Journal of Business Ethics (2010) 94:517–531  Springer 2009

DOI 10.1007/s10551-009-0279-6

Modeling Corporate Citizenship,

Organizational Trust, and Work
Engagement Based on Attachment Theory Chieh-Peng Lin

ABSTRACT. This study proposes a research model 2008). Based on the foregoing definition of work
based on attachment theory, which examines the role of engagement, it is important to note that work
corporate citizenship in the formation of organizational engagement is viewed as managing discretionary effort
trust and work engagement. In the model, work in which employees act in a way that furthers their
engagement is directly influenced by four dimensions of organization’s interests.
perceived corporate citizenship, including economic,
Work engagement involves the expression of the
legal, ethical, and discretionary citizenship, while work
engagement is also indirectly affected by perceived cor-
self through work and other employee-role activities.
porate citizenship through the mediation of organiza- Work engagement should be carefully cultivated since
tional trust. Empirical testing using a survey of personnel that disengagement brings serious problems such as
from 12 large firms confirms most of our hypothesized weak commitment (Fay and Luhrmann, 2004), dis-
effects. Finally, theoretical and managerial implications of trust (Chughtai and Buckley, 2008), high burnout
our findings are discussed. (González-Roma et al., 2006), and low performance
(Salanova et al., 2005). Thus, identifying those situa-
KEY WORDS: corporate citizenship, discretionary cit- tions that foster work engagement of employees is
izenship, ethical citizenship, organizational trust, work vital for the sustainability and growth of business
engagement organizations. Particularly, engagement can be seen as
harnessing organization members’ selves to their work
Introduction roles (Barkhuizen and Rothmann, 2006). The more
employees draw upon their selves to perform their
A recent growing interest in positive psychology roles, the better are their performances (Barkhuizen
emphasizing human strengths, optimal functioning, and Rothmann, 2006). In contrast, employees’ work
and well-being has led to the emergence of the concept disengagement that causes the uncoupling of their
of work engagement (Chughtai and Buckley, 2008). selves from their work roles can generate unnecessary
Work engagement is defined as a positive, fulfilling, organizational transaction costs from excessive mon-
work-related state of mind that is characterized by itoring and enforcement (Williamson, 1985). For that
vigor, dedication, and absorption (Schaufeli et al., reason, trust becomes critical to strengthen work
2006). First, vigor is featured with high levels of energy engagement and, consequently, lower such transac-
and mental resilience when individuals work (Bakker tion costs (e.g., Dyer and Chu, 2003; Fukuyama,
and Demerouti, 2008). Second, dedication refers to a 1995). Previous evidence indicates that employees are
strong identification with their work and encompasses more likely to engage in their work when they have
feelings of enthusiasm, inspiration, pride, and chal- developed a high level of organizational trust (e.g.,
lenge (Chughtai and Buckley, 2008). Third, absorp- Chughtai and Buckley, 2008). This study defines
tion encompasses being fully concentrated and happily organizational trust as employees’ willingness at being
engrossed in individuals’ work, in which time passes vulnerable to the actions of their organization, whose
quickly and individuals have difficulties with detach- behavior and actions they cannot control (e.g., Tan
ing themselves from work (Bakker and Demerouti, and Lim, 2009).
518 Chieh-Peng Lin

A potential issue for employees in their job career and profits. It is even asserted that firms compete for
is to be enthusiastic about and fully involved with socially responsible customers by explicitly linking
their work as shown via the social practices of their their social contribution to product sales (Baron,
work organization in corporate citizenship (Bakker 2001).
and Demerouti, 2008). Learning how work Despite many studies linking corporate citizenship
engagement is driven by the determinants related to to instrumental factors (e.g., performance, profit,
today’s social practices is essential due to dramatic and purchase) (e.g., Maxfield, 2008; Shen and
social changes in business communities. Chang, 2009), our current knowledge about how
Business communities increasingly prefer corpo- corporate citizenship impacts affective or relational
rate citizenship to be a set of meaningful social factors, particularly organizational trust and work
practices that are helpful for not only improving engagement, is somewhat insufficient. Indeed, work
their reputation in public, but also for winning the engagement that represents employees’ psychologi-
work engagement and trust of their employees. This cal attachment to their work assigned by their
is understandable, because work engagement and organization has been often ignored in corporate
organizational trust can be achieved through the citizenship literature. Thus, the purpose of this study
meaningfulness of work (Morrison et al., 2007). research is to examine the relationship between
A majority of research has explored numerous corporate citizenship, organizational trust, and work
determinants of work engagement from three major engagement so as to complement previous research
aspects: individuals (e.g., personality), their job (job in the area of CSR. A potential explanation for the
control), or inter-organizational characteristics relationship can be provided based on attachment
(e.g., social support). However, there still lacks an theory in which employees have intrinsic and
understanding about how work engagement and affective needs for a secure relationship with the
trust are driven by corporate citizenship, which are organization for which they work.
out of the scope of the above three aspects. Against Previous research indicates that attachment theory
such a backdrop, this study proposes a refined can be strongly used to explain various aspects of
operationalization of the corporate citizenship con- work behavior based on adult attachment types (e.g.,
structs and empirically links the constructs to work secure, anxious-preoccupied, and dismissive avoid-
engagement and trust. ant) (Hardy and Barkham, 1994). Based on attach-
Corporate citizenship – also known as corporate ment theory, corporate citizenship may be expected
social responsibility (CSR), corporate responsibility to contribute positively to the affection, attribution,
and responsible business – is a form of corporate retention, and motivation of employees, because the
self-regulation integrated into a business model (Wood, employees often show strong attachment manifes-
1991). Corporate citizenship is developing rapidly tations toward their organization regarding corporate
across a variety of popular initiatives, such as the citizenship. Drawing on attachment theory, this
financing of employees’ education, promoting ethics study postulates that the attachment manifestations
training programs, adopting environment-friendly such as employees’ engagement in organizational
policies, and sponsoring community events (Maignan work and their organizational trust are adaptive
and Ferrell, 2000). Examples of benefits from corporate responses to separation from a primary attachment
citizenship for a firm may result in the ability to charge a figure – someone who provides, for example, eco-
premium price for its product, obtaining a good busi- nomic and legal support (e.g., care and protection).
ness image or to attract investment. Overall, this study’s key research question is: ‘‘which
Most previous research tends to emphasize the dimensions of perceived corporate citizenship have
influence of corporate citizenship on instrumental or an influence on work engagement and organiza-
utilitarian factors such as business performance or a tional trust?’’ Understanding this question helps
consumer’s purchase (e.g., Becker-Olsen et al., management plan corporate citizenship activities
2006; Waddock and Graves, 1997). For instance, efficiently so as to facilitate employees’ organiza-
Siegel and Vitaliano (2007) emphasize how the tional trust and work engagement.
activity of corporate citizenship should be integrated This study differs from previous research in two
into a firm’s differentiation strategies to impact sales important ways. First, previous studies linking per-
 Modeling Corporate Citizenship, Organizational Trust, and Work Engagement 519

ceived corporate citizenship to trust or work and organizational trust, which is examined in this
engagement do not examine the various dimensions study based on attachment theory. Attachment the-
of such citizenship (i.e., economic, legal, ethical, and ory is recognized as a lifespan developmental theory
discretionary citizenship) (e.g., Brammer et al., relevant for understanding how certain affectional
2007). For that reason, this study evaluates corporate experiences impact emotional and physical well-being
citizenship based on its four dimensions, which is not only during childhood, but also throughout
relevant to how organizational members obtain a adulthood during their working profession as well
further understanding about the influence of these (Sable, 2008). The organization may often serve as the
four dimensions on work engagement according to attachment figure. In order for the relationship
attachment theory. This is important, because some between employees and their organization to evoke
researchers studying corporate citizenship have failed attachment dynamics, the relationship must involve
to take its multi-dimensional nature into account some types of affectional bond (e.g., corporate citi-
(De los Salmones et al., 2005). Second, this study is a zenship) (e.g., Keller and Cacioppe, 2001).
pioneer in examining the mediating role of organi- Attachment theory is based on the premise that
zational trust (i.e., a partial mediator) in the rela- human beings, like many other animals, have a
tionship between different dimensions of corporate natural inclination to make and maintain lasting
citizenship and work engagement. That is, corporate affectional bonds – or attachments – to familiar,
citizenship is expected to have direct effects on work irreplaceable organizations (Sable, 2008), and once
engagement and indirect effects on work engage- established the quality, security, and stability of the
ment via the mediation of organizational trust. ties are likely to lead to individuals’ belief and work
Although organizational trust as a mediating role behavior in the organization (e.g., Nelson and
across different organizational issues has been Quick, 1991) such as work engagement and orga-
somewhat discussed in previous research, none of nizational trust. In other words, given important ties
the previous research has considered organizational with their organization, employees’ work engage-
trust as a mediator in the relationship between cor- ment and organizational trust are likely influenced
porate citizenship and work engagement. Collec- by various dimensions of corporate citizenship
tively, by evaluating the main effect of corporate shown by the organization, as is introduced in detail
citizenship on work engagement and the mediating as follows.
effects of organizational trust in the work engage- Corporate citizenship consists of four dimensions
ment formation, a clear picture of how corporate refined from previous literature in terms of
citizenship actually influences work engagement can employees as stakeholders: (1) economic citizenship,
be significantly developed. referring to the firm’s obligation to bring utilitarian
benefits to various stakeholders (e.g., Zahra and
LaTour, 1987); (2) legal citizenship, referring to the
Theory and development of hypotheses firm’s obligation to fulfill its business mission within
the framework of legal requirements; (3) ethical
Corporate citizenship is a high-profile notion that citizenship, referring to the firm’s obligation to abide
has strategic significance to business firms. It also by moral rules defining proper behavior in society;
represents a firm’s activities and status related to the and (4) discretionary citizenship, referring to the
firm’s perceived societal and stakeholder obligations firm’s obligation to engage in activities that are not
(Luo and Bhattacharya, 2006). Some researchers mandated, not required by law, and not expected of
have studied the degree to which corporate citi- business in an ethical sense (Maignan and Ferrell,
zenship is applied in firms (Joyner and Payne, 2002), 2000). Note that although economic citizenship may
while others have tried to measure the relation contain the firm’s economic obligations to various
between social performance (i.e., corporate citizen- stakeholders (e.g., consumers, investors, employees,
ship) and employer attractiveness (Backhaus et al., etc.), this study focuses on the obligations directly
2002). However, none of previous studies have tried relevant to employees (e.g., training, education,
to clarify how different dimensions of corporate quality working environment, etc.) so that the
citizenship influence employees’ work engagement genuine influence of economic citizenship on
520 Chieh-Peng Lin

organizational trust and work engagement can be influence of perceived economic citizenship is de-
properly validated herein. rived as follows.
Examining different dimensions of corporate cit-
izenship is like opening up the black box of cor- H1: Perceived economic citizenship is positively
porate citizenship, because such citizenship does related to work engagement.
mean something, but not always the same thing, to H2: Perceived economic citizenship is positively
everybody (Turker, 2009). For example, whereas related to organizational trust.
economic citizenship regarding welfare or training Just as society has sanctioned the economic system by
has a monetary or utilitarian influence on employees, allowing business to assume the productive role as a
ethical citizenship regarding morals yields a psy- partial fulfillment of the ‘‘social contract,’’ it has also
chological or purely social impact on employees. laid down the ground rules, the regulations, and
Hence, it would be inappropriate for management law under which business is anticipated to operate
to only focus on ethical codes (while ignoring (Carroll, 1979). In attachment theory, secure attach-
financial incentives) if it is economic citizenship that ment and adaptive functioning (in which legal citi-
goes wrong. zenship is presented) may be promoted by an
The necessary and foremost social responsibility of organization which is appropriately responsive to its
a business is economic in nature, because the business employees’ attachment behavior, swaying both their
organization is the basic economic unit in our society positive and negative working emotions in their
(Carroll, 1979) that takes care of its employees or organizations (Sable, 2008). For example, in com-
other stakeholders (Maxfield, 2008; Turker, 2009). parison to insecurely attached individuals (caused by
As such, it has a responsibility to provide secure job illegal corporate citizenship), securely attached
opportunities, training, and career development employees (i.e., those who do not have to break the
while producing goods (or services) and selling them law when performing their job) show better job sat-
at a profit (Weyzig, 2009). Based on attachment isfaction, better work styles (e.g., who they work with
theory, with an economically secure base in rela- – alone, with others, or the number of people with
tionships, employees feel freer to explore new work whom they interact) that do not jeopardize their
experiences and job activities while being assured of a health or relationships with others, and fewer worries
comfortable and reassuring refuge to return to should about work performance and colleagues (Hardy and
this be needed (Sable, 2008), implying the potential Barkham, 1994), assuming the potential influence of
relationship between perceived economic citizenship perceived legal citizenship on work engagement.
and work engagement. Attachment-based research Society’s members expect a business to fulfill its
means that a characteristic of economically secure mission within the framework of legal requirements
attachment is the capacity to rely trustingly on the (Carroll, 1979), and thus employees’ work engage-
organization when the occasion demands it (e.g., ment and organizational trust can be positively
Bowlby, 1973), suggesting the influence of perceived driven under circumstances of fulfilled legal citi-
economic citizenship on organizational trust. zenship by their organization (e.g., Becker, 1998).
The basic work engagement and organizational On the contrary, if the organization engages in
trust of employees can be initially driven when their illegal behavior and breaks the law, then it would
firm is able to demonstrate economic citizenship by obviously strengthen employees’ feelings of suspi-
providing their basic work and life quality. First, cion, anxiety, and insecurity, resulting in disen-
employees will be more absorbed in their work after gagement from work (Chughtai and Buckley, 2007)
they perceive their organization is performing social and low organizational trust. Thus, the hypotheses
responsibility economically for the good of the are derived as follows.
employees. Second, employees’ trust toward their
organization is likely boosted when their satisfaction H3: Perceived legal citizenship is positively related
about economic offers in the job context (e.g., to work engagement.
payoff or promotion) is obtained (e.g., Williams, H4: Perceived legal citizenship is positively related
2005). Collectively, the hypotheses about the to organizational trust.
 Modeling Corporate Citizenship, Organizational Trust, and Work Engagement 521

Ethical corporate responsibilities of a firm represent establishing partnerships with non-profit organiza-
behaviors and activities that are not necessarily tions, preserving environmental resources, or caring
codified into law, but nevertheless are anticipated for social welfare. These actions when presented by an
from a business by society’s members and a firm’s organization help increase its credits and reliability
employees (Carroll, 1979). Employees’ perceptions that uplift its employees’ organizational trust.
about their firm’s ethics and social responsiveness Research evidence shows that employees are
play a significant role in motivating employees to highly concerned about the values of the firm and
engage with their work and foster their organiza- inter alia its socially responsible behavior beyond the
tional trust. When employees perceive that their requirement by law (Brammer and Millington,
firm conducts business in accordance with morality 2003). A survey finds that more than half of the UK
and ethics beyond the basic legal requirements, they employees care very much about the social and
are positively stimulated by the firm and its assigned environmental responsibilities of their work organi-
work, leading to a positive relationship between zation (Dawkins, 2004). Indeed, attachment theory
ethical citizenship and work engagement. helps explain the self-fulfilling nature of employees’
Attachment theory’s basic proposition is expectations on leadership or their organization
that attachment needs (an emotional bond based on (Keller and Cacioppe, 2001), and so employees’ work
care-seeking and care-giving behavior) are primary, engagement and organizational trust likely increase
and when they are sufficiently met, then an explora- with the realization of their expected discretionary
tion of the environment occurs (Hardy and Barkham, citizenship. More specifically, given that work
1994). Thus, when employees experience their engagement is seen as managing discretionary effort in
organization (i.e., caregiver) as being responsive to which employees will act in a way that furthers their
ethical citizenship, their work engagement is likely organization’s interests, when the discretionary citi-
stimulated based on the positive attachment with the zenship presented by the organization is perceived to
organization. Accordingly, ethical responsibility be good, employees naturally obtain full engagement
taken by firms refers to them being honest in their with their work. In summary, the hypotheses are
relationship with their own employees (De los provided as follows.
Salmones et al., 2005), and thus the employees are
likely to reciprocate with their strong trust toward the H7: Perceived discretionary citizenship is positively
organization. Hence, the hypotheses about the related to work engagement.
influence of perceived ethical citizenship are provided H8: Perceived discretionary citizenship is positively
as follows. related to organizational trust.

H5: Perceived ethical citizenship is positively Organizational trust (i.e., trust in an organization)
related to work engagement. involves employees’ willingness to be vulnerable to
H6: Perceived ethical citizenship is positively their organization’s actions or policies (Schoorman
related to organizational trust. et al., 2007). This willingness can be rendered only
when an organization clearly communicates its
Discretionary corporate responsibilities are those actions or policies with its employees through formal
about which society has no clear-cut message for and informal channels (Tan and Lim, 2009). There is
business, and such discretionary corporate responsi- no single factor which so thoroughly affects indi-
bilities are left to individual judgment and choice viduals’ behavior as does trust, because trust between
(Carroll, 1979). When employees observe that their firms and their employees is a highly critical ingre-
firm takes such responsibilities and reveals good vol- dient in the long-term stability of the firms and the
untary citizenship in a society, their psychological well-being of their employees (Tan and Tan, 2000).
confidence about the organization is likely boosted Whereas organizational trust represents individuals’
(e.g., Maerki, 2008), leading to a positive relationship confidence and expectations about the actions of
between perceived discretionary citizenship and their organizations, work engagement reflects their
organizational trust. Examples of discretionary actions subsequent involvement with and enthusiasm about
by firms can be making philanthropic donations, their work assigned by the organization, implying
522 Chieh-Peng Lin

the potential influence of the former on the latter. In Methods

other words, organizational trust positively affects
work engagement, which includes dedication, vigor, Subjects and procedures
and absorption, based on three reasons. First,
employees dedicate themselves to the organization as The research hypotheses described above were
long as they enjoy trusting relationships with the empirically tested using a survey of personnel from
organization (e.g., Gill, 2008). Second, organiza- 20 large firms of an industrial zone in northern
tional trust represents important core values that help Taiwan, including both traditional and high-tech
to keep employees creative and energetic (e.g., firms. Surveying our sample subjects across various
Simmons, 1990). Third, organizational trust is the firms is very appropriate and useful for empirically
means by which employees are absorbed and testing our hypotheses related to corporate citizen-
engaged in the continual improvement of everything ship, because different types of firms have a varying
the organization does (Townsend and Gebhardt, focus on the many dimensions of corporate citi-
2008). zenship. Of the 600 questionnaires distributed to the
It is crucial to note that while corporate citizen- subjects, 428 usable questionnaires were collected
ship is found to be related to organizational trust for a response rate of 71.33%.
(Lamberti and Lettieri, 2009), organizational trust is
confirmed to be a significant predictor of work
engagement (Chughtai and Buckley, 2008), sug-
gesting the mediating role of organizational trust Measures
between corporate citizenship and work engage-
ment. When an organization’s corporate citizenship The constructs in this study are measured using
is perceived to be low by its employees, distrust is 5-point Likert scales drawn and modified from
likely maximized in the organization and the work previous literature (De los Salmones et al., 2005;
engagement of employees is adversely affected. Maignan and Ferrell, 2000; Mayer and Davis, 1999;
Previous research indicates that organizational Schaufeli et al., 2006; Zahra and LaTour, 1987).
trust affects global job variables, such as organiza- Three steps are employed in choosing measurement
tional commitment, work engagement, and turn- items. First, the items from the existing literature are
over intention, which impact the entire organization translated into Chinese from English, and then the
(Chughtai and Buckley, 2007; Tan and Tan, 2000). items in Chinese were substantially modified by a
When employees trust that competent decisions can focus group of four people familiar with CSR,
be made by their organization, it increases their sense including three graduate students and one professor.
of a future with the organization (Spreitzer and Second, following the questionnaire design, we next
Mishra, 2002) and thus enhances their willingness to conducted two pilot tests (prior to the actual survey)
engage with their work (Chughtai and Buckley, to assess the quality of our measures and improve
2007). Organizational trust postulates that the item readability and clarify further if needed. Note
organization will deliver on its promises. Therefore, that the subjects in the pilot tests are working pro-
if employees realize that their organization has failed fessionals from the manufacturing and servicing
to fulfill its promised inducements (or policies), then industries and are also excluded from the subsequent
it results in a loss of organizational trust (Robinson, actual survey. The credence of the subjects is good,
1996), perhaps leading to work disengagement. because they volunteered to help fill out with our
Consequently, the hypothesis regarding the influ- questionnaire. Finally, tips of back-translation sug-
ence of organizational trust on work engagement gested by Reynolds et al. (1993) were used in
can be stated as follows. simultaneously examining an English version ques-
tionnaire as well as a Chinese one. A high degree of
H9: Organizational trust is positively related to correspondence between the two questionnaires
work engagement in which organizational (evaluated and confirmed via a qualitative assessment
trust is a partial mediator between work by our focus group) assures this research that the
engagement and its antecedents. translation process did not substantially introduce
 Modeling Corporate Citizenship, Organizational Trust, and Work Engagement 523

artificial translation biases in the Chinese version of Measurement model testing

our questionnaire.
Work engagement containing vigor, dedication, Confirmatory factor analysis was performed on all
and absorption is measured perceptually using six items corresponding to the six constructs measured
items drawn from Schaufeli et al. (2006). Among the in Likert-type scales. The goodness-of-fit of the
six items, vigor is measured with the first two items, CFA model was assessed using a variety of fit met-
and dedication is measured with the third and fourth rics, as shown in Table I. The root mean square
items. Absorption is measured with the last two residual (RMR) is smaller than 0.05 and the root
items. These items are found to be highly correlated mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) is
to one another and thus are used together for mea- smaller than 0.08. Whereas the goodness-of-fit index
suring work engagement (Chughtai and Buckley, (GFI) is slightly smaller than 0.90, the additional
2008). Organizational trust is measured using three indices including the comparative fit index (CFI),
items directly drawn from Mayer and Davis (1999). the non-normed fit index (NNFI), and the normed
Perceived economic citizenship from the aspect of fit index (NFI) all exceed 0.90. These figures suggest
employees’ benefits is measured using four items that the hypothesized CFA model in this study fits
modified from Zahra and LaTour (1987). Note these well within the empirical data.
items that focus on economic citizenship related to Three criteria recommended by Fornell and
employees herein are quite different from those in Larcker (1981) were examined to confirm the con-
previous studies focusing on customers’ benefits, vergent validity of the empirical data in this study.
market profits, etc. Perceived legal citizenship from First, as evident from the t statistics listed in Table I,
the aspect of law is measured using four items all factor loadings were statistically significant at
modified from Maignan and Ferrell (2000). Per- p < 0.001, which is the first requirement to assure
ceived ethical citizenship from the aspect of ethical convergent validity of the construct (Anderson and
business practices is measured using four items Gerbing, 1988). Second, the average variance
modified from Maignan and Ferrell (2000). Finally, extracted (AVE) for all constructs exceeded or
discretionary citizenship from the aspect of social equaled 0.50, indicating that the overall hypothe-
welfare and philanthropy is measured using two items sized items capture sufficient variance in the
re-worded from Maignan and Ferrell (2000) and underlying construct than that attributable to mea-
another two items re-worded from De los Salmones surement error (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Third,
et al. (2005). These items focus on discretionary is- the reliabilities for each construct exceeded 0.70,
sues related to stakeholders outside the firm rather satisfying the general requirement of reliability for
than its employees. Appendix lists all the measure- research instruments. Thus, the empirical data col-
ment items. lected by this study meet all three criteria required to
support convergent validity.
Discriminate validity was assessed by v2 difference
tests between an unconstrained model, where all
Data analysis constructs in our CFA model were allowed to
co-vary freely with constrained models and where
The survey data were analyzed using a two-step covariance between each pair of constructs is fixed at
structural equation modeling (SEM) approach one. The advantage of using this technique is the
proposed by Anderson and Gerbing (1988). While simultaneous pair-wise comparisons for the con-
the first step performs confirmatory factor analysis structs based on the Bonferroni method. By con-
(CFA) on all data collected to assess scale reliability trolling for the experiment-wise error rate by setting
and validity, the second step examines path effects the overall significance level to 0.01, the Bonferroni
and significances in the hypothesized structural method indicated that the critical value of the v2
model for purposes of testing the hypotheses. difference should be 11.58. Our v2 difference sta-
Empirical test results from each stage of analysis are tistics for all pairs of constructs in this study exceeded
presented next. this critical value of 11.58 (see Table II), thereby
524 Chieh-Peng Lin

TABLE I
Standardized loadings and reliabilities

Construct Indicators Standardized loading AVE Cronbach’s a

Work engagement WE1 0.83 (t = 20.63) 0.68 0.93

WE2 0.85 (t = 21.49)
WE3 0.85 (t = 21.74)
WE4 0.84 (t = 21.07)
WE5 0.76 (t = 18.17)
WE6 0.80 (t = 19.70)
Organizational trust TR1 0.80 (t = 18.65) 0.62 0.82
TR2 0.78 (t = 17.93)
TR3 0.78 (t = 18.13)
Perceived economics citizenship EC1 0.73 (t = 16.87) 0.61 0.86
EC2 0.78 (t = 18.39)
EC3 0.80 (t = 19.24)
EC4 0.82 (t = 19.87)
Perceived legal citizenship LE1 0.85 (t = 21.29) 0.73 0.90
LE2 0.86 (t = 21.81)
LE3 0.83 (t = 20.66)
LE4 0.87 (t = 22.15)
Perceived ethical citizenship ET1 0.82 (t = 19.98) 0.67 0.89
ET2 0.83 (t = 20.36)
ET3 0.81 (t = 19.90)
ET4 0.82 (t = 20.18)
Perceived discretionary citizenship DI1 0.72 (t = 16.67) 0.62 0.87
DI2 0.76 (t = 17.77)
DI3 0.81 (t = 19.60)
DI4 0.86 (t = 21.46)

Goodness-of-fit indices (N = 428): v2260 = 656.93 (p value < 0.001); NNFI = 0.94; NFI = 0.92; CFI = 0.95;
GFI = 0.89; RMR = 0.03; RMSEA = 0.06.

supporting discriminate validity for our data sample. Results

Collectively, the empirical test results in this study
indicate that research instruments used for measuring Seven out of our nine model paths were significant
the constructs of interest in this study are statistically at the p < 0.05 or p < 0.01 significance levels, and
adequate. these empirical test results show that only hypotheses
H4 and H5 are unsupported, while the other
hypotheses are fully supported in this study. Partic-
Structural model testing ularly, the direct and indirect effects presented in
Table IV support that organizational trust is a partial
The second step transforms the CFA model to a mediator between work engagement and its ante-
structural model that reflects the hypothesized asso- cedents. The insignificant relationship between
ciations described in our research model for purposes perceived legal citizenship and organizational trust
of testing the hypotheses. Table III presents the test (H4) indicates that the influence of other perceived
results of this analysis. Besides, Table IV presents citizenship (e.g., economic and ethical citizenship)
direct effects of our four antecedents on work potentially surpasses that of perceived legal citizen-
engagement and their indirect effects via the medi- ship on organizational trust. It may occur, because,
ation of organizational trust. for example, the economic issues (e.g., job career
 Modeling Corporate Citizenship, Organizational Trust, and Work Engagement 525

TABLE II insignificant relationship between perceived ethical

2
v difference tests for examining discriminate validity citizenship and work engagement (H5) implies that
ethical matters have little to do with individuals’
Construct pair v2261 ¼ 656:93 (Unconstrained model) pleasure and immersion about their job. Neverthe-
less, the unexpected results for the unsupported
v2261 (Constrained model) v2 Difference hypotheses may warrant further study so that the
(F1, F2) 859.80*** 202.87
insights behind the insignificant models paths can be
(F1, F3) 1044.61*** 387.68 interpreted accurately.
(F1, F4) 1405.72*** 748.79
(F1, F5) 1215.53*** 558.60
(F1, F6) 1056.00*** 399.07 Discussion
(F2, F3) 853.31*** 196.38
(F2, F4) 974.16*** 317.23 Implications for research
(F2, F5) 838.82*** 181.89
(F2, F6) 848.12*** 191.19 This research confirms some positive influences of
(F3, F4) 937.89*** 280.96 four dimensions of corporate citizenship on organi-
(F3, F5) 961.05*** 304.12 zational trust and work engagement, further com-
(F3, F6) 983.39*** 326.46
plementing previous research that empirically
(F4, F5) 1168.78*** 511.85
(F4, F6) 1098.69*** 441.76
considers corporate citizenship as purely a construct
(F5, F6) 860.53*** 203.60 (e.g., Brammer et al., 2007). Additionally, this study
is an important bridge between corporate citizenship
F1 Work engagement, F2 organizational trust, F3 per- and work engagement, because many previous
ceived economic citizenship, F4 perceived legal citizen- studies mostly link corporate citizenship to certain
ship, F5 perceived ethical citizenship, F6 perceived positive outcomes related to customers’ or financial
discretionary citizenship. profits (e.g., Becker-Olsen et al., 2006).
***Significant at the 0.001 overall significance level by
A unique finding that has not been found in any
using the Bonferroni method.
previous research is that perceived corporate citi-
zenship affects work engagement directly and indi-
TABLE III rectly via the mediation of organizational trust. The
Path coefficients and t value finding of this study is an extraordinary contribution
by showing a new direction for future research to
Hypothesis Standardized coefficient t Value explore more perceptional mediators (in addition to
organizational trust) better understand their various
H1: F3 fi F1 0.20* 2.53 impacts on the linkages between corporate citizen-
H2: F3 fi F2 0.36** 4.32 ship and work engagement. Particularly, future
H3: F4 fi F1 0.14* 2.14 research may include some potential mediators that
H4: F4 fi F2 -0.13 -1.79 have not been tested before, such as psychological
H5: F5 fi F1 -0.06 -0.75
contract, social identity, job satisfaction, etc. Previ-
H6: F5 fi F2 0.30** 3.47
ous research based on attachment theory never
H7: F6 fi F1 0.27** 3.52
H8: F6 fi F2 0.29** 3.50 examined how a firm’s corporate citizenship leads
H9: F2 fi F1 0.35** 4.95 to its employees’ organizational trust and work
engagement. Although it is well known that ‘‘action
*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01. speaks louder than words,’’ only a small percentage
Note: Both p < 0.05 and p < 0.01 are the most popular of business organizations truly care about the
and acceptable significance levels (Nelson, 1999). actions they have taken in corporate citizenship that
affects their employees’ trust and work engagement
development) that are always a main concern by (Knapp, 2007; Mathews, 2007).
individuals are likely to make other factors less sig- The empirical findings of this study (see Table IV)
nificant in terms of their organizational trust. The suggest that organizational trust is a partial mediator
526 Chieh-Peng Lin

TABLE IV
Direct and indirect effects of the four antecedents on work engagement

Path Indirect effects through Direct effects Total effects

organizational trust

F3 fi F1 0.13 (39%) 0.20 (61%) 0.33

F4 fi F1 0.00 (0%) 0.14 (100%) 0.14
F5 fi F1 0.11 (100%) 0.00 (0%) 0.11
F6 fi F1 0.10 (27%) 0.27 (73%) 0.37

F1 Work engagement, F2 organizational trust, F3 perceived economic citizenship, F4 = perceived legal citizenship, F5
perceived ethical citizenship, F6 perceived discretionary citizenship.

that affects work engagement but not vice versa. corporate citizenship are not examined separately,
This is theoretically justifiable because employees’ then management will have no idea which areas of
work engagement is unlikely fostered if they work corporate citizenship cause organizational distrust or
for their organization with distrust. Organizational work disengagement, let alone know where they
trust acting as a determinant of work engagement should put their resources. In fact, organizations that
rather than an outcome has been partially supported lack social responsibilities are unlikely to boost their
in previous literature (Chughtai and Buckley, 2009). employees’ work engagement in the long run
(Cartwright and Cooper, 2009; Grayson and
Hodges, 2004). Management should strive for the
Implications for practice goal of accomplishing all-around corporate citizen-
ship and also appropriately disseminate the firm’s
The test results show that work engagement can be vision on corporate citizenship through internal
directly improved by strengthening various perceived communication channels in order to ultimately
corporate citizenship such as economic, legal, and enhance their work engagement. Taking legal citi-
discretionary citizenship, suggesting ‘‘do as you would zenship for example, management may want to
be done by.’’ Note that work engagement cannot be avoid any opportunistic behavior that may hazard
arbitrarily obtained by an immediate decree of man- business legitimacy in order that corporate legal
agement, but rather it can be achieved after employees citizenship can be well perceived by the employees.
observe in depth their firm’s actions in different social Regarding the significant influence of corporate
perspectives (e.g., legal and ethical ones). citizenship on work engagement via the mediation
The view of multiple influencers (i.e., various of organizational trust, this study empirically indi-
dimensions of corporate citizenship) is quite differ- cates that organizational trust can be properly used as
ent from that of traditional literature purely focusing an important check-point for detecting work
on workplace conditions or rewards in affecting engagement in corporate citizenship. Management
work engagement without recognizing the necessity should know that employees are very sensitive to
of firms’ social responsibilities. Indeed, the given any confusion about corporate social activities in
definitions of the various dimensions of corporate which their organizational trust is weakened. For
citizenship are closely interrelated with the different example, once management has detected employees’
concepts and values of stakeholders (e.g., employees) low trust in the organization, management should
(Turker, 2009). By understanding the various further fortify corporate citizenship by transcribing
dimensions in depth, this study can help manage- business activities and verifying such activities as
ment tailor a variety of organizational policies or organizational core values to the employees in order
programs to individuals’ needs to consequently to win their trust.
strengthen their organizational trust and work The positive influence of perceived economic
engagement. For instance, if different dimensions of citizenship on both organizational trust and work
 Modeling Corporate Citizenship, Organizational Trust, and Work Engagement 527

engagement suggests the fundamental substantiality of psychologists suggest that national cultural differences
individuals’ economic needs as the first priority across may influence the perceived importance of corporate
all business issues. Despite the job opportunities citizenship among organizational members. More
provided by the organization, management should specifically, Hofstede (1980) and Hofstede and Bond
also bear in mind the interest of individuals’ career (1988) classify cultures based on five dimensions,
development and advancement when facilitating including individualism, uncertainty avoidance,
their organizational trust and work engagement. power distance, masculinity and Confucian dyna-
The positive influence of perceived discretionary mism. For example, Australians and Americans are
citizenship on both organizational trust and work higher on individualism and masculinity and lower on
engagement exhibits that discretionary citizenship uncertainty avoidance and power distance than peo-
helps employees’ morale and drives them to offer ple in Taiwan (e.g., Singhapakdi et al., 2001). Fur-
increased organizational trust and work engagement. thermore, previous research shows that core tenets of
This empirical finding is very unique and important attachment theory are rooted in mainstream Western
for understanding work engagement which is seldom thought in depth and require fundamental change
examined with an antecedent related to external dis- when applied to minority groups or other cultures
cretionary behavior (i.e., discretionary citizenship). (Rothbaum et al., 2000), suggesting that the empirical
findings of this study should be applied to other
countries with great caution.
Limitations of the study The third limitation herein is about the content of
our measurement items. Our survey asked employ-
This study contains three limitations related to the ees how they felt rather than how they performed.
measurements and interpretations of the results. The Thus, this study does not offer any direct evidence
first limitation is the possibility of common method about employees’ actions and performance. Even
bias, given that the predictors in the research model if we expect that ‘‘when the organization enthusi-
were measured perceptually at a single point in time. astically engages in corporate responsibility, its
In order to test for this bias, this study conducted the employees may be boosted to enthusiastically engage
single factor test of Harman (Podsakoff and Organ, in their own individual responsibility in doing their
1986). In this study, exploratory factor analysis of the work for the same,’’ we cannot prove it herein
measurement items for the five constructs in the without any further survey.
survey reveals the seven factors explaining 24.45, Finally, due to the research scope that focuses
17.52, 16.64, 15.27, 15.20, and 10.92% of the total on corporate citizenship, this study did not address
variance. These figures suggest that either a single other institutional variables, such as firm ownership,
factor emerges from the factor analysis or that a workplace cultures, working hours, organizational
general factor accounts for the majority of the sizes, organizational structure, organizational leader-
covariance in the independent and dependent vari- ship, profitability, etc. Specifically, a firm’s com-
ables, suggesting that potential common method bias pensation plans (i.e., economic corporate citizenship)
is not a threat herein for subsequent analysis. are related to firm ownership concentration, while
The second limitation of this study is its general- size and profitability have been also linked to cor-
izability, due to the highly delimited nature of the porate citizenship (Mahoney and Thorn, 2006),
subject sample in a single country setting. The infer- making firm ownership concentration, size, and
ences drawn from such a sample in Taiwan may not profitability be the three potential control variables
be fully generalizable to employees from other for future research. Future studies should attempt to
countries in quite a different national culture. Indeed, improve these shortcomings by including various
given that the ways to build organizational trust and control variables for further empirical tests and also by
the beliefs about corporate citizenship may somewhat observing research subjects over time so that the
vary under differing cultures, the applications based genuine influences of perceived corporate citizenship
on the empirical findings of this study to other on organizational trust and work engagement can be
countries should be used with caution. Cultural transparently revealed from a longitudinal aspect.
528 Chieh-Peng Lin

Conclusion comfortable allowing the firm to make decisions that

directly impact me, even in my absence; OT3.: Overall, I
The most important idea in this study is that there is trust my firm
no ‘‘one size fits all’’ solution to enhance work
engagement or organizational trust by a single Perceived economic citizenship
dimension, such as performing economic citizenship.
Management must understand that work engagement EC1.: My firm supports employees who acquire addi-
formation is a complex process owing to the under- tional education; EC2.: My firm has flexible policies that
lying nature of the antecedents of corporate citizen- enable employees to better balance work and personal
ship and the mediator of organizational trust. It is life; EC3.: My firm provides important job training for
important to keep in mind that work engagement is employees; EC4.: My firm provides quality working
not just purely driven by employees’ personal needs, environment for employees
but also by the social needs accomplished by the
organization. For example, in recent years, there has
Perceived legal citizenship
been a resurgence in the establishment of corporate
foundations that focus on the solution of (future) LE1.: The managers of my firm comply with the law;
social problems and on responding to unmet social LE2.: My firm follows the law to prevent discrimination
needs (Westhues and Einwiller, 2006). in workplaces; LE3.: My firm always fulfills its obligations
According to a survey by Sirota Survey Intelli- of contracts; LE4.: My firm always seeks to respect all laws
gence, employees who are satisfied with their orga- regulating its activities
nizational social responsibility are likely to be more
positive, more engaged, and more productive than
those working for less responsible organizations Perceived ethical citizenship
(Amble, 2009). Specifically, when employees are
ET1.: My firm has a comprehensive code of conduct in
positive about their firm’s corporate citizenship, their
ethics; ET2.: Fairness toward co-workers and business
work engagement rises to 86% (Amble, 2009). When partners is an integral part of the employee evaluation
employees are negative about their firm’s corporate process in my firm; ET3.: My firm provides accurate
citizenship, only 37% are highly engaged (Amble, information to its business partners; ET4.: We are rec-
2009). In summary, corporate citizenship and business ognized as a company with good business ethics
success can hardly be separated. Firms that enhance
their corporate citizenship is likely to boost their Perceived discretionary citizenship
employees’ organizational trust and work engagement
immensely. DI1.: My firm gives adequate contributions to charities;
DI2.: My firm sponsors partnerships with local schools
or institutions; DI3.: My firm is concerned about
Appendix: Measurement items respecting and protecting the natural environment; DI4.:
My firm sponsors to improve the public well-being of
Work engagement society

WE1.: At my work, I feel full of energy; WE2.: In my

job, I feel strong and vigorous; WE3.: I am enthusiastic References
about my job; WE4.: My job inspires me; WE5.: I feel
happy when I am working intensely; WE6.: I am im- Amble, B.: 2009, ‘Social Responsibility Boosts Employee
mersed in my work Engagement’. Retrieved from http://www.management-
issues.com/2007/5/9/research/social-responsibility-boosts-
employee-engagement.asp.
Organizational trust Anderson, J. C. and D. W. Gerbing: 1988, ‘Structural
Equation Modeling in Practice: A Review and Rec-
OT1.: I would be willing to let my firm have complete ommended Two-Step Approach’, Psychological Bulletin
control over my future in the firm; OT2.: I would be 103(3), 411–423.
 Modeling Corporate Citizenship, Organizational Trust, and Work Engagement 529

Backhaus, K., B. Stone and K. Heiner: 2002, ‘Exploring De los Salmones, M. D. M. G., A. H. Crespo and
the Relationship Between Corporate Social Perfor- I. R. del Bosque: 2005, ‘Influence of Corporate Social
mance and Employer Attractiveness’, Business and Responsibility on Loyalty and Valuation of Services’,
Society 41(3), 292–318. Journal of Business Ethics 61(4), 369–385.
Bakker, A. B. and E. Demerouti: 2008, ‘Towards a Dyer, J. H. and W. Chu: 2003, ‘The Role of Trust-
Model of Work Engagement’, Career Development worthiness in Reducing Transaction Costs and
International 13(3), 209–223. Improving Performance: Empirical Evidence from the
Barkhuizen, N. and S. Rothmann: 2006, ‘Work United States, Japan, and Korea’, Organization Science
Engagement of Academic Staff in South African 14(1), 57–68.
Higher Education Institutions’, Management Dynamics Fay, D. and H. Luhrmann: 2004, ‘Current Themes in
15(1), 38–46. Organizational Change’, European Journal of Work and
Baron, D.: 2001, ‘Private Politics, Corporate Social Organizational Psychology 13(2), 113–119.
Responsibility and Integrated Strategy’, Journal of Eco- Fornell, C. and D. F. Larcker: 1981, ‘Evaluating Struc-
nomics and Management Strategy 10(1), 7–45. tural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables
Becker-Olsen, K. L., B. A. Cudmore and R. P. Hill: and Measurement Error’, Journal of Marketing Research
2006, ‘The Impact of Perceived Corporate Social 18(1), 39–50.
Responsibility on Consumer Behavior’, Journal of Fukuyama, F.: 1995, Trust: The Social Virtues and the
Business Research 59(1), 46–53. Creation of Prosperity (The Free Press, New York).
Becker, T. E.: 1998, ‘Integrity in Organizations: Beyond Gill, A. S.: 2008, ‘The Role of Trust in Employee–
Honesty and Conscientiousness’, Academy of Manage- Manager Relationship’, International Journal of Con-
ment Review 23(1), 154–161. temporary Hospitality Management 20(1), 98–103.
Bowlby, J.: 1973, ‘Attachment and Loss’, in Separation: González-Roma, V., W. B. Schaufeli, A. Bakker and
Anxiety and Anger, vol. 2 (Basic Books, New York). S. Lloret: 2006, ‘Burnout and Engagement: Indepen-
Brammer, S. and A. Millington: 2003, ‘The Effect of dent Factors or Opposite Poles?’, Journal of Vocational
Stakeholder Preferences, Organizational Structure and Behaviour 68, 165–174.
Industry Type on Corporate Community Involve- Grayson, D. and A. Hodges: 2004, Corporate Social
ment’, Journal of Business Ethics 45(3), 213–226. Opportunity: Seven Steps to Make Corporate Social
Brammer, S., A. Millington and B. Rayton: 2007, ‘The Responsibility Work for Your Business (Sheffield Pub-
Contribution of Corporate Social Responsibility to lishing, Salem, WI).
Organizational Commitment’, International Journal of Hardy, G. E. and M. Barkham: 1994, ‘The Relationship
Human Resource Management 18(10), 1701–1719. Between Interpersonal Attachment Styles and Work
Carroll, A. B.: 1979, ‘A Three-Dimensional Conceptual Difficulties’, Human Relations 47(3), 263–281.
Model of Corporate Performance’, Academy of Man- Hofstede, G.: 1980, ‘National Cultures in Four Dimen-
agement Review 4(4), 497–505. sions: A Research Based Theory of Cultural Differences
Cartwright, S. and C. L. Cooper: 2009, The Oxford Handbook Among Nations’, International Studies of Management and
of Organizational Well-Being (Oxford University Press, Organization 13(1/2), 46–74.
Oxford). Hofstede, G. and M. H. Bond: 1988, ‘The Confucious
Chughtai, A. A. and F. Buckley: 2007, The Relationship Connection: From Cultural Roots to Economic
Between Work Engagement and Foci of Trust: A Growth’, Organizational Dynamics 16(4), 5–21.
conceptual analysis. Proceedings of the 13th Asia Joyner, B. E. and D. Payne: 2002, ‘Evolution and
Pacific Management Conference, Melbourne, Aus- Implementation: A Study of Values, Business Ethics
tralia, pp. 73–85. and Corporate Social Responsibility’, Journal of Busi-
Chughtai, A. A. and F. Buckley: 2008, ‘Work Engage- ness Ethics 41(4), 297–311.
ment and its Relationship with State and Trait Trust: Knapp, J. C.: 2007, Leaders on Ethics: Real-World Perspec-
A Conceptual Analysis’, Journal of Behavioral and tives on Today’s Business Challenges (Praeger Publishers,
Applied Management 10(1), 47–71. Westport, CT).
Chughtai, A. A. and F. Buckley: 2009, ‘Linking Trust in Keller, T. and R. Cacioppe: 2001, ‘Leader-Follower
the Principal to School Outcomes: The Mediating Attachments: Understanding Parental Images at
Role of Organizational Identification and Work Work’, Leadership & Organization Development Journal
Engagement’, International Journal of Educational Man- 22(2), 70–75.
agement 23(7), 574–589. Lamberti, L. and E. Lettieri: 2009, ‘CSR Practices and
Dawkins, J.: 2004, The Public’s Views of Corporate Corporate Strategy: Evidence from a Longitudinal
Responsibility 2003 (Mori, London, UK). Case Study’, Journal of Business Ethics 87(2), 153–168.
530 Chieh-Peng Lin

Luo, X. and C. B. Bhattacharya: 2006, ‘Corporate Social Salanova, M., S. Agut and J. M. Peiró: 2005, ‘Linking
Responsibility, Customer Satisfaction, and Market Organizational Resources and Work Engagement to
Value’, Journal of Marketing 70, 1–18. Employee Performance and Customer Loyalty: The
Maerki, H. U.: 2008, ‘The Globally Integrated Enterprise Mediating role of Service Climate’, Journal of Applied
and its Role in Global Governance’, Corporate Gover- Psychology 90, 1217–1227.
nance 8(4), 368–374. Schaufeli, W. B., A. B. Bakker and M. Salanova: 2006,
Mahoney, L. S. and L. Thorn: 2006, ‘An Examination of ‘The Measurement of Work Engagement with a Short
the Structure of Executive Compensation and Cor- Questionnaire: A Cross-National Study’, Educational
porate Social Responsibility: A Canadian Investiga- and Psychological Measurement 66, 701–716.
tion’, Journal of Business Ethics 69(2), 149–162. Schoorman, F. D., R. C. Mayer and J. H. Davis: 2007,
Maignan, I. and O. C. Ferrell: 2000, ‘Measuring Cor- ‘An Integrative Model of Organizational Trust: Past,
porate Citizenship in Two Countries: The Case of the Present, and Future’, Academy of Management Review
United States and France’, Journal of Business Ethics 32(2), 344–354.
23(3), 283–297. Shen, C. H. and Y. Chang: 2009, ‘Ambition Versus
Mathews, C. G. G.: 2007, ‘Thinking about leadership – Conscience, Does Corporate Social Responsibility Pay
leaders for tomorrow’, in The Proceedings of the 2nd Off? The Application of Matching Methods’, Journal of
National Conference on Global Competition and Competi- Business Ethics 2009(88), 133–153.
tiveness of Indian Corporates (Indian Institute of Man- Siegel, D. S. and D. F. Vitaliano: 2007, ‘An Empirical
agement, Kozhikode, India). Analysis of the Strategic Use of Corporate Social
Maxfield, S.: 2008, ‘Reconciling Corporate Citizenship Responsibility’, Journal of Economics & Management
and Competitive Strategy: Insights from Economic Strategy 16(3), 773–792.
Theory’, Journal of Business Ethics 80(2), 367–377. Simmons, J.: 1990, ‘Participatory Management: Lessons
Mayer, R. C. and J. H. Davis: 1999, ‘The Effect of the from the Leaders’, Management Review 79(12), 54–58.
Performance Appraisal System on Trust for Manage- Singhapakdi, A., K. Karande, C. P. Rao and S. J. Vitell:
ment: A Field Quasi-Experiment’, Journal of Applied 2001, ‘How Important are Ethics and Social Respon-
Psychology 84(1), 123–136. sibility? A Multinational Study of Marketing Profes-
Morrison, E. E., G. C. Burke III and L. Greene: 2007, sionals’, European Journal of Marketing 35(1/2), 133–153.
‘Meaning in Motivation: Does Your Organization Spreitzer, G. M. and A. K. Mishra: 2002, ‘To Stay or to
Need an Inner Life?’, Journal of Health and Human Go: Voluntary Survivor Turnover Following an
Services Administration 30(1), 98–115. Organizational Downsizing’, Journal of Organizational
Nelson, D. L. and J. C. Quick: 1991, ‘Social Support and Behavior 23, 707–729.
Newcomer Adjustment in Organizations: Attachment Tan, H. H. and A. K. H. Lim: 2009, ‘Trust in Coworkers
Theory at Work?’, Journal of Organizational Behavior and Trust in Organizations’, Journal of Psychology
12(6), 543–554. 143(1), 45–66.
Nelson, L. S.: 1999, ‘Contriving an Unavailable Significance Tan, H. H. and C. S. F. Tan: 2000, ‘Toward the Dif-
Level’, Journal of Quality Technology 31(3), 351–353. ferentiation of Trust in Supervisor and Trust in
Podsakoff, P. M. and D. W. Organ: 1986, ‘Self-Reports Organization’, Genetic, Social and General Psychology
in Organizational Research: Problems and Prospects’, Monographs 126(2), 241–260.
Journal of Management 12(4), 531–544. Townsend, P. and J. Gebhardt: 2008, ‘Employee
Reynolds, N., A. Diamantopoulos and B. B. Schlegelmilch: Engagement – Completely’, Human Resource Manage-
1993, ‘Pretesting in Questionnaire Design: A Review of ment International Digest 16(3), 22–24.
the Literature and Suggestions for Further Research’, Turker, D.: 2009, ‘Measuring Corporate Social Respon-
Journal of the Market Research Society 35(2), 171–182. sibility: A Scale Development Study’, Journal of Business
Robinson, S. L.: 1996, ‘Trust and Breach of the Psy- Ethics 85(4), 411–427.
chological Contract’, Administrative Science Quarterly Waddock, S. E. and S. B. Graves: 1997, ‘The Corporate
41, 574–599. Social Performance-Financial Performance Link’,
Rothbaum, F., J. Weisz, M. Pott, K. Miyake and Strategic Management Journal 18(4), 303–319.
G. Morelli: 2000, ‘Attachment and Culture: Security Westhues, M. and S. Einwiller: 2006, ‘Corporate Foun-
in the United States and Japan’, American Psychologist dations: Their Role for Corporate Social Responsi-
55(10), 1093–1104. bility’, Corporate Reputation Review 9(2), 144–153.
Sable, P.: 2008, ‘What is Adult Attachment?’, Clinical Weyzig, F.: 2009, ‘Political and Economic Arguments
Social Work Journal 36(1), 21–30. for Corporate Social Responsibility: Analysis and a
 Modeling Corporate Citizenship, Organizational Trust, and Work Engagement 531

Proposition Regarding the CSR Agenda’, Journal of Zahra, S. A. and M. S. LaTour: 1987, ‘Corporate Social
Business Ethics 86(4), 417–428. Responsibility and Organizational Effectiveness:
Williams, L. L.: 2005, ‘Impact of Nurses’ Job Satisfaction A Multivariate Approach’, Journal of Business Ethics
on Organizational Trust’, Health Care Management 6(6), 459–467.
Review 30(3), 203–211.
Williamson, O. E.: 1985, The Economic Institutions of Institute of Business and Management,
Capitalism (Free Press, New York). National Chiao Tung University,
Wood, D.: 1991, ‘Corporate Social Performance Revis- Taipei, Taiwan, ROC
ited’, Academy of Management Review 16(4), 691–718. E-mail: jacques@mail.nctu.edu.tw
Copyright of Journal of Business Ethics is the property of Springer Science & Business Media B.V. and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.