framework of social identity theory, UPB is mainly rooted in employees’ identification with the organization, which in turn stimulates employees’ positive emotions towards the organization, thereby promoting the occurrence of UPB. Employee-oriented CSR provides employees with benefits and preferential treatment, creates conditions that inspire employees to identify with the organization, promotes employees’ positive emotions and attitudes to the organization, such as employee’s perceived insider status, and makes employees willing to put the interests of the organization before their own, such as engage in UPB if it seems beneficial to the organization [47].
Finally, this study indicates that ethical climate rules perception is a vital moderator in the link of PIS and UPB, and can restrain employees’ unethical behavior. Previous studies have revealed some contextual and individual factors that influence UPB, such as workplace spirituality, transformational leadership, Machiavellianism, and moral identification [16]. The results of this study enrich this stream of research by identifying that ethical climate rules perception is an important contextual factor that can moderate the link between PIS and employee UPB. The moderating effect of ethical climate rules perception on the indirect link between employee-oriented CSR and UPB via perceived insider status promotes the understanding of UPB within an interactionist view, that is, demonstrating the joint influences of context (CSR and ethical climate) and person (PIS) on UPB. In any case, ethical climate rules prevent and inhibit UPB, which is conducive to promoting the healthy and sustainable development of organizations.

6.2. Practical Implications

First, organizational policymakers and managers should understand the mechanism by which CSR induces UPB of employees. Previous research has shown that environmentally-oriented CSR may conflict with the interests of employees, resulting in employees being reluctant to engage in environmental behaviors. However, the effect of employee-oriented CSR on employee behavior is the opposite. Employee-oriented CSR provides a guarantee for the interests of employees, and as a result, employees are willing to engage in activities outside their roles for the benefit of the organization, including UPB, which shows that different stakeholders-oriented CSR has different effects on employee behavior. Therefore, organizational policymakers and managers should be aware of this problem, and should balance the interests of all corporate stakeholders and employees when formulating CSR strategies, mobilize employees’ enthusiasm as much as possible, and appropriately maintain awe of the organization.
Second, leaders must attach importance to the construction of organizational culture. In the cultural framework of collectivism, organizational interests exceed personal interests, and individuals can obtain satisfaction from organizational or group achievements, but rules and order are the basis for ensuring long-term organizational achievements. UPB may seem to be beneficial to the organization, but in the long run, it harms both the interests of the organization and the employee’s personal interests and should be stopped. A healthy organizational culture should be established, and organizational rules and climate should be established to improve the ability of employees to identify behaviors that are beneficial or unfavorable to the organization. Warrick (2017) pointed out that the leadership strategy, practice, values, and leadership style of leaders are the main reflections of organizational culture [55]. Therefore, organizational leaders should become role models for employees, and organize employees to learn relevant laws, industry norms, and organizational systems, to promote the establishment of a culture of respecting rules and order to prevent UPB. Specific examples might include incorporating the relevant social core values, ethics, laws, and appropriate standards of behavior into the organization’s regulatory order, incorporating an organization’s rules into the employee’s day-to-day behavioral framework, and establishing a strict and reasonable reward and punishment mechanism, these have proved effective methods to prevent unethical behavior [56].
Finally, direct supervisors have a vital effect on employees’ ethical behavior [57]. They can take steps to guarantee the organization’s core values, and ensure that regulatory orders are implemented, thereby effectively reducing employees’ UPB. For example, middle managers can use gainful expressions to avoid triggering additional UPB [58]. This approach can strengthen the communication of their ethical values and reduce unethical behavior among their subordinates through words and deeds [59].

7. Limitations and Future Research

Although our research makes some theoretical contributions, it has certain limitations. First, this is empirical research. Future research should try to use other research methods to verify the model again, such as case studies, grounded research methods, experimental research methods, and other qualitative research methods, or try to combine qualitative and quantitative research methods to verify the stability of the results. Second, the data came from small manufacturing companies, which may limit the universality of the findings. Therefore, although the research model has a solid theoretical foundation and has been validated with reliable survey tools and data, managers in other industries should use our research results more carefully and researchers should study UPB using data from different types of companies in the future. Finally, the stakeholders of CSR are numerous. Further research on the effect of CSR focused on other stakeholders, such as the government and customers, on the organization, may provide a different perspective on the role of CSR.

8. Conclusions

This study used a questionnaire survey method to empirically confirm that employee-oriented CSR has a positive effect on UPB, and that employee-oriented CSR can indirectly affect UPB through perceived insider status. This study also found that the stronger the employee’s perception of the organization’s ethical climate rules, the weaker the effect of perceived insider status on UPB, and that the indirect impact of employee-oriented CSR on UPB through perceived insider status is also weaker. These results extend the impact of CSR and the possible antecedents of UPB through social identity theory, and also identify possible inhibitors of UPB. Considering the importance of employee-oriented CSR on UPB, organizations should balance CSR to relevant stakeholders while shaping strong ethical climate rules to reduce the occurrence of UPB and promote the sustainable development of the organization.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Y.Z.; data curation, C.Y.; formal analysis, L.L.; funding acquisition, Y.Z.; methodology, L.L.; project administration, Y.Z.; writing—original draft, C.Y. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

We acknowledge financial support from the Major Projects of the National Social Science Foundation of China (16ZDA013) and the Humanities and Social Sciences of the Ministry of Education Planning Fund (18YJA630149).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethical review and approval were waived for this study, due to the study being conducted in compliance with the ethical guidelines of the local and manufacturing companies where the data were collected. According to national legislation and institutional requirements, this study does not require written informed consent for participation.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data will be made available upon request to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors state that there is no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Table
Table A1. The measurement items.
Table A1. The measurement items.
ConstructIndicatorsSource
Employee-oriented CSROur company policies encourage the employees to develop their skills and careers.Turker (2009) [1]
The management of our company is primarily concerned with employees’ needs and wants.
Our company implements flexible policies to provide a good work & life balance for its employees.
The managerial decisions related to the employees are usually fair.
Our company supports employees who want to acquire additional education.
Perceived insider statusI feel very much a part of my work organization.Hui, Lee, and Wang (2015) [49]
My work organization makes me believe that I am included in it.
I feel like I am an “outsider” from my work organization. (R)
I don’t feel included in this organization. (R)
I feel I am an “insider” in my work organization.
My work organization makes me frequently feel “left-out”. (R)
Ethical climate rulesIt is very important to follow the company’s rules and procedures here.Victor and Cullen (2008) [46]
Everyone is expected to stick to company rules and procedures.
Successful people in this company go by the book.
People in this company strictly obey the company policies.
Unethical pro-organizational behaviorI will misrepresent the truth to make our company look good.Fehr et al. (2010) [50]
I will exaggerate the truth about our company to help the company.
I will withhold negative information about our company to benefit the company.
I will downplay a mistake made by the company to avoid damaging the company’s image.
I will engage in “questionable” behavior to benefit the company.
I will conceal information from the public that could be damaging to our company.
Table
Table A2. Rotating component matrix.
Table A2. Rotating component matrix.
Factor 1234
CSR10.7470.2250.1460.282
CSR20.8280.0730.0620.313
CSR30.6940.2190.0650.207
CSR40.7830.2040.0180.249
CSR50.8240.1830.0010.139
PIS10.1490.8090.1210.013
PIS20.0540.6800.0400.241
PIS30.2400.7120.0260.231
PIS40.1640.5880.0480.210
PIS50.0990.7190.0480.164
PIS60.2420.6620.2760.107
RL10.1260.0670.8680.035
RL2−0.0510.1500.803−0.029
RL30.071−0.0050.8150.194
RL40.0620.1650.7240.170
UPB10.3340.1890.0550.757
UPB20.2360.2330.1320.801
UPB30.2390.1760.1100.775
UPB40.1670.1320.1390.823
UPB50.1620.2430.1330.802
UPB60.1790.118−0.0210.676
Note: (1) Extraction method: Main component. (2) Rotation method: Orthogonal rotation method with Kaiser standardization. (3) CSR: employee-oriented CSR; PIS: perceived insider status; RL: ethical climate rules; UPB: unethical pro-organizational behavior. (3) The bold data are the load of the factors respectively.

References

  1. Turker, D. How Corporate Social Responsibility Influences Organizational Commitment. J. Bus. Ethics 2008, 89, 189–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Brammer, S.; He, H.; Mellahi, K. Corporate social responsibility, employee organizational identification, and creative effort: The moderating impact of corporate ability. Group Organ. Manag. 2015, 40, 323–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Mao, Y.; He, J.; Morrison, A.M.; Coca-Stefaniak, J.A. Effects of tourism CSR on employee psychological capital in the COVID-19 crisis: From the perspective of conservation of resources theory. Curr. Issues Tour. 2020, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Hansen, S.D.; Dunford, B.B.; Boss, A.D.; Boss, R.W.; Angermeier, I. Corporate Social Responsibility and the Benefits of Employee Trust: A Cross-Disciplinary Perspective. J. Bus. Ethics 2011, 102, 29–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Barakat, S.R.; Isabella, G.; Boaventura, J.M.G.; Mazzon, J. The influence of corporate social responsibility on employee satisfaction. Manag. Decis. 2016, 54, 2325–2339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Gao, Y.; He, W. Corporate social responsibility and employee organizational citizenship behavior. Manag. Decis. 2017, 55, 294–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Ko, S.-H.; Moon, T.-W.; Hur, W.-M. Bridging Service Employees’ Perceptions of CSR and Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Moderated Mediation Effects of Personal Traits. Curr. Psychol. 2018, 37, 816–831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Bozkurt, S.; Bal, Y. Investigation of the relationship between corporate social responsibility and organizational citizenship behavior: A research. Int. J. Innov. Bus. 2012, 1, 40. [Google Scholar]
  9. Newman, A.; Nielsen, I.; Miao, Q. The impact of employee perceptions of organizational corporate social responsibility practices on job performance and organizational citizenship behavior: Evidence from the Chinese private sector. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2014, 26, 1226–1242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Luu, T.T. CSR and organizational citizenship behavior for the environment in hotel industry. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2017, 29, 2867–2900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Rasool, I.; Rajput, A. The Impact of Perceived Internal Corporate Social Responsibility on Organizational Citizenship Behavior: A Micro-Perspective Analysis. Bus. Econ. Rev. 2017, 9, 181–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Tian, Q.; Robertson, J.L. How and When Does Perceived CSR Affect Employees’ Engagement in Voluntary Pro-environmental Behavior? J. Bus. Ethics 2017, 155, 399–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Farid, T.; Iqbal, S.; Ma, J.; Castro-González, S.; Khattak, A.; Khan, M.K. Employees’ Perceptions of CSR, Work Engagement, and Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Mediating Effects of Organizational Justice. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 1731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Ong, M.; Mayer, D.M.; Tost, L.P.; Wellman, N. When corporate social responsibility motivates employee citizenship behavior: The sensitizing role of task significance. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 2018, 144, 44–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Suganthi, L. Examining the relationship between corporate social responsibility, performance, employees’ pro-environmental behavior at work with green practices as mediator. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 232, 739–750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Umphress, E.E.; Bingham, J.B. When Employees Do Bad Things for Good Reasons: Examining Unethical Pro-Organizational Behaviors. Organ. Sci. 2011, 22, 621–640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Lee, A.; Schwarz, G.; Newman, A.; Legood, A. Investigating When and Why Psychological Entitlement Predicts Unethical Pro-organizational Behavior. J. Bus. Ethics 2019, 154, 109–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Chen, M.; Chen, C.C.; Sheldon, O.J. Relaxing moral reasoning to win: How organizational identification relates to unethical pro-organizational behavior. J. Appl. Psychol. 2016, 101, 1082–1096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Grabowski, D.; Chudzicka-Czupała, A.; Chrupała-Pniak, M.; Mello, A.L.; Paruzel-Czachura, M. Work ethic and organizational commitment as conditions of unethical pro-organizational behavior: Do engaged workers break the ethical rules? Int. J. Sel. Assess. 2019, 27, 193–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Lee, J.; Oh, S.-H.; Park, S. Effects of Organizational Embeddedness on Unethical Pro-organizational Behavior: Roles of Perceived Status and Ethical Leadership. J. Bus. Ethics 2020, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Dou, K.; Chen, Y.; Lu, J.; Li, J.; Wang, Y. Why and when does job satisfaction promote unethical pro-organizational behaviours? Testing a moderated mediation model. Int. J. Psychol. 2019, 54, 766–774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Shen, J.; Zhang, H. Socially Responsible Human Resource Management and Employee Support for External CSR: Roles of Organizational CSR Climate and Perceived CSR Directed Toward Employees. J. Bus. Ethics 2017, 156, 875–888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Ashforth, B.E.; Mael, F. Social identity theory and the organization. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1989, 14, 20–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Lin, Y.; Cheng, K. Differential Leadership and Employees’ Unethical Pro-organizational Behavior: A Perspective of Insider and Outsider. Manag. Sci. 2017, 3, 35–50. [Google Scholar]
  25. Yan, H.; Hu, X.; Wu, C.-H. When and how can organizational punishment stop unethical pro-organizational behaviors in hospitality? Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2021, 94, 102811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Inam, A.; Ho, J.A.; Ng, S.I.; Mohamed, R. Inhibiting unethical pro-organizational behavior: Harnessing the effects of responsible leadership and leader–member exchange. Int. J. Manpow. 2021. ahead-of-print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Burnett, E.A. Bad Behavior with Good Intentions: The Role of Organizational Climate in Unethical Pro-Organizational Behavior. Master’s Thesis, Clemson University, Clemson, SC, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  28. Lee, S.H.; Ha-Brookshire, J. The effect of ethical climate and employees’ organizational citizenship behavior on U.S. fashion retail organizations’ sustainability performance. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2018, 25, 939–947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Barnett, T.; Vaicys, C. The Moderating Effect of Individuals’ Perceptions of Ethical Work Climate on Ethical Judgments and Behavioral Intentions. J. Bus. Ethics 2000, 27, 351–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Chattopahyay, P.; George, E. Examining the effects of work externalization through the lens of social identity theory. J. Appl. Psychol. 2001, 86, 781–788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Shaw, K.-H.; Liao, H.-Y. Does Benevolent Leadership Promote Follower Unethical Pro-Organizational Behavior? A Social Identity Perspective. J. Leadersh. Organ. Stud. 2021, 28, 31–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Pfeffer, J. Building sustainable organizations: The human factor. Acad. Manage. Perspect. 2010, 24, 34–45. [Google Scholar]
  33. Gharleghi, B.; Jahanshahi, A.A.; Nawaser, K. The Outcomes of Corporate Social Responsibility to Employees: Empirical Evidence from a Developing Country. Sustainability 2018, 10, 698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Choi, J.; Kim, A.; Han, K.; Ryu, S.; Park, J.G.; Kwon, B. Antecedents and consequences of satisfaction with work-family balance: A moderating role of perceived insider status. J. Organ. Behav. 2018, 39, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Kim, A.; Moon, J.; Shin, J. Justice perceptions, perceived insider status, and gossip at work: A social exchange perspective. J. Bus. Res. 2019, 97, 30–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Horng, J.-S.; Tsai, C.-Y.; Hu, D.-C.; Liu, C.-H. The Role of Perceived Insider Status in Employee Creativity: Developing and Testing a Mediation and Three-Way Interaction Model. Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res. 2016, 21, S53–S75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Effelsberg, D.; Solga, M. Transformational Leaders’ In-Group versus Out-Group Orientation: Testing the Link Between Leaders’ Organizational Identification, their Willingness to Engage in Unethical Pro-Organizational Behavior, and Follower-Perceived Transformational Leadership. J. Bus. Ethics 2015, 126, 581–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Stamper, C.L.; Dyne, L.V. Work status and organizational citizenship behavior: A field study of restaurant employees. J. Organ. Behav. Int. J. Ind. Occup. Organ. Psychol. Behav. 2001, 22, 517–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Cheng, K.; Wei, F.; Lin, Y. The trickle-down effect of responsible leadership on unethical pro-organizational behavior: The moderating role of leader-follower value congruence. J. Bus. Res. 2019, 102, 34–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Wang, J.; Kim, T.-Y. Proactive socialization behavior in China: The mediating role of perceived insider status and the moderating role of supervisors’ traditionality. J. Organ. Behav. 2013, 34, 389–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Ding, C.G.; Chang, Y.-W. Effects of task and work responsibilities idiosyncratic deals on perceived insider status and the moderating roles of perceived overall justice and coworker support. Rev. Manag. Sci. 2020, 14, 1341–1361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Knapp, J.R.; Smith, B.R.; Sprinkle, T.A. Clarifying the relational ties of organizational belonging: Understanding the roles of perceived insider status, psychological ownership, and organizational identification. J. Leadersh. Org. Stud. 2014, 21, 273–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. DiPietro, R.; Bufquin, D. Effects of work status congruence and perceived management concern for employees on turnover intentions in a fast casual restaurant chain. J. Hum. Resour. Hosp. Tour. 2017, 17, 38–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Wang, T.; Long, L.; Zhang, Y.; He, W. A Social Exchange Perspective of Employee–Organization Relationships and Employee Unethical Pro-organizational Behavior: The Moderating Role of Individual Moral Identity. J. Bus. Ethics 2019, 159, 473–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Liu, Y.; Zhao, S.; Li, R.; Zhou, L.; Tian, F. The relationship between organizational identification and internal whistle-blowing: The joint moderating effects of perceived ethical climate and proactive personality. Rev. Manag. Sci. 2016, 12, 113–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Victor, B.; Cullen, J.B. The Organizational Bases of Ethical Work Climates. Adm. Sci. Q. 1988, 33, 101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Shafer, W.E. Ethical Climate, Social Responsibility, and Earnings Management. J. Bus. Ethics 2013, 126, 43–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Zoghbi-Manrique-De-Lara, P.; Guerra-Báez, R. Exploring the Influence of Ethical Climate on Employee Compassion in the Hospitality Industry. J. Bus. Ethics 2014, 133, 605–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Hui, C.; Lee, C.; Wang, H. Organizational inducements and employee citizenship behavior: The mediating role of perceived insider status and the moderating role of collectivism. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2015, 54, 439–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Fehr, R.; Welsh, D.; Yam, K.C.; Baer, M.; Wei, W.; Vaulont, M. The role of moral decoupling in the causes and consequences of unethical pro-organizational behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 2019, 153, 27–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Aguirre-Urreta, M.I.; Hu, J. Detecting common method bias: Performance of the Harman’s single-factor test. ACM SIGMIS Database DATABASE Adv. Inf. Syst. 2019, 50, 45–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Preacher, K.J.; Hayes, A.F. SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behav. Res. Methods Instrum. Comput. 2004, 36, 717–731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  53. Xu, T.; Lv, Z. HPWS and unethical pro-organizational behavior: A moderated mediation model. J. Manag. Psychol. 2018, 33, 265–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Wang, Y.; Li, H. Moral Leadership and Unethical Pro-organizational Behavior: A Moderated Mediation Model. Front. Psychol. 2019, 10, 2640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  55. Warrick, D. What leaders need to know about organizational culture. Bus. Horizons 2017, 60, 395–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. MacLean, T.L.; Behnam, M. The Dangers of Decoupling: The Relationship between Compliance Programs, Legitimacy Perceptions, and Institutionalized Misconduct. Acad. Manag. J. 2010, 53, 1499–1520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Drake, B.H.; Meckler, M.; Stephens, D. Transitional Ethics: Responsibilities of Supervisors for Supporting Employee Development. J. Bus. Ethics 2002, 38, 141–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Graham, K.A.; Ziegert, J.C.; Capitano, J. The Effect of Leadership Style, Framing, and Promotion Regulatory Focus on Unethical Pro-Organizational Behavior. J. Bus. Ethics 2015, 126, 423–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Zhang, S. Workplace Spirituality and Unethical Pro-organizational Behavior: The Mediating Effect of Job Satisfaction. J. Bus. Ethics 2020, 161, 687–705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 13 06613 g001 550
Figure 1. The research model.
Figure 1. The research model.
Sustainability 13 06613 g001
Table
Table 1. Demographics of the research samples (n = 298).
Table 1. Demographics of the research samples (n = 298).
Demographic ProfileCategoriesFrequencyPercent (%)
GenderMale22274.5
Female7625.5
Age<2512240.9
25–359832.9
35–454414.8
>453411.4
Working years1–323077.2
3–56220.8
5–1062.0
>1000
Working positionGeneral staff17859.7
Skilled worker9832.9
Grassroots management20.7
Middle management and above206.7
Table
Table 2. Means, standard deviations, correlations, and AVE.
Table 2. Means, standard deviations, correlations, and AVE.
VariableMSD12345678
1. Gender1.250.43--------
2. Age 1.961.000.35 **-------
3. Years 1.240.470.244 **0.395 **------
4. Position 1.540.810.000.030.28 **-----
5. Employee-oriented CSR4.571.130.080.05−0.06−0.07(0.82)---
6. Perceived insider status4.410.910.01−0.06−0.09−0.080.53 **(0.78)--
7. Unethical pro-organizational behavior4.730.990.05−0.060.00−0.13 *0.58 **0.50 **(0.80)-
8. Ethical climate rules4.661.03−0.06−0.22 **−0.16 **−0.100.25 **0.40**0.29 **(0.81)
Note: * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01. The bold data are the square root of AVE.
Table
Table 3. The measurement model test.
Table 3. The measurement model test.
ConstructCross-LoadingCRCronbach’s αAVESquare Root of AVE
Employee-oriented CSR0.7470.860.9120.680.82
0.828
0.694
0.783
0.824
Perceived insider status0.8090.890.9080.620.78
0.680
0.712
0.588
0.719
0.662
Ethical climate rules0.8680.840.8840.660.81
0.803
0.815
0.724
Unethical pro-organizational behavior0.7570.920.9130.650.80
0.801
0.775
0.823
0.802
0.676
Table
Table 4. Mixed model results for simple mediation.
Table 4. Mixed model results for simple mediation.
VariableBSETPLL 95% CL to UL 95% CL
Direct and total effects-----
UPB regressed on employee-oriented CSR 0.510.0412.500.00(0.43 to 0.59)
Perceived insider status regressed on employee-oriented CSR 0.430.0310.810.00(0.35 to 0.51)
UPB regressed on perceived insider status, controlling for employee-oriented CSR 0.290.055.050.00(0.17 to 0.40)
UPB regressed on employee-oriented CSR, controlling for perceived insider status0.390.048.320.00(0.29 to 0.48)
ZSELL 95% CL to UL 95% CL
Bootstrap results for Sobel test
4.560.02(0.07 to 0.19)
Note: n = 298 employees. Unstandardized regression coefficients are reported. Bootstrap sample size = 1000. LL = lower limit; CI = confident interval; UL = upper limit.
Table
Table 5. Results of mixed model analysis for the conditional indirect effect.
Table 5. Results of mixed model analysis for the conditional indirect effect.
PredictorBSETPLL 95% CL to UL 95% CL
Simple moderation-----
-UPB----
Constant 4.570.2319.810.00(4.12 to 5.03)
Sex 0.160.121.320.18(−0.07 to 0.40)
Age −0.020.05−0.480.62(−0.14 to 0.08)
Education 0.170.081.990.04(0.00 to 0.35)
Position −0.080.07−1.120.26(−0.22 to 0.06)
Perceived insider status 0.470.058.040.00(0.35 to 0.59)
Ethical climate rules0.110.052.100.03(0.00 to 0.21)
Perceived insider status × ethical climate rules−0.110.04−2.460.01(−0.20 to −0.02)
Moderated mediation-----
-UPB----
Constant −0.670.88−0.760.44(−2.40 to 1.06)
Sex 0.110.111.050.29(−0.10 to −0.02)
Age −0.050.05−1.130.25(−0.15 to 0.04)
Education 0.170.072.180.02(0.01 to 0.33)
Position −0.060.06−1.010.31(−0.19 to 0.06)
Employee-oriented CSR0.380.048.340.00(0.29 to 0.47)
Perceived insider status0.730.193.760.00(0.34 to 1.11)
Conditional indirect at ethical climate rules BSELL 95% CLUL 95% CL
3.630.140.030.080.22
4.660.100.030.040.17
5.700.050.03−0.010.12
Note: n = 298 employees. Unstandardized regression coefficients are reported. Bootstrap sample size = 1000. LL = lower limit; CI = confident interval; UL = upper limit.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Yin, C.; Zhang, Y.; Lu, L. Employee-Oriented CSR and Unethical Pro-Organizational Behavior: The Role of Perceived Insider Status and Ethical Climate Rules. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6613. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13126613

AMA Style

Yin C, Zhang Y, Lu L. Employee-Oriented CSR and Unethical Pro-Organizational Behavior: The Role of Perceived Insider Status and Ethical Climate Rules. Sustainability. 2021; 13(12):6613. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13126613

Chicago/Turabian Style

Yin, Changqin, Yajun Zhang, and Lu Lu. 2021. "Employee-Oriented CSR and Unethical Pro-Organizational Behavior: The Role of Perceived Insider Status and Ethical Climate Rules" Sustainability 13, no. 12: 6613. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13126613

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop