4.6 Article

How the Perceptions of Five Dimensions of Corporate Citizenship and Their Inter-Inconsistencies Predict Affective Commitment

Journal

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS
Volume 94, Issue 1, Pages 107-127

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10551-009-0252-4

Keywords

perceptions of corporate citizenship; psychological climate; affective commitment; culture; inconsistency between perceptions of corporate citizenship dimensions

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Through a convenience sample of 260 employees, the study shows how employees' perceptions about corporate citizenship (CC) predict their affective commitment. The study was carried out in Portugal, a high in-group and low societal collectivistic culture. Maignan et al.'s (1999, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 27(4), 455-469) construct, including economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary responsibilities was used. The main findings are: (a) contrary to what has been presumed in the literature, the discretionary dimension includes two factors: CC toward employees and toward community; (b) perceptions of CC explain 35% of unique variance of affective commitment; (c) the best predictors are perceptions of economic and legal CC and, mainly, perceptions of discretionary CC toward employees; (d) the perceptions of discretionary CC toward employees are significantly better predictors of affective commitment than are perceptions of economic, ethical, and discretionary CC toward the community; (e) perceived inconsistency of the several CC dimensions is detrimental to employees' affective commitment. The study questions the four-dimensional model of the CC construct as operationalized by Maignan et al., suggests that culture should be included as a moderating variable in future research, and stresses that affective commitment may decrease when employees perceive that their organizations act upon the several areas of CC inconsistently.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available