Management Decision

Corporate social responsibility and employee organizational citizenship behavior: the pivotal roles of
ethical leadership and organizational justice
Yongqiang Gao Wei He
Article information:
To cite this document:
Yongqiang Gao Wei He , (2017)," Corporate social responsibility and employee organizational citizenship behavior: the
pivotal roles of ethical leadership and organizational justice ", Management Decision, Vol. 55 Iss 2 pp. -
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/MD-05-2016-0284
Downloaded on: 09 February 2017, At: 01:00 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 01:00 09 February 2017 (PT)

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:173272 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 01:00 09 February 2017 (PT)

1
 Corporate Social Responsibility and Employee Organizational

Citizenship Behavior: The Pivotal Roles of Ethical Leadership and

Organizational Justice

INTRODUCTION

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) has received extensive scholarly attention

Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 01:00 09 February 2017 (PT)

for the past four decades, and numerous empirical studies have shown a significant

effect of CSR on corporate financial performance (see Griffin & Mahon, 1997; Peloza,

2009 for reviews). Organizational researchers have taken a micro perspective and

demonstrated that employees’ work attitudes and behaviors play crucial roles in

transforming CSR into beneficial organizational outcomes (e.g., Kim et al., 2010;

Valentine & Fleischman, 2008). For instance, research suggests that CSR increases

employees’ commitment to the firm, which further enhances firm performance (Ali et

al., 2010). Therefore, it is imperative to examine why and when CSR contributes to

employee outcomes in the workplace. Unraveling this black box may not only

contribute to the CSR literature by revealing the micro mechanisms via which CSR

benefits the organization, but also have practical implications for firm managers as to

how to solicit beneficial employee outcomes while the organization is engaging in

CSR activities.

Following this perspective, organizational researchers have begun to examine the

influences of CSR on employees’ attitudinal and behavioral outcomes within the

organization (e.g., Aguilera et al., 2006; Swaen & Maignan, 2003). In particular, CSR

1
 is found to increase employee job satisfaction (Valentine & Fleischman, 2008),

organizational commitment (Aguilera et al., 2006; Brammer et al., 2007) and

identification (e.g., Kim et al., 2010; Rodrigo & Arenas, 2008), and the organizational

citizenship behavior (OCB) (e.g., Chun et al., 2013; Evans et al., 2010; Fu et al., 2014;

Lin et al., 2010; Zhang et al., 2014). Despite these empirical findings, the theoretical

mechanisms underlying the effects of CSR on employee behaviors such as OCB

Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 01:00 09 February 2017 (PT)

remain unanswered. In other words, knowledge regarding why and when CSR can

motivate employee OCB is nearly in vacuum (Aguilera et al., 2007; Fu et al., 2014).

In the current study, drawing from social information processing (SIP) theory

(Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978; Vlachos et al., 2014), we theorize a trickle-down model

and test the mediating role of supervisor ethical leadership in the CSR-OCB

relationship. We suggest that learning from top managers’ CSR decisions, middle- or

low-level managers are likely to perform ethical behaviors in their leadership roles

(i.e., ethical leadership), which in turn motivate their followers to engage in OCB.

Moreover, SIP theory suggests that employee behaviors are influenced not only by the

information derived from their direct supervisors, but also by the information enacted

from the organization as a whole (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978). Therefore, we further

suggest that ethical leadership interacts with employee perception of organizational

distributive justice to influence employee OCB. In general, we theorize a moderated

mediation model suggesting that the meditational relationship between CSR and

employee OCB via ethical leadership will be more positive when employees perceive

low rather than high organizational distributive justice (see Figure 1).

2
 ----------------------------------
Insert Figure 1 about here.
----------------------------------
This study makes three major contributions. First, we contribute to the CSR

literature by revealing the underlying mechanism of ethical leadership through which

CSR will lead to increased employee OCB in the workplace. Second, our findings

regarding the moderation effect add a new piece of empirical evidence suggesting the

boundary condition of organizational distributive justice in the positive relationship

Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 01:00 09 February 2017 (PT)

between CSR and employee OCB. Finally, our trickle-down theoretical model

demonstrates the pivotal role of leadership in transforming CSR into positive

employee outcomes, providing valuable insights into future research that examines

why CSR motivates employees at work.

THEORY AND HYPOTHESES

Trickle-down Effect in Social Information Processing Literature

The central tenet of social information processing theory (SIP) states that

“individuals, as adaptive organisms, adapt attitudes, behavior, and beliefs to their

social context” (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978: 226). In other words, it suggests that

individual work attitudes and behaviors are, to a large extent, a result of individual

enactment of the processed information from the social environment rather than

individual predispositions (Goldman, 2001). Based on this argument, research drawn

from SIP theory has demonstrated a “trickle-down” effect (Vlachos et al., 2014),

which means that subordinates view their direct superiors as important social referents

and will learn from or be influenced by their supervisors’ words and behaviors, and

3
 will emulate them through their everyday interactions (e.g., Mayer, Kuenzi,

Greenbaum, Bardes, & Salvador, 2009; Thomas & Griffin, 1989).

The theoretical explanations for this trickle-down effect involve three major

psychological mechanisms: compliance, identification, and internalization (Kelman,

1958). Specifically, the compliance mechanism suggests that subordinates want to

follow their supervisors because they expect to be rewarded or to avoid punishment.

Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 01:00 09 February 2017 (PT)

The identification mechanism suggests that subordinates want to satisfy their

self-defining relationships with supervisors within the organizations. Finally, the

internalization mechanism suggests that subordinates strongly believe in the content

of the social influence and find this content is congruent with their value system

(Vlachos et al., 2014). Drawing from the above theorizing, researchers have validated

this trickle-down effect in different research contexts. For instance, Mayer et al. (2009)

demonstrated that group leaders’ ethical leadership mediated the effect of top

mangers’ ethical leadership on group-level employee citizenship and deviant

behaviors. Similarly, Ruiz, Ruiz, and Martínez (2011) found that top mangers’ ethical

leadership has a significant effect on employees’ positive job attitudes as mediated by

their direct supervisors’ ethical leadership behaviors. In the CSR literature, moreover,

Vlachos et al. (2014) observed a trickle-down effect that leaders’ perceptions of CSR

significantly increase employees’ perceptions of CSR, which in turn increase their

affective organizational commitment and in-role CSR-specific performance.

Extending the above findings, we suggest that CSR demonstrates top managers’

pro-social values and high moral standards, and this information will profoundly

4
 affect middle mangers’ attitudes and behaviors within the organization. In turn,

middle or line managers who are deeply influenced by CSR will demonstrate their

pro-social values and moral considerations by displaying ethical leadership, which

refers to “the demonstration of normatively appropriate conduct through personal

actions and interpersonal relationships, and the promotion of such conduct to

followers through two-way communication, reinforcement, and decision-making”

Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 01:00 09 February 2017 (PT)

(Brown et al., 2005: 120). Further, we argue that supervisors’ ethical leadership will

motivate employees to engage in more OCBs in the workplace. Therefore, we

theorize a mediating role of supervisor ethical leadership in the CSR-OCB

relationship.

CSR and Employee OCB via Perceived Ethical Leadership

According to Organ (1988), OCB refers to “individual behavior that is

discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and

in the aggregate promotes the efficient and effective functioning of the organization”

(p.4). Typical behaviors of OCB include altruism, conscientiousness, sportsmanship,

courtesy, and civic virtue (e.g., Podsakoff et al., 1990).

Past research has shown that by observing CSR activities, employees are more

likely to perform OCB at work (e.g., Swaen & Maignan, 2003; Zhang et al., 2014).

One explanation for this effect is that CSR benefits employees by helping them build

favorable self-concept constructs such as self-esteem (Haslam, 2001; Tajfel & Turner,

1986), which in turn makes them feel obliged to reciprocate their firms with positive

behaviors (Gond et al., 2010; Peterson, 2004). In addition to this self-concept

5
 explanation, we propose a trickle-down effect linking CSR with employee OCB and

theorize one’s perceived ethical leadership of his/her direct supervisor as the

mediator.

On one hand, we suggest that CSR will increase supervisors’ ethical leadership

behaviors. CSR is a broad and multidimensional concept and moral conducts have

been theorized as a major component of CSR (Carroll, 1991). Because CSR is a vital
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 01:00 09 February 2017 (PT)

organizational decision made by top managers, frequent CSR activities will signal that

they emphasize pro-social values and moral standards. Driven by this social

information (Mayer et al., 2009; Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978), middle or low-level

managers are likely to emulate top managers’ pro-social values by engaging in more

ethical conducts (here adopting ethical leadership) within the organizations (Dickson

et al., 2001; Mulki et al., 2009; Vera & Crossan, 2004).

According to the three psychological mechanisms (i.e., compliance,

identification, and internalization) that underlie the trickle-down effect (Kelman,

1958), when CSR is emphasized in organizations, managers will adopt ethical

leadership not only because it is the right way for them to get reward or to avoid

possible punishment, but also because managers may identify with or even strongly

believe in the top managers’ pro-social values illustrated by CSR (Kelman, 1958;

Vlachos et al., 2014). Indeed, identification literature suggests that individuals are

self-esteem seekers, and they tend to identify with organizations or the authority in the

organizations to enhance their self-esteem (e.g., Dutton & Dukerich, 1991; Hogg &

Terry, 2001). CSR is socially desirable, reflecting the decision-makers’ (top managers)

6
 pro-social values. It increases the attractiveness of the firm and the top managers in

the eyes of middle or low-level mangers. Managers are likely to admire such top

managers since their visions may be based on pro-social values such as altruism and

justice (Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999). As a result, mangers are likely to identify with or

strongly believe in organizations and top managers who support CSR (Hogg & Terry,

2001; Turner et al., 1987). In sum, CSR made by top managers will induce ethical
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 01:00 09 February 2017 (PT)

leadership behaviors from middle or low-level managers.

On the other hand, we argue that supervisors’ ethical leadership is a significant

predictor of subordinate OCB. Although various leadership styles are associated with

employees’ attitudinal and behavioral outcomes, ethical leadership is regarded to be

more relevant to employee OCB because it enhances employees’ caring towards their

coworkers or organizations (Wang & Sung, 2014). Different from other types of

leadership, ethical leaders emphasize exclusively on moral management, affect their

followers’ ethical conduct by setting ethical standards, and use reward and

punishment to hold the followers accountable for the standards (Brown & Trevinõ,

2006; Mayer et al., 2009). The caring for others’ well-being demonstrated by ethical

leaders will be emulated by the followers, motivating them to care about their

coworkers and organizations by performing more OCB (Demirtas & Akdogan, 2015;

Trevinõ et al., 2003). Prior studies have provided empirical evidence for the positive

effect of ethical leadership on employees’ OCBs (e.g., De Hoogh & Den Hartog, 2008;

Kacmar et al., 2011; Mayer et al., 2009).

Taken together, we propose a trickle-down effect suggesting that supervisors’

7
 ethical leadership will mediate the positive relationship between CSR and employee

OCB.
Hypothesis 1 (H1): Supervisors’ ethical leadership will mediate the positive
relationship between CSR and their followers’ OCB.

The Moderating Role of Employee Perceived Distributive Justice

SIP suggests that individuals’ attitudes are affected not only by the social

information interacted with their direct supervisors, but also by the information
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 01:00 09 February 2017 (PT)

enacted from the general context within the organization (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978),

such as organizational culture or climate (e.g., Schneider, 1975) and the

organization’s policies (e.g., Griffin, 1983). Therefore, the moral influences

associated with CSR on individual attitudes and behaviors come not only from their

direct supervisors’ ethical behaviors, but also from their moral perceptions enacted

from the organization’s policies. One crucial moral perception associated with the

organization’s policies is the distributive justice perception, which refers to

employees’ perception towards fairness of outcome or distribution of reward (Adams,

1965; Ramamoorthy & Flood, 2002). On the basis of the above theoretical arguments,

we posit that individual distributive justice perception will interact with the

supervisor’s ethical leadership behavior to influence one’s OCB.

Specifically, although supervisors’ ethical leadership is expected to affect

employees’ OCB, this effect may vary as a function of employees’ perception of

distributive justice. According to SIP, employees are prone to be affected by social

information when the work environment is ambiguous (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978).

When employees have little confidence in the fairness of the firms’ distribution of

8
 resources, the perceptions of uncertainty and ambiguity are likely to emerge, and thus

individuals are more vulnerable to the leaders’ opinions and behaviors. On the

contrary, when employees perceive high distributive justice, they trust in, identify

with, and commit to the organization’s policies more than their immediate supervisors.

In such a situation, they pay less attention to the supervisors’ ethical behaviors and are

less sensitive to those moral conducts. As a result, employees may be less likely to
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 01:00 09 February 2017 (PT)

use OCB to cater or to keep a good relationship with their supervisors (Kelman, 1958;

Vlachos et al., 2014). Furthermore, within firms where the resource allocation

policies are equitable, managers are expected to make decisions and allocate resources

fairly, so employees may take their supervisors’ ethical leadership for granted.

Accordingly, employees are less motivated to engage in OCB to reciprocate. Taking

together, we theorize a compensating effect of ethical leadership and individual

distributive justice perception on employee OCB. We argue that the effect of ethical

leadership on employee OCB will be mitigated by high distributive justice perception.

Hypothesis 2 (H2): Employee perception of distributive justice will moderate the
relationship between supervisor’s ethical leadership behavior and employee OCB
such that the relationship will be more positive when employee distributive justice
perception is low rather than high.

When we consider Hypotheses 1 and 2 together, a moderated mediation effect

can be expected. Specifically, the mediation relationship between CSR and employee

OCB via the supervisor’s ethical leadership behavior will be moderated by individual

perception of distributive justice. We therefore propose the following moderated

mediation prediction.
Hypothesis 3 (H3): Employee perception of distributive justice will moderate the

9
 indirect relationship between CSR and employee OCB via the supervisor’s ethical
leadership behavior such that the indirect relationship will be more positive when
employee distributive justice perception is low rather than high.

METHOD

Data Collection

To test our arguments, we collected data of bottom-level employees’ perceptions

toward their firms, their supervisors, as well as their own attitudinal or behavioral
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 01:00 09 February 2017 (PT)

intentions across 4 companies located in Wuhan city, China. Because the scales were

originally developed in English, to make sure the equivalency of meaning to our

Chinese edition scales, three independent bilingual researchers were invited to

translate English to Chinese firstly and then back-translate to English (Brislin, 1980).

Small revisions were made in this process.

A two-wave questionnaire survey was conducted to 220 employees. At the first

wave of survey, we used questionnaires to collect respondents’ perception toward

their firms’ CSR and demographic information. About 4 weeks later, we conducted

the second wave of questionnaire survey to the same respondents, collecting data on

the remaining variables. A total of 209 two-wave paired questionnaires were collected,

resulting in a response rate of 95.0%. Two questionnaires were dropped because of

significant missing data. In addition, another twenty questionnaires were dropped

because of significant unreliable responses (i.e., more than fifty percent of items in the

questionnaire were rated the same). Thus, we get a final sample of 187 questionnaires,

with a valid response rate of 85%. The demographic characteristics of respondents are

reported in Table 1.

10
 --------------------------------
Insert Table 1 about here
--------------------------------
Measurement of Variables

In this study, all the variables are measured on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1

(‘‘strongly disagree’’) to 5 (‘‘strongly agree’’), unless otherwise specified.

Dependent Variable: Employee OCB. Employee organizational citizenship

behavior (OCB) is measured by using the 9-item scale developed by Tsui et al. (1997).
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 01:00 09 February 2017 (PT)

Sample items include “I make suggestions to improve work procedures”, “I express

opinions honestly when others think differently”, and “I make suggestions to improve

organization”. The reliability of these nine items was 0.912 in this study.

Independent Variable: Perceived CSR. Among the different scales measuring

CSR existed in prior research (e.g., Carroll, 1979; Maignan & Farrell, 2000; Rego et

al., 2011), in this study, we adopted Rego et al.’s (2011) scale because this scale

considers both Carroll’s (1979) CSR pyramid and the stakeholder view (Freeman,

1984) of CSR.1 Sample items include “our business gives adequate contributions to

charities”, “the salaries offered by our company are higher than industry averages”,

and “we continually improve the quality of our products”. The reliability of these

items was 0.880 in this study.

Mediator: Supervisor Ethical Leadership. Supervisor’s ethical leadership is

measured by using Brown et al. (2005) 10-item scale (ELS). Sample items include

“listens to what employees have to say”, “disciplines employees who violate ethical

standards”, and “has the best interests of employees in mind”. The reliability of these
1
We have used Zhang et al.’s (2014) 9-item scale of CSP to measure perceived CSR and conducted a robustness
check. The results are consistent with our original results.

11
 ten items was 0.932 in this study.

Moderator: Perceived Organizational Distributive Justice. Perceived

organizational distributive justice is measured by using the 5-item scale developed by

Ramamoorthy & Flood (2002). Sample items include “Promotion in this company is

based on ability and how well you do your work”, “Salary increases in this company

are based on ability and how well you do your work”, and “There is a good chance of
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 01:00 09 February 2017 (PT)

promotion in this company”. The reliability of these five items was 0.843 in this

study.

Control Variables. We controlled for affective commitment and organizational

identification because have been found to be related to employee OCB (e.g., Fu et al.,

2014). Affective commitment is measured by using the 9-item scale developed by

Angle & Perry (1981). Sample items include “I am willing to put in a great deal of

effort beyond that normally expected in order to help this organization be successful”,

and “I talk up this organization to my friends as a great organization to work for”. The

reliability was 0.894 in this study. Organizational identification is measured by using

the 6-item scale developed by Mael & Ashforth (1992). Sample items include such as

“When someone criticizes this company it feels like a personal insult”, and “This

company’s successes are my successes”. The reliability was 0.800 in this study. In

addition, we controlled for respondents’ demographic characteristics including gender,

age, education, salary, and years with the company in our regression models because

these demographic characteristics have been found to affect individual judgment or

behavior (e.g., Ford & Richardson, 1994; Glover et al., 1997).

12
 ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to confirm the hypothesized

four-factor structure of CSR, ethical leadership, OCB, and justice. Given that the

constructs in our model contain numerous indicators that may undermine model fit,

we employed a parceling technique and created parcels for each of the scales (Little,
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 01:00 09 February 2017 (PT)

Cunningham, Shahar, & Widaman, 2002). We opted to use a parceling approach due

to our primary interest in the interrelations of our constructs, rather than the

interrelations of our items within constructs (Little, Rhemtulla, Gibson, & Schoemann,

2013). For all the constructs, parcels were created using an item-to-construct balance

technique, where the highest loading items were paired with the lowest loading items

to create parcels (Little et al., 2002). This resulted in three parcels for CSR measure,

two parcels for ethical leadership measure, three parcels for OCB measure, and three

parcels for distributive justice measure. Model fit was evaluated based on the root

mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), root mean square residual (RMR),

goodness-of-fit index (GFI), normed fit index (NFI), and the comparative fit index

(CFI).

The hypothesized four-factor model demonstrated good fit to the data (χ2 = 77.44,

df = 38, p < .001, CFI = .976, GFI = .933, NFI = .954, RMSEA = .075; RMR = .013).

This four-factor model fit the data better than a three-factor model grouping CSR and

ethical leadership (χ2 = 233.70, df = 41, p < .001, CFI = .882, GFI = .806, NFI = .862,

RMSEA = .159; RMR = .019), and another three-factor model grouping ethical

13
 leadership and OCB (χ2 = 180.54, df = 41, p < .001, CFI = .915, GFI = .838, NFI

= .893, RMSEA = .135; RMR = .017). This four-factor model also fit the data better

than a two-factor model grouping CSR, ethical leadership, and OCB (χ2 = 347.70, df

= 43, p < .001, CFI = .814, GFI = .731, NFI = .795, RMSEA = .195; RMR = .024),

and a one-factor model grouping all four constructs (χ2 = 453.03, df = 44, p < .001,

CFI = .750, GFI = .672, NFI = .732, RMSEA = .224; RMR = .030). Overall, the
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 01:00 09 February 2017 (PT)

results of the CFA support the discriminant validity among our daily focal constructs.

Descriptive Statistics

The descriptive statistics and correlation matrix of the variables are reported in

Table 2. Results show that perceived CSR and supervisor ethical leadership are

significantly correlated with employee OCB. In addition, perceived organizational

distributive justice, affective commitment, and organizational identification are also

significantly correlated with employee OCB.

--------------------------------
Insert Table 2 about here
--------------------------------
Similar significant correlations could be found among independent variables. To

mitigate the potential multicollinearity problem, we followed Aiken and West (1991)

and mean-centered the variables included in the interaction terms and then computed

the interaction terms by multiplying the mean-centered variables. We also computed

the variance inflation factor (VIF) in the following regressions to further check the

multicollinearity problem. Among the regressions, the largest VIF was 2.894, fall

below the cutoff point of 10, suggesting that multicollinearity is not a serious concern

14
 in this study.

Simple Mediation Analysis

Following Baron and Kenny’s (1986) recommendation, we conducted three

regressions to test the mediation effect of supervisor’s ethical leadership on the

relationship between employees’ perceived CSR and their OCB. The first regression

model tests the effect of independent variable (perceived CSR) on dependent variable
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 01:00 09 February 2017 (PT)

(employee OCB); while the second examines the effect of perceived CSR on mediator

of supervisor ethical leadership. The third regression model puts perceived CSR and

supervisor ethical leadership together to predict employee OCB. The results are

reported in Table 3.
--------------------------------
Insert Table 3 about here
--------------------------------
It can be seen from Model 2 of Table 3, perceived CSR has a significant and

positive effect on employee OCB (β = 0.174, p < 0.05). In Model 1 of Table 3,

perceived CSR has a significant and positive effect on supervisor ethical leadership (β

= 0.332, p < 0.01). When we put perceived CSR and supervisor ethical leadership into

the model simultaneously to predict employee OCB (see Model 3 in Table 3), the

effect of perceived CSR is no longer significant (β = -0.050, p > 0.1), while the effect

of supervisor ethical leadership is significant and positive (β = 0.579, p < 0.01). These

results provide initial support for a mediation effect of supervisor’s ethical leadership

on the relationship between perceived CSR and employee OCB.

To further validate this mediation effect, we used the INDIRECT procedure for

15
 SPSS 17.0 (Preacher & Hayes, 2008) to estimate the indirect effect of perceived CSR

on employee OCB via supervisor’s ethical leadership. Monte Carlo simulation results

based on 5000 bootstrap samples suggest a significant and positive indirect effect of

perceived CSR on employee OCB through supervisor’s ethical leadership (point

estimate = 0.597, 95% CI = [0.438, 0.758], Z = 8.283, p < .01). Thus, Hypothesis 1 is

supported.
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 01:00 09 February 2017 (PT)

Moderation Effect Analysis

Table 3 also reports the moderation effect of perceived organizational distributive

justice on the relationship between supervisor ethical leadership and employee OCB.

In Model 4, the coefficient of the interaction term between supervisor ethical

leadership and perceived organizational distributive justice is significant and negative

(β = -0.131, p < 0.01). Recalling that supervisor ethical leadership has a positive main

effect on employee OCB (see Model 3), the results suggest that perceived

organizational distributive justice reduces the positive effect of supervisor ethical

leadership on employee OCB. To better present the moderation effect, we graphed the

interaction effect between supervisor ethical leadership and perceived organizational

distributive justice on employee OCB (see Figure 2). It can be seen from this figure

that the relationship between supervisor ethical leadership and employee OCB is more

positive when perceived organizational justice is lower. Thus, Hypothesis 2 was

demonstrated.
--------------------------------
Insert Figure 2 about here
--------------------------------

16
 Moderated Mediation Analysis

Hypothesis 3 proposes a moderated mediation effect such that the mediation

relationship between CSR and employee OCB via supervisor ethical leadership will

be moderated by employee perception of organizational justice such that the

mediation relationship being more significant when perceive organizational justice is

lower. To test this moderated mediation effect, we followed Preacher et al.’s (2007)
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 01:00 09 February 2017 (PT)

recommendation and used the PROCESS procedure for SPSS as the statistic tool.

Tests of significance for parameters were based on 95% bias-corrected confidence

intervals (CIs) with 5000 bootstrap estimates. We followed the Model 14 as suggested

in Hayes’s (2013) templates to conduct the PROCESS analysis. We used the mean as

well as one standard deviation above and below the mean to represent moderate, high,

and low values of perceived organizational distributive justice respectively. The

results are reported in Table 4.

--------------------------------
Insert Table 4 about here
--------------------------------
We can see from Table 4 that the indirect effect of perceived CSR on employee

OCB through supervisors’ ethical leadership is positive in all three conditions. Despite

the generally significant mediation relationship between CSR and employee OCB via

supervisor ethical leadership, the magnitude of this mediation effect varies across

different levels of organizational justice. Specifically, when perceived organizational

distributive justice is low, the point estimate for this mediation effect is 0.254 (95% CI:

0.140 to 0.408). Comparatively, when perceived organizational distributive justice is

17
 high, point estimate for this mediation effect is 0.168 (95% CI: 0.081 to 0.332).

Moreover, the difference between these two conditional indirect effects is significant

(Difference = -0.079, 95% CI: -0.246 to -0.004).

DISCUSSION

In this study, we explored the effect of employees’ perceived CSR on their OCB,

as well as the mediating role of supervisors’ ethical leadership and the moderating
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 01:00 09 February 2017 (PT)

effect of perceived organizational distributive justice. Empirical findings suggest that

perceived CSR has a positive main effect on employee OCB, and this effect is

mediated by supervisors’ ethical leadership. In addition, we find that the effect of

supervisors’ ethical leadership on employee OCB is attenuated by high distributive

justice perception. The indirect effect of perceived CSR on employee OCB through

supervisor ethical leadership depends also on perceived distributive justice, such that

high distributive justice weakens the mediating relationship between CSR and

employee OCB via supervisor ethical leadership.

Theoretical Implications

This study contributes to the CSR and OCB literatures in the following aspects.

At first, prior studies have generally found a positive effect of perceived CSR on

employee OCB (e.g., Chun et al., 2013; Lin et al., 2010). However, the underlying

mechanisms linking perceived CSR to employee OCB remain unknown (Fu et al.,

2014). This study fills this void by identifying supervisor ethical leadership as one of

the possible mechanisms underlying the CSR – employee OCB relationship.

Second, this study identifies organizational justice as an important boundary

18
 condition for the effect of supervisor ethical leadership on employee OCB, as well as

for the mediation effect of ethical leadership on the relationship between perceived

CSR and employee OCB. Prior studies have suggested that ethical leadership may

have different effects on employee OCB, depending on the contexts such as the

organizational politics (Kacmar et al., 2011). Consistent with prior observations, we

find that employees’ perceptions of high distributive justice can attenuate the effect of
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 01:00 09 February 2017 (PT)

ethical leadership on employee OCB, as well as the mediating relationship between

perceived CSR and employee OCB via supervisor ethical leadership.

Finally, this study supports an implicit “trickle-down” effect in human resource

management literature (Vlachos et al., 2014). Trickle-down effect suggests that top

managers may affect employees’ behavior by firstly shaping supervisors’ attitude and

behavior. For instance, prior research has demonstrated an ethics trickle-down effect

such that executive managers’ display of ethical conducts increase front-line

employees’ pro-social or ethical behaviors through their direct supervisors’ increased

ethical behaviors (e.g., Mayer et al., 2009; Ruiz et al., 2011). We demonstrate and

extend this ethics trickle-down effect by showing that top managers affect

supervisors’ ethical leadership by using CSR to signal their ethical attitude and value,

while supervisors’ ethical leadership further affects employee OCB.

Practical Implications

This study also has important practical implications. At first, our study finds that

CSR has a positive effect on subordinates’ (here supervisors’) ethical leadership,

which further increases employee OCB. Motivating middle managers or supervisors

19
 to adopt ethical leadership is very important because they have a direct impact on

employees. Prior studies have suggested that top managers in particular chief

executive officer (CEO) could shape the ethical climate which further affects

employee behavior (Shin, 2012). Our study provides some viable way for top

managers to achieve that. Specifically, top managers may use CSR to signal their

ethical values to subordinates, motivating them to adopt ethical leadership.

Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 01:00 09 February 2017 (PT)

Supervisors’ ethical leadership further positively affects employees’ extra-role

behavior such as OCB. In addition, our study also suggests that organizational equity

or justice and supervisor ethical leadership may to some extent substitute each other

in affecting employee OCB. Thus, firms with low level of justice or equity, at least

from the viewpoint of employees, should be in a better position to conduct CSR to

build ethical leadership.

Limitations and Future Study Directions

The main limitation lies in the data. In this study, our data come from a single

source. Although we have conducted two wave of surveys and specified a moderated

mediation model which is less likely to be affected by common method bias (CMB)

(Podsakoff et al., 2012), we cannot rule out CMB completely. Partly owning to this

reason, our findings suggest a full mediation relationship between perceived CSR and

employees’ OCB via their direct supervisors’ ethical leadership, which should be

taken with cautions. First, this mediation relationship may be upward biased because

of the CMB. Second, while we controlled for affective commitment and

organizational commitment in testing this mediation effect, there are still other

20
 plausible theoretical explanations, such as perceived self-esteem (Haslam, 2001) and

felt obligation (Gond et al., 2010), for the effect of CSR on OCB that were not

controlled in our study. Therefore, we suggest that future researchers should be

cautious in interpreting this full mediation effect as observed in our study.

In addition to the potential influences of CMB, the rigor of our empirical

findings may also be affected because we used self-reported data to measure OCB.
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 01:00 09 February 2017 (PT)

For this reason, we cannot rule completely out the social desirability response bias.

Future studies, when possible, could collect data from multiple sources and ask

supervisors to assess employees’ OCB. In this study, we only examined the effect of

CSR on employee OCB, future studies could focus on the impact of CSR on other

in-role and extra-role behaviors of employees.

21
 References

Adams, J.S. 1965. Inequity in social exchange, in Berkowitz, L. (Ed), Advances in

Experimental Social Psychology, 2:267-299, Academic Press, New York.

Aguilera, R., Rupp, D. E., Ganapathi, J., & Williams, C.A. 2006. Justice and social

responsibility: A social exchange model. Paper presented at the Society for

Industrial/Organizational Psychology Annual Meeting, Berlin.

Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 01:00 09 February 2017 (PT)

Aguilera, R.V., Rupp, D., Williams, C.A., & Ganapathi, J. 2007. Putting the S back in

corporate social responsibility: A multi-level theory of social change in

organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32: 836-863.

Aiken, L.S. & West, S.G. 1991. Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting

Interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Ali, I., Rehman, K.U., Ali, S.I., Yousaf, J., & Zia, M. 2010. Corporate social

responsibility influences employees commitment and organizational performance.

African Journal of Business Management, 4(12): 2796-2801.

Angle, H.L. & Perry, J.L. 1981. An empirical assessment of organizational

commitment and organizational effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26:

1-14.

Baron, R.M. & Kenny, D.A. 1986. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in

social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical

considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6): 1173-1182.

Bass, B.M. & Steidlmeier, P. 1999. Ethics, character and authentic transformational

leadership behaviour. Leadership Quarterly, 10(2): 181-217.

22
 Brammer, S., Millington, A., & Rayton, B. 2007. The contribution of corporate social

responsibility to organizational commitment. International Journal of Human

Resource Management, 18(10): 1701-1719.

Brislin, R.W. 1980. Translation and content analysis of oral and written

material. Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 2(2): 349-444.

Brown, M.E. & Treviño, L.K. 2006. Ethical leadership: A review and future
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 01:00 09 February 2017 (PT)

directions. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6): 595-616.

Brown, M.E., Treviño, L.K., & Harrison, D.A. 2005. Ethical leadership: A social

learning perspective for construct development and testing. Organizational

Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97(2): 117-134.

Carroll, A.B. 1991. The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral

management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(4): 39-48.

Carroll, A.B. 1979. A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance.

Academy of Management Review, 4(4): 497-505.

Chun, J.S., Shin, Y., Choi, J.N., & Kim, M.S. 2013. How does corporate ethics

contribute to firm financial performance? The role of collective organizational

commitment and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Management, 39:

853-877.

De Hoogh, A.H.B. & Den Hartog, D.N. 2008. Ethical and despotic leadership,

relationships with leader’s social responsibility, top management team effectiveness

and subordinates’ optimism: A multi-method study. Leadership Quarterly, 19(3):

297-311.

23
 Demirtas, O. & Akdogan, A.A. 2015. The effect of ethical leadership behavior on

ethical climate, turnover intention, and affective commitment. Journal of Business

Ethics, 130(1): 59-67.

Dickson, M.W., Smith, D.B., Grojean, M.W., & Ehrhart, M. 2001. An organizational

climate regarding ethics: The outcome of leader values and the practices that reflect

them. Leadership Quarterly, 12(2): 197-217.

Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 01:00 09 February 2017 (PT)

Dutton, J.E. & Dukerich, J.M. 1991. Keeping an eye on the mirror: Image and identity

in organizational adaptation. Academy of Management Journal, 34: 517-554.

Evans, W.R., Goodman, J.M., & Davis, W.D. 2010. The impact of perceived

corporate citizenship on organizational cynicism, OCB, and employee deviance.

Human Performance, 24(1): 79-97.

Ford, R.C. & Richardson, W.D. 1994. Ethical decision making: A review of the

empirical literature. Journal of Business Ethics, 13(3): 205-221.

Freeman, R.E. 1984. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Boston:

Pitman.

Fu, H., Ye, B.H., & Law, R. 2014. You do well and I do well? The behavioral

consequences of corporate social responsibility. International Journal of

Hospitality Management, 40: 62-70.

Glover, S.H., Bumpus, M.A., Logan, J.E., & Ciesla, J.R. 1997. Re-examining the

influence of individual values on ethical decision making. Journal of Business

Ethics, 16(12/13): 1319-1329.

Goldman, B.M. 2001. Toward an understanding of employment discrimination

24
 claiming: An integration of organizational justice and social information processing

theories. Personnel Psychology, 54: 361-386.

Gond, J.P., El-Akremi, A., Igalens, J., & Swaen, V. 2010. Corporate social

responsibility influence on employees. ICCSR Research Paper Series, No.54-2010.

Griffin, R. 1983. Objective and social sources of information in task redesign: A field

experiment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28: 184-200.

Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 01:00 09 February 2017 (PT)

Griffin, J.J. & Mahon, J.F. 1997. The corporate social performance and corporate

financial performance debate: twenty-five years of incomparable research. Business

and Society, 36(1): 5-31.

Haslam, A.S. 2001. Psychology in Organizations -The Social Identity Approach.

London: Sage.

Hayes, A.F. 2013. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process

Analysis. New York: The Guilford Press.

Hogg, M.A. & Terry, D. 2001. Social Identity Processes in Organizational Contexts.

Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.

Kacmar, K.M., Bachrach, D.G., Harris, K.J., & Zivnuska, S. 2011. Fostering good

citizenship through ethical leadership: Exploring the moderating role of gender and

organizational politics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(3): 633-642.

Kelman, H.C. 1958. Compliance, identification, and internalization: Three processes

of attitude change. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2(1): 51-60.

Kim, H.R., Lee, M., Lee, H.T., & Kim, N.M. 2010. Corporate social responsibility

and employee–company identification. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(4): 557-569.

25
 Lin, C.P., Lyau, N.M., Tsai, Y.H., Chen, W.Y., & Chiu, C.K. 2010. Modeling

corporate citizenship and its relationship with organizational citizenship

behaviors. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(3): 357-372.

Mael, F. & Ashforth, B.E. 1992. Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the

reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 13: 103-123.

Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 01:00 09 February 2017 (PT)

Maignan, I. & Ferrell, O.C. 2000. Measuring corporate citizenship in two countries:

The case of the United States and France. Journal of Business Ethics, 23(3):

283-297.

Mayer, D.M., Kuenzi, M., Greenbaum, R., Bardes, M., & Salvador, R. 2009. How

low does ethical leadership flow? Test of a trickle-down model. Organizational

Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108(1): 1-13.

Mulki, J.P., Jaramillo, J.F., & Locander, W.B. 2009. Critical role of leadership on

ethical climate and salesperson behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 86: 125-141.

Organ, D.W. 1988. Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome.

Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Peloza, J. 2009. The challenge of measuring financial impacts from investments in

corporate social performance. Journal of Management, 35(6): 1518-1541.

Peterson, D.K. 2004. The relationship between perceptions of corporate citizenship

and organizational commitment. Business and Society, 43(3): 269-319.

Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Moorman, R.H., & Fetter, R. 1990.

Transformational leader behavior and their effects on followers’ trust in leader,

26
 satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behavior. Leadership Quarterly, 1:

107-142.

Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., & Podsakoff, N.P. 2012. Sources of method bias

in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual review

of psychology, 63: 539-569.

Preacher, K.J. & Hayes, A.F. 2008. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 01:00 09 February 2017 (PT)

assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior

Research Methods, 40(3): 879-891.

Preacher, K.J., Rucker, D.D., & Hayes, A.F. 2007. Addressing moderated mediation

hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral

Research, 42(1): 185-227.

Ramamoorthy, N. & Flood, P.C. 2002. Employee attitudes and behavioral intentions:

A test of the main and moderating effects of individualism-collectivism orientations.

Human Relations, 55(9): 1071-1096.

Rego, A., Leal, S., & Cunha, M.P. 2011. Rethinking the employees’ perceptions of

corporate citizenship dimensionalization. Journal of Business Ethics, 104(2):

207-218.

Rodrigo, P. & Arenas, D. 2008. Do employees care about CSR programs? A typology

of employees according to their attitudes. Journal of Business Ethics, 83(2):

265-283.

Ruiz, P., Ruiz, C., & Martínez, R. 2011. Improving the “leader-follower” relationship:

Top manager or supervisor? The ethical leadership trickle-down effect on follower

27
 job response. Journal of Business Ethics, 99: 587-608.

Salancik, G.R. & Pfeffer, L. 1978. A social information processing approach to job

attitudes and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23: 224-235.

Schneider, B. 1975. Organizational climate: An essay. Personnel Psychology, 36:

447-479.

Shin, Y. 2012. CEO ethical leadership, ethical climate, climate strength, and
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 01:00 09 February 2017 (PT)

collective organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 108:

299-312.

Swaen, V. & Maignan, I. 2003. Organizational citizenship and corporate citizenship:

Two constructs, one research theme? In True, S.L. and Pelton, L. (Eds.), Business

Rites, Writs and Responsibilities: Readings on Ethics and Social Impact

Management, pp.107-134. Kennesaw, Georgia: Kennesaw State University.

Tajfel, H. & Turner, J.C. 1986. The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In

Worchel, S. and Austin, L.W. (Eds.), Psychology of Intergroup Relations, pp.7-24.

Chicago: Nelson-Hall.

Thomas, J.G. & Griffin, R.W. 1989. The power of social information in the workplace.

Organizational Dynamics, 18(2): 63-75.

Treviño, L.K., Brown, M., & Hartman, L.P. 2003. A qualitative investigation of

perceived executive ethical leadership: Perceptions from inside and outside the

executive suite. Human Relations, 55: 5-37.

Tsui, A.S., Pearce, J.L., Porter, L.W., & Tripoli, A.M. 1997. Alternative approaches to

the employee-organization relationship: Does inducement in employees pay off?

28
 Academy of Management Journal, 4(5): 1089-1121.

Turner, J.C., Hogg, M.A., Oakes, P.J., Reicher, S.D., & Wetherell, M.S. (Eds.) 1987.

Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self-categorization Theory. New York: Basil

Blackwell.

Valentine, S. & Fleischman, G. 2008. Ethics programs, perceived corporate social

responsibility and job satisfaction, Journal of Business Ethics, 77: 159-172.

Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 01:00 09 February 2017 (PT)

Vera, D. & Crossan, M. 2004. Strategic leadership and organizational learning.

Academy of Management Review, 29: 222-240.

Vlachos, P.A., Panagopoulos, N.G., & Rapp, A.A. 2014. Employee judgments of and

behaviors toward corporate social responsibility: A multi-study investigation of

direct, cascading, and moderating effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior,

35(7): 990-1017.

Wang, Y. & Sung, W. 2014. Predictors of organizational citizenship behavior: Ethical

leadership and workplace jealousy. Journal of Business Ethics, DOI:

10.1007/s10551-014-2480-5

Zhang, M., Fan, D., & Zhu, C.J. 2014. High-performance work systems, corporate

social performance and employee outcomes: exploring the missing links. Journal of

Business Ethics, 120(3): 423-435.

29
 Figure 1: The Conceptual Model

Organizational
distributive
justice

H1

Corporate social Supervisor H2 & H3 Organizational

responsibility Ethical citizenship
(CSR) leadership behavior (OCB)
Working
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 01:00 09 February 2017 (PT)

Figure 2: Interaction Effect between Ethical Leadership and Perceived

Organizational Distributive Justice on Employee OCB

5
4.5
4
Employee OCB

3.5
Low perceived
3
distributive justice
2.5
High perceived
2
distributive justice
1.5
1
0.5
0
Mean - 1 S.D. Mean + 1 S.D.
Supervisor ethical leadership

30
 Table 1: Demographic Characteristics of Respondents

Demographics Number of people % of total N*

(frequency)
Gender
Male 101 54.0
Female 86 46.0
Age
Less than 30 95 50.8
30-39 77 41.2
40-49 14 7.5
50 or above 1 0.5
Education
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 01:00 09 February 2017 (PT)

High school or below 5 2.7

Junior college 47 25.1
Bachelor 116 62
Master degree or above 19 10.2
Salary (monthly)
Less than RMB 3000 34 18.2
RMB 3000-4999 63 33.7
RMB 5000-6999 57 30.5
RMB 7000-8999 15 8.0
RMB 9000 or above 18 9.6
Years with the company
Less than 1 year 42 22.5
1-3 years 82 43.9
4-6 years 36 19.3
7-9 years 22 11.8
10 years or above 5 2.7
Note: *N=187.

31
 Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 01:00 09 February 2017 (PT)

Table 2: Descriptive statistics and correlation matrix

No. Variables Mean S.D. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1 Employee OCB 3.60 0.53
2 Perceived CSR 3.73 0.42 .560**
3 Supervisor ethical leadership 3.61 0.58 .771** .663**
4 Perceived organizational 3.49 0.55 .582** .596** .640**
distributive justice
5 Gender 0.54 0.50 .070 -.024 -.028 -.032
6 Age 1.58 0.65 -.006 -.089 -.128 -.160* .093
7 Education 2.80 0.65 .011 -.026 .061 -.072 -.008 -.140
8 Salary 2.57 1.16 .103 .038 .087 .093 .150* .213** .397**
9 Years with the firm 2.28 1.03 .000 -.080 -.115 -.229** .140 .411** .030 .269**
10 Affective commitment 3.52 0.58 .639** .662** .667** .632** .012 -.052 -.030 .056 -.090
11 Organizational identification 3.62 0.52 .580** .584** .586** .491** -.027 -.057 .054 .074 -.014 .624**
Note: *, ** represent significant at 0.05 and 0.01 levels (2-tailed).

32
 Table 3: Simple Mediation and Moderation Analysis

Supervisor ethical Employee OCB

leadership
Model 1 VIF/TO Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 VIF/TO
L L
Gender -.015 1.043/ .066 .077 .081 1.045/
(.059) .959 (.059) (.048) (.047) .957
Age -.056 1.303/ .020 .063 .062 1.325/
(.050) .767 (.050) (.041) (.041) .755
Education .043 1.289/ .002 -.006 .006 1.356/
(.050) .776 (.050) (.042) (.042) .737
Salary .053 1.385/ .037 -.016 -.018 1.454/
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 01:00 09 February 2017 (PT)

(.029) .722 (.029) (.024) (.024) .688

Years with the -.047 1.282/ .023 .071 .071 1.347/
firm (.032) .780 (.032) (.027) (.026) .742
Affective .329** 2.136/ .370** .137 .140* 2.540/
commitment (.072) .468 (.072) (.065) (.063) .394
Organizational .176** 1.820/ .248** .134* .144* 1.902/
identification (.074) .549 (.074) (.062) (.061) .526
Perceived CSR .332** 1.963/ .174* -.050 .005 2.504/
(.096) .509 (.095) (.084) (.087) .399
Perceived .119 . 105 2.257/
organizational (.064) (.064) .443
distributive
justice
Supervisor .579** .503** 2.894/
ethical leadership (.064) (.068) .345
Supervisor -.131** 1.261/
ethical leadership (.020) .793
* Perceived
organizational
distributive
justice
Number of 187 187 187 187
observations
Adjusted R2 .543 .463 .637 .649
F value 28.651** 21.015** 33.597** 32.271**
Note: *, ** represent significant at 0.05 and 0.01 levels (2-tailed). VIF is the variance
inflation factor. TOL is the tolerance.

33
 Table 4: Conditional Indirect Effects of Perceived CSR on Employee OCB
through Supervisor Ethical Leadership at Levels of Perceived Organizational
Distributive Justice

Employee OCB
Perceived organizational distributive Point estimate 95% bias-corrected
justice bootstrap confidence
interval
Low (-0.547; 2.939 before centering) 0.254 0.140 to 0.408
Moderate (0; 3.486 before centering) 0.211 0.125 to 0.337
High (0.547; 4.032 before centering) 0.168 0.081 to 0.332
Note: N=187.
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 01:00 09 February 2017 (PT)

34
 Corporate Social Responsibility and Employee Organizational Citizenship Behavior:

The Pivotal Roles of Ethical Leadership and Organizational Justice

Acknowledgement

The authors are grateful to the financial support of the “National Natural Science Foundation

of China (NSFC)” (No. 71372131, 71531009, 71402061).

Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 01:00 09 February 2017 (PT)