The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/2514-9792.htm

CSR
The effects of hotel employees’ perceptions
CSR perceptions on trust on trust in
organization
in organization
Moderating role of employees’ 391
self-experienced CSR perceptions Received 28 December 2018
Revised 30 May 2019
Erhan Boğan Accepted 10 June 2019

Department of Tourism Guiding, Adiyaman University, Adiyaman, Turkey, and

Bekir Bora Dedeoğlu
Department of Tourism Guiding,
Nevsehir Haci Bektas Veli University, Nevsehir, Turkey

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate the moderating role of employees’ self-experienced
social responsibility perceptions in the relationship between employees’ community- and environment-
oriented social responsibility perceptions and trust in an organization.
Design/methodology/approach – The corporate social responsibility (CSR) construct is examined in the
context of stakeholders including the community, environment and employees. The study was carried out
with 438 questionnaires gathered from four- and five-star hotels operating in Alanya, Turkey. The proposed
model was tested with the partial least squares method of structural equation modeling. Multiple group
analysis was performed to test the moderating effect.
Findings – Findings reveal that employees’ community- and environment-oriented social responsibility
perceptions have a positive effect on trust in the organization. Based on the results of multigroup analysis, the
effect of employees’ community-oriented social responsibility perceptions on trust in the organization was
determined to be more prominent in the group of employees with high self-experienced social responsibility
perceptions. However, the same moderating effect could not be determined in relation to environment-oriented
social responsibility perceptions and trust in the organization.
Originality/value – Studies focusing on CSR activities were mainly examined at the macro level. Internal
stakeholders’ returns to these activities were not sufficiently considered. Contrary to previous studies that
examine the link between CSR perceptions measured with Carroll’s pyramid dimensions and organizational
trust, the current study examined CSR perceptions with the stakeholder approach. Moreover, the study
discovered one of the variables defined as the black box that differentiates the returns that employees provide
to CSR activities.
Keywords Corporate social responsibility, Turkey, Self-experience social responsibility perceptions,
Trust in organization
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
The concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR) is often examined in the research
carried out in the field of tourism and hospitality. This concept was associated in the early
periods with the financial performance of enterprises but was later associated with
stakeholders’ positive or negative reactions toward the organization. Aguinis and Glavas
(2012) describe the studies that examine the relationship between CSR and financial
performance as macro-level studies and those that examine stakeholders’ returns on CSR
activities as micro-level studies. Empirical studies were mainly addressed at the macro level
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
(Rupp and Mallory, 2015). By contrast, the CSR perceptions of employees who are one of the Insights
parties in a stakeholder group were examined in the present study. Vol. 2 No. 4, 2019
pp. 391-408
In recent years, employees’ returns on CSR activities have been frequently examined in the © Emerald Publishing Limited
2514-9792
literature of the tourism and hospitality industry (Wong and Gao, 2014; Park and Levy, 2014; DOI 10.1108/JHTI-12-2018-0089
JHTI Ilkhanizadeh and Karatepe, 2017; Kim et al., 2017; Boğan, Türkay and Dedeoğlu, 2018).
2,4 However, studies nowadays include relatively more complex models than those in the past.
For example, while in the early periods the direct effect of employees’ CSR perceptions on
organizational citizenship behavior is investigated, nowadays the variables that play a
mediating or moderating role in this relationship are being discovered (see Rupp et al., 2013;
Kim et al., 2017). In other words, looking at the bigger picture from a wider perspective is being
392 attempted (Boğan and Dedeoğlu, 2017a). Although considerable research has been devoted
to hospitality employees’ returns on CSR practices, rather less attention has been paid to
discover moderators that amplify or mitigate the effects of CSR on employees’ attitudes and
behaviors. The research question is:
RQ1. What is the moderating role of employees’ self-experienced CSR perceptions on the
relationship between community- and environment-oriented CSR perceptions and
trust in organization?
The research model was developed on the basis of deontic justice theory and signaling
theory. According to deontic justice theory (Folger, 2001), individuals are sensitive about
behaviors that harm moral and ethical values, and they react against those behaviors. The
person itself is not necessarily being exposed to this behavior. People expect fair treatment
for those in their close vicinity and even for every single member of society. From a
humanitarian point of view, individuals are clearly concerned about their social
environment. They find pleasure in their happiness and feel sad about the pain or
disasters they experience. Therefore, they want those in their social environment and
society at large not to face any unfair treatment that they themselves avoid (Skarlicki and
Kulik, 2005). This will be a consequence of their desire to make moral sense of their lives
(Cropanzano et al., 2001). In recent years, CSR activities have been prominent as an indicator
of the fair behavior of an organization to its stakeholders (Rupp et al., 2006). According to
signaling theory (Spence, 1973; Connelly et al., 2011), enterprises send signals to their
stakeholders about their sensitivities through the activities they conduct in both internal
and external environments (e.g. CSR activities). When stakeholders perceive those signals,
they become aware of the identity and values of the enterprise. This information is effective
in shaping stakeholders’ returns toward the organization.
Investigating the impact of CSR activities on the behaviors and attitudes of employees
who are the most valuable components in an enterprise would be beneficial (Aguilera et al.,
2007; Lee et al., 2012). The most important role in the fulfillment of CSR activities is
undertaken by employees. Thus, employees must be involved in CSR activities and
internalize these activities. Employees communicate these activities to the business
stakeholders of the enterprise as if they were ambassadors of the enterprise against
customers and external stakeholders. The majority of customers who visit Turkey’s coastal
destinations are composed of European tourists with high social and environmental
awareness (Fairweather et al., 2005). The enterprise may take strategic advantage of
employees to communicate CSR activities to customers. The critical element here is that
employees are encouraged to cooperate and implement such voluntary activities (Collier and
Esteban, 2007).
Employees who work in a labor-intensive sector play the most important role in
achieving the goals and objectives set by organizations. Establishing a high level of trust
between the enterprise and the employees ensures that these goals and objectives would
be achieved in a shorter time and more effectively. One of the most effective ways to
increase and sustain organizational and individual productivity is to build trust in an
organizational environment (McAllister, 1995). Trust in an organization is defined as a
person’s willingness to be vulnerable to the activities of the organization (Zand, 1972).
This willingness can be achieved by communicating the activities carried out by the
organization with formal or informal communication tools (Tan and Lim, 2009). Therefore, CSR
the information obtained from colleagues in the organization and the social responsibility perceptions
activities of the enterprise outside the organization can contribute to employees’ on trust in
trust in the organization. According to Thompson (1967), the fact that the complex
structure of today’s enterprises requires division of workload and teamwork has rendered organization
compulsory to ensure the mutual trust in an organization (McAllister, 1995).
Organizational trust is an important antecedent for hotel employees in Turkey to 393
display positive behaviors in favor of the business (Ozturk and Karatepe, 2019; Tekeli and
Buyruk, 2018). At this point, it can be expected that discovering the elements to increase
the sense of organizational trust in hotel businesses would contribute to these businesses
yielding positive outputs. Considering the theoretical gap in the literature, the purpose of
the present study is to investigate the moderating role of employees’ self-experienced
CSR perceptions on the relationship between community- and environment-oriented CSR
perceptions and trust in an organization. The findings will contribute to the theoretical
background. Some suggestions will be proposed for the enterprises operating in the
hospitality industry.

Conceptual framework and hypotheses development

Corporate social responsibility
Before, making a profit was enough for enterprises to be regarded as a responsible
enterprise. However, it started to be considered insufficient in the 2000s, and it has become
noteworthy that enterprises should contribute to the life of society beyond their legal
obligations (Yamak, 2007). According to Carroll (1979), the concept of CSR in the modern
sense was first indicated in Howard R. Bowen’s (1953) book Social Responsibilities of the
Businessman. Because of his forward thinking, having introduced the scientific world with a
new concept and provided businessmen with a different vision, Bowen was described by
Carroll (1999) as “the father of corporate social responsibility.”
A general consensus has not yet been reached on what exactly the concept of CSR refers
to as a meta-construct, which has been subject to research in different disciplines for the last
25 years (Aguinis and Glavas, 2012; Rupp and Mallory, 2015). According to Glavas (2016),
this situation can be perceived both as a problem and as an opportunity. The lack of
generalization from empirical studies on CSR activities constitutes “the problem” part.
In this case, at the first stage, researchers should define CSR or should indicate the definition
they adopted in the study. In terms of “the opportunity” part, CSR is a broad concept, so
stakeholders can perceive some of these activities as a moral duty of the enterprise, while
others may consider these activities as a reflection of goodwill. Therefore, different
perceptions may affect organization-related attitudes and behaviors of stakeholders at
different levels. In the current study, the definition of WBCSD (1999) was adopted. It is not
only one of the most recognized definitions of CSR (Dahlsrud, 2008), but also one of the most
used definitions in tourism literature (Farrington et al., 2016). Accordingly, WBCSD (1999)
defined CSR as “the commitment of business to contribute to sustainable economic
development, working with employees, their families, the local community and society at
large to improve their quality of life” (p. 3).
Having made one of the most significant contributions to the development of the CSR
concept, Carroll classified the social responsibilities of an enterprise under four dimensions with
the help of the pyramid he developed. From bottom to top, the pyramid is composed of the
following dimensions: economic, legal, ethical and philanthropic responsibilities (Carroll, 1979).
According to Carroll (1979), enterprises first and foremost are a part of the social life as an
economic structure. The main purpose of enterprises is to make profit by producing and selling
products. Mentioning other responsibilities is very difficult unless this responsibility is fulfilled.
Legal responsibility emphasizes that enterprises must comply with legal regulations while
JHTI performing their activities. Ethical responsibility is nurtured by commonly accepted norms
2,4 that are not included in legal regulations. It is the area that enterprises find most difficult to
perform because it varies from society to society (Carroll, 1991). Philanthropic responsibility
refers to a number of initiatives that enterprises are not required to carry out but consider them
necessary due to their sense of conscience (Carroll, 1991).
To measure CSR, which is a meta-construct (Rupp and Mallory, 2015), different
394 measurement tools were developed. The first measurement tool is based on stakeholder
theory (Freeman, 1994). This measurement tool includes items that question whether
enterprises fulfill their social responsibilities toward their stakeholders (employees, society,
customers, etc.) (Turker, 2009; Park and Levy, 2014). The second measurement tool is
composed of Carroll’s (1979) pyramid dimensions, namely, economic, legal, ethical and
philanthropic (Lee et al., 2012; Wang, 2014). Another measurement tool is composed of
economic, social and environmental components, which are the fundamental dimensions of
sustainable development (Martínez et al., 2013; Gursoy et al., 2019).

Corporate social responsibility in the tourism industry

In the tourism industry, CSR activities mainly involve environmental practices (Kucukusta
et al., 2013; Coles et al., 2013). They include such practices as energy and water conservation
and waste management. However, qualifying CSR activities only with environmental
practices would cause a misunderstanding of this term. Park and Levy (2014) indicate that
hotel enterprises should go beyond environment-friendly activities within the scope of CSR.
According to Kasim (2009), insensibility of the management and the organization’s
conservative approach toward learning are among the most significant reasons why CSR
activities cannot be fully implemented in the tourism industry. Houdré (2008) claims that
one of the most fundamental reasons why CSR is not fully understood in the tourism
industry is that those activities are considered within the scope of sustainability.
Another important issue to be mentioned in the tourism and hospitality industry within
the scope of CSR activities is the reporting of activities carried out by chain and group hotels
for the benefit of the community (Holcomb et al., 2007; de Grosbois, 2012; Boğan et al., 2016).
Enterprises intend to gain social legitimacy and social support by publicizing their
activities. These activities are announced either by creating a separate link on their website
or by including them in annual reports (de Grosbois, 2012; Boğan et al., 2016). In general,
luxurious and large-scale hotel enterprises that mainly appeal to foreign tourists rather than
domestic tourists carry out more social responsibility activities (Merwe and Wocke, 2007;
McGehee et al., 2009). Their main reason is that foreign tourists have higher expectations in
this regard.
Many studies have been carried out regarding how CSR activities contribute to financial
performance and encourage stakeholders to show positive attitudes and behaviors toward
the organization. Studies examining the relationship between CSR and financial
performance have concluded different findings. For example, some researchers found that
CSR performance had a positive impact on financial performance (Rodríguez and Cruz, 2007;
Qu, 2014), whereas some reported that CSR performance had no impact on financial
performance (Kang et al., 2010; Lee, Singal and Kang, 2013; Jung et al., 2016). Besides the
relationship between CSR activities and financial performance, how these activities would
influence customer attitudes and behaviors was also investigated. Based on the empirical
studies, it was concluded that customers’ CSR perceptions have a positive impact on
customer satisfaction (Martínez and del Bosque, 2013; Qu, 2014), image (Kucukusta et al.,
2013; Kim and Ham, 2016), perceived service quality (Kucukusta et al., 2013), customer
loyalty (Martínez and del Bosque, 2013; Kim and Ham, 2016), trust (Martínez and
del Bosque, 2013; Kim and Ham, 2016), organizational identification (Martínez and del
Bosque, 2013) and willingness to pay more (Kucukusta et al., 2013). Within the scope of the
potential labor force, studies found that CSR activities would positively affect the intention CSR
to work in the sector (Boğan and Dedeoğlu, 2017b), workplace preferences (Murray and perceptions
Ayoun, 2011) and recommending the workplace to others (Boğan and Dedeoğlu, 2017b). In on trust in
recent years, it has also been determined that the CSR activities carried out at the
destination level have positively affected the local people’s support in tourism (Su, Huang organization
and Huang, 2018; Gursoy et al., 2019), quality of life (Su, Huang and Huang, 2018), tourism’s
perceived positive impact (Su, Huang and Huang, 2018; Su, Huang and Pearce, 2018), 395
satisfaction (Su, Huang and Pearce, 2018; Gursoy et al., 2019) and exhibiting
environmentally responsible behaviors (Su, Huang and Pearce, 2018).
In addition to customers, local people, and potential labor force, numerous empirical
studies have been conducted regarding the impact of CSR activities on the attitude and
behavior of employees. The results showed that employees’ CSR perceptions created a
positive impact on job satisfaction (Lee et al., 2012; Boğan, Türkay and Dedeoğlu, 2018),
organizational identification (Park and Levy, 2014; Boğan, Türkay and Dedeoğlu, 2018),
intention to stay (Park et al., 2018), organizational citizenship behavior (Kim et al., 2017),
organizational commitment (Park et al., 2018), work-life quality (Kim et al., 2017),
organizational trust (Lee et al., 2012; Lee, Song, Lee, Lee and Bernhard, 2013), work
engagement (Park et al., 2018), perceived organizational culture (Wong and Gao, 2014),
innovative behavior (Park et al., 2018) and expression behavior (Ilkhanizadeh and
Karatepe, 2017). Based on the positive reactions of stakeholders and empirical
studies revealing the positive impact of CSR on organizational performance, CSR is a
strategic requirement for tourism enterprises and embodies certain opportunities
(Bhattacharya and Sen, 2004).

Employees’ CSR perceptions and trust in an organization

Trust is defined as “an individual’s confidence in another person’s intentions and motives,
and the sincerity of that person’s word” (Mellinger, 1956, cited in Lewicki et al., 1998, p. 439).
Attributes as consistency, honesty, helpfulness and competency that form an individual’s
personality render him a trustworthy person (Mayer et al., 1995). Within the scope of
organizations, trust is a result of the evaluation of ethics and values embodied in an
organization (Dirks and Ferrin, 2002).
The two of most commonly cited theories in understanding the reactions of employees to
CSR activities include signaling theory and deontic justice theory (Rupp and Mallory, 2015;
Gond et al., 2017). According to signaling theory (Spence, 1973; Connelly et al., 2011), an
enterprise, with the help of its social responsibility activities, sends messages about its
values and sensitivities to both internal and external stakeholders. Those messages
contribute to formation of organization identity. As a result of the positive evaluations, the
belief in the sincerity and goodwill of the organization increases and trust rises (Hansen
et al., 2011). According to Pivato et al. (2008), the most important contribution of CSR
activities carried out by enterprises is the allocation of trust between the enterprise and its
stakeholders. The fact that the enterprise is engaged in CSR activities can lead employees to
think that it has good intentions, and the enterprise’s protective attitude toward its external
stakeholders reinforces the feeling in employees that the enterprise would protect and care
about them. Therefore, CSR activities contribute to employees’ trust in the organization
(Lee et al., 2012).
Besides signaling theory, deontic justice theory (Cropanzano et al., 2001) states that
employees’ perceptions of fairness in the organization have a remarkable impact on their
attitudes and behaviors toward the organization. Employees’ organizational trust means to
what extent the enterprise acts in a fair way. Nowadays, employees expect fair behaviors
toward not only themselves, but also their colleagues and even society. CSR activities can
be regarded as an indicator of fairness toward society. Therefore, employees’ trust can be
JHTI ensured through CSR activities aimed at benefiting society. Depending on this theoretical
2,4 background, the following hypotheses can be developed:
H1. Employees’ perceptions of environment-oriented CSR have a positive effect on trust
in organization.
H2. Employees’ perceptions of community-oriented CSR have a positive effect on trust
396 in organization.

Moderating role of employees’ self-experienced CSR perceptions

In the present study, it is assumed that employees’ self-experienced CSR perceptions will
have a moderating effect in the relationship between employees’ community- and
environment-oriented CSR perceptions and trust in an organization. Indeed, individuals
expect fair treatment toward others and themselves and mostly toward themselves first
(Rupp et al., 2013). To explain it with the help of an example, consider an enterprise as a
family. Management refers to the parents, and employees refer to the children. If the parents
show affection toward the children of their neighbors but ignore their own, the children in
the family would start questioning their parents’ love and affection. A similar case can be
seen in enterprises. If an enterprise makes some initiatives for the benefit of its external
stakeholders (e.g. building a school) but does not pay salaries on time or does not have a fair-
price policy, the employees would question the sincerity of CSR activities that target
external stakeholders. Inconsistency between internal and external behaviors and attitudes
could harm the sincerity and credibility of the enterprise in the eyes of its employees. It may
even cause the perception of organizational hypocrisy (Koşar and Koşar, 2017). However, if
the enterprise carries out CSR activities with a sense of fairness toward both the employees
and the external stakeholders, employees’ trust in the organization strengthens (Rupp et al.,
2013). McShane and Cunningham (2012) indicated that employees’ perceptions of
organizational consistency/inconsistency are quite simple and a sharp way of forming a
general opinion about the enterprise. Therefore, this perception is effective in shaping the
attitudes and behaviors of employees toward the enterprise. Based on this theoretical
background, the following hypotheses can be developed:
H3. Employees’ community-oriented CSR perceptions have a stronger impact on trust in
organization on the condition that their self-experienced CSR perceptions are high.
H4. Employees’ environment-oriented CSR perceptions have a stronger impact on trust
in organization on the condition that their self-experienced CSR perceptions are
high (Figure 1).

Methodology
Instrument
In this study, the questionnaire was used as a data collection tool. The questionnaire
consists of three parts. In the first part, hotel employees’ perceptions of CSR activities are
presented. Employees’ CSR perceptions are examined under three dimensions: social
responsibility toward the community, employees and environment. An in-depth literature
review was carried out for the CSR scale, and a pool of statements was formed based on
different studies (Clarkson, 1995; Carroll, 1999; Şimşek, 1999; Jamali, 2008; Avcıkurt, 2009;
Turker, 2009; Lee, Song, Lee, Lee and Bernhard, 2013; Türker and Uçar, 2013). These
statements were discussed with one professor and two assistant professors in a business
school who are experts in their fields, and some statements were eliminated. All remaining
statements were then brought together, and 30 undergraduate students were asked for their
feedback on the statements. Thereafter, a pilot test was conducted with 50 undergraduate
 CSR
perceptions
Community-
oriented CSR on trust in
H2 organization
Trust in
H3 organization
397
H1
Environment-
H4
oriented CSR

Self-
experienced
CSR Figure 1.
Research model

students who had work experience in the hotels of the region. The results were found to be
satisfactory. Employees’ social responsibility perceptions toward the community, the
natural environment, and the employees were measured by three, four and seven
statements, respectively. In the second part of the survey, trust in the organizational scale
consisting of four statements was included. To develop this scale, the studies of Lee et al.
(2012) and Aktuna (2007) were taken as bases. All statements in the scales were measured
via a five-point Likert scale. In the third part, questions on the demographic characteristics
of the participants and their workplaces were included.

Data collection and sample

The research population consists of employees in four- and five-star hotels that operate the
whole year within Alanya, Turkey. To find these hotels, the Alanya Chamber of Commerce
and Industry’s official website was visited. The website shows that there are 53 five-star and
92 four-star hotels in Alanya. These hotels were called one-by-one and asked whether they
operate all year round. In total, 13 five-star and 9 four-star hotels are open the whole year.
The questionnaire was designed to apply to all employees regardless of their departments.
Following the determination of the research population, the general managers or human
resources managers in the hotels were contacted, informed about the purpose of the study
and asked for their help in implementing the survey. Some hotel managers were not open to
the study; therefore, the questionnaires were conducted in eight five-star and five four-star
hotels only. The total number of employees in these hotels was 1,600. Since working with the
population would be challenging, a research sample was selected. The convenience
sampling method was employed. A total of 920 questionnaires were delivered to the
employees in 2015, and 524 out of 920 were collected; therefore, the return rate was found to
be 56.9 percent. A total of 86 of 524 questionnaires were eliminated due to lack of data, and
438 questionnaires were found eligible for analysis.

Data analysis
The research data were subject to an elimination process first, where the existence of
missing values was checked. Steps recommended by Hair, Hult, Ringle and Sarstedt (2017)
were followed to determine the missing values and to select the appropriate method.
Accordingly, the mean substitution method was preferred, and the missing values were
designated. Thereafter, the Mahalanobis distance was checked for possible extreme values.
JHTI No extreme value was found (Mahalanobis D [18] 78.5226, p o0.001) (Hair et al., 2013). As a
2,4 last step, skewness and kurtosis values were checked for the normal distribution. Since
skewness and kurtosis values did not violate the recommended values, the normal
distribution assumption was achieved (Kline, 2011).
The research model in the present study was checked via the partial least squares
method of structural equation modeling (PLS–SEM). PLS–SEM is a repetitive method that
398 does not impose distributional assumptions on data for the estimation of SEM (Fornell et al.,
1996). Besides being a suitable method to analyze the data collected through ordinal scales
like Likert, PLS–SEM yields more effective and fruitful results in the explanation
and estimation-oriented models (Hair, Matthews, Matthews and Sarstedt, 2017). Thus,
PLS–SEM was preferred in this study. It was examined with the help of SmartPLS 3.2.8
(Ringle et al., 2017).
To examine, within the scope of the relationships in the research model, the moderating
effect of employees’ perceptions of employee-oriented social responsibility activities,
PLS-multiple group analysis (PLS–MGA) was applied. Before applying PLS–MGA, the
measurement invariances should be checked. Therefore, the method of the measurement
invariance of the composite models (MICOM) recommended by Henseler et al. (2016) was
used. In this regard, employees’ perceptions of employee-oriented social responsibility
activities were classified by the K-mean cluster test as high and low groups.

Findings
Demographical findings
The demographical characteristics of the respondents are briefly presented in Table I.
The table shows that most of the respondents are male and are aged 18–30. In addition,
81.3 percent of the respondents are working in five-star hotels. Among all departments, the
highest number of respondents is from the department of food and beverage. The second
highest number of respondents works in the department of housekeeping. The majority of
the respondents have more than three years of work experience in hotels. The respondents
are mainly composed of high school graduates (38.3 percent), primary school graduates
(35.9 percent) and university graduates (25.6 percent).

Testing research model

PLS–SEM is composed of two components: the measurement model and the structural
model. The measurement model was examined first. The constructs in the study was

Characteristic Group f Characteristic Group f

Gender Male 291 Education Primary school 147

Female 138 High school 157
Missing value 9 Bachelor 105
Age 18–30 172 Missing value 29
31–39 135 Department Front office 58
40 and above 69 Food and beverage 115
Missing value 62 Housekeeping 80
Hotel class 4 star 74 Human resource management 13
5 star 323 Technical service 17
Missing value 41 Security 24
Table I. Length of working (in months) 3–12 99 Kitchen 26
Demographical 13–36 100 Accounting 18
characteristics of 37 and above 184 Other 54
respondents Missing value 55 Missing value 33
examined from a reflective point of view. Thus, as recommended in the measurement model, CSR
internal consistency and convergent and discriminant validities were checked (Hair, Hult, perceptions
Ringle and Sarstedt, 2017). on trust in
Table II shows that Cronbach’s α values are between 0.72 and 0.87, while composite
reliability values are between 0.84 and 0.91. In addition, AVE values are above 0.50, and the organization
factor loadings of the items are between 0.72 and 0.87. Based on these figures, the internal
consistency and the convergent validity were fulfilled. Besides the criterion of Fornell and 399
Larcker (1981), the heterotrait-monotrait (HTMT) rate recommended by Henseler et al. (2015)
was examined. Table III shows that since the square root of AVE values was found to be
below the correlations of the relevant variables (according to the method of Fornell and
Larcker, 1981), the discriminant validity was achieved. That discriminant validity was also
met because the HTMT values were below 0.90.
After obtaining valid findings regarding the measurement model, the structural model
was tested. During this process, multicollinearity (variance inflation factor), path coefficients
(β), determination coefficient (R2), impact size ( f2) and Stone–Geisser’s Q2 value were
examined, respectively (Hair, Hult, Ringle and Sarstedt, 2017). These findings are briefly
presented in Table IV.
The table shows that perceptions of social responsibility activities focusing on the
environment (β ¼ 0.398; t ¼ 7.393; p ¼ 0.000) and community (β ¼ 0.377; t ¼ 6.942; p ¼ 0.000) have
a positive and significant impact on organizational trust. Therefore, H1 and H2 were accepted.

Path
Dimension Statements coefficients t-value CR AVE Cronbach’s α

Community- My hotel is sensitive to social problems 0.81 32.142 0.84 0.64 0.72
oriented CSR My hotel frequently donates to charities 0.82 34.697
My hotel supplies local products and services 0.77 26.456
Environment- My hotel takes steps to save water 0.74 22.703 0.84 0.56 0.74
oriented CSR My hotel investigates the environmental 0.80 34.785
impacts that may occur during its activities
My hotel hangs informative posters to the 0.72 18.912
general areas of the hotel in terms of
environmental cleanliness
My hotel takes steps to save energy 0.73 21.500
Trust in My hotel is committed to understand 0.85 39.871 0.91 0.72 0.87
organization employees
The communication channels of my hotel are 0.83 39.563
always open
Everything is open in my hotel, there are no 0.87 51.451
hidden practices Table II.
I trust my hotel 0.84 45.275 Results of
Notes: CR, construct reliability; AVE, average variance extracted measurement model

Fornell–Larcker Environment Trust Community HTMT Environment Trust Community

Environment-oriented 0.750a Environment

CSR
Trust in organization 0.646 0.850a Trust 0.802
Community-oriented 0.659 0.639 0.801a Community 0.896 0.787 Table III.
CSR Results of
Note: aThe square root of the AVE discriminant validity
JHTI A total of 49.5 percent of the changes in employees’ trust in an organization is explained by
2,4 antecedent variables (R2 ¼ 0.495). Perceptions of social responsibility activities focusing on the
environment ( f2 ¼ 0.18) and society ( f2 ¼ 0.16) have a medium impact on employees’
organizational trust. At last, the estimation of antecedent variables is clear because
Stone–Geisser’s Q2 value is larger than 0 (Figure 2).

400 Moderating role of employees’ self-experienced CSR perceptions

Employees’ self-experienced CSR perceptions were classified as high and low groups via the
K-mean cluster test. Following this stage, the MICOM method suggested by Henseler et al.
(2016) was applied. The configural invariance was checked first, followed by the
compositional invariance. As a last step, it was determined whether the mean values and
variances were equal. Since the same structure was used for both groups, the configural
invariance was met. In addition, no significant variance was found between MICOM groups
during the measurement of the compositional invariance, which means the compositional
invariance was also met. However, the result of the last step showed that the composite
mean values and variances of all dimensions were not equal. Considering the above-
mentioned criteria, the measurement of all constructs varies in line with the groups.
Therefore, the partial measurement invariance was achieved. Achieving this invariance is
sufficient to proceed with PLS–MGA (Henseler et al., 2016). The PLS–MGA results are
presented in Table V.
The table shows that employees’ self-experienced CSR perceptions do not play a
moderating role in the relationship between employees’ perceptions of environment-oriented
social responsibility and trust in an organization. On the other hand, employees’ self-
experienced CSR perceptions do play a moderating role in the relationship between
employees’ community-oriented CSR perceptions and trust in an organization. More clearly,

Path
Hypothesis Relation coefficients t-value p VIF R2 f2 Q2 Supported

H1 Environment- 0.398 7.393 0.000 1.768 0.495 0.178 SSO ¼ 1.752,000 Yes
oriented SSE ¼ 1.158,709
CSR → Trust Q2 ¼ 0.339
Table IV. H2 Community- 0.377 6.942 0.000 1.768 0.160 Yes
Results of oriented
structural model CSR → Trust

f 2 = 0.160
Community- R 2 = 0.495
oriented CSR  = 0.3
77; t =
6.942
Trust in
organization
.393
98; t =7
 = 0.3
Environment-
Figure 2.
oriented CSR
Result of the f 2 = 0.178
structural model
community-oriented social responsibility activities have a larger and more determinative CSR
impact on trust in an organization for the employees with high perceptions of perceptions
self-experienced CSR (Figure 3). on trust in
organization
Conclusions
The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between employees’ community- and
environment-oriented CSR perceptions and trust in an organization in the hotel context. This 401
study extends the previous studies by empirically testing the moderating role of employees’
self-experienced CSR perceptions on the links between community- and environment-oriented
CSR perceptions and trust in an organization. The findings suggested that the employees’
community- and environment-oriented CSR perceptions positively affect trust in the
organization. In addition, the impact of hotel employees’ community-oriented CSR perceptions
on trust in the organization was more determinative for those with high self-experienced CSR
perceptions. Contrary to our expectation, the findings do not provide evidence to support
self-experienced CSR perceptions as a moderator on the link between environment-oriented
CSR perceptions and trust in the organization. Accordingly, theoretical and managerial
implications are provided below.

Theoretical implications
This study offers several theoretical implications. Studies focusing on CSR activities were
mainly examined at the macro level (Aguinis and Glavas, 2012), and internal stakeholders’
feedback was not sufficiently considered. Studies focusing on CSR have mostly been carried

Path Welch–
Hypothesis Relation Group coefficient t PLS–MGA Parametric Satterthwait Supported

H3 Environment- High 0.190** 2.472 Δβ ¼ 0.155 Δβ ¼ 0.155 Δβ ¼ 0.155 No

oriented CSR →
Trust Low 0.345* 4.474 p ¼ 0.924 p ¼ 0.215 p ¼ 0.157 Table V.
H4 Community- High 0.408* 5.647 Δβ ¼ 0.235 Δβ ¼ 0.235 Δβ ¼ 0.235 Yes PLS–MGA results for
oriented CSR → the groups with high
Trust Low 0.172* 2.757 p ¼ 0.008 p ¼ 0.024 p ¼ 0.014 and low perceptions of
Notes: *p o0.01; **p o 0.05 self-experienced CSR

Community-  = 0.408; t = 5.647

oriented CSR

 = 0.172; t = 2.757 Trust in

organization
 = 0.190; t = 2.472

Environment-
oriented CSR  = 0.345; t = 4.474

Figure 3.
Result of PLS–MGA
Notes: Bold for high; italics for low
JHTI out in America and Europe and have started to become more common in Far Eastern
2,4 countries (Chapple and Moon, 2005; Aguilera and Crespi-Cladera, 2016). Nevertheless,
this concept has not yet been examined in detail in Turkey as a developing country.
Boğan, Çalışkan and Dedeoğlu (2018) suggested that this concept should be further studied
in developing countries, such as Turkey, to generalize the findings of previous studies that
employees mostly show positive reactions to social responsibility practices. Therefore,
402 the present study is one of the leading studies in Turkey within the scope of employees’
returns on CSR.
Showing parallelism with prior research (Lin, 2010; Vlachos et al., 2010; Hansen et al.,
2011; Lee et al., 2012; Lee, Song, Lee, Lee and Bernhard, 2013), this study provides
empirical evidence of a link between employees’ CSR perceptions and trust in an
organization. Lin (2010) surveyed employees in 20 large firms in Taiwan to investigate the
impact of employees’ citizenship perceptions (economic, legal, ethical and philanthropic)
on organizational trust. He found that all dimensions except legal had a positive impact on
organizational trust. Vlachos et al. (2010) examined the link between sales force
perceptions of CSR motives and organizational trust. They found that stakeholder- and
values-driven CSR motives positively influence organizational trust. Lee et al. (2012)
surveyed employees of franchised food service enterprises located in South Korea to
examine the impact of CSR on organizational trust. They found that enterprises’ economic
and philanthropic social responsibility activities made a significant contribution to
organizational trust. In another study conducted with casino employees in South Korea,
Lee, Song, Lee, Lee and Bernhard (2013) found that only the legal dimension of CSR
perceptions had a positive effect on organizational trust. Hansen et al. (2011) examined
employees’ CSR perceptions and found its positive impact on organizational trust in two
studies. Although most of these previous studies measured CSR using Carroll’s (1979)
economic, legal, ethical and philanthropic dimensions, the current study extends the
previous work by measuring CSR with stakeholder approach as employees’ community-
and environment-oriented CSR.
The results suggested that employees’ self-experienced CSR perceptions play a
moderating role on the link between community-oriented CSR and trust in an
organization. In other words, the impact of employees’ community-oriented CSR
perceptions on trust in an organization had a more determinative impact on the group
with higher self-experienced CSR perceptions. This finding supports “deontic justice
theory” that emphasizes that individuals expect fair treatment toward not only
themselves but also other individuals in society (Folger, 2001). Nevertheless, this
moderating effect could not be found in the relationship between environment-oriented
social responsibility and trust in an organization. One of the main reasons could be that
employees might not have considered hotels’ environmental initiatives such as energy
saving and recycling as voluntary activities. This kind of initiatives could be associated
with the economic survival of the enterprise because they would provide financial savings
to the organization or satisfy customers’ expectations in general (Sprinkle and Maines,
2010). In other words, environment-oriented social responsibility activities might not be a
social responsibility area that employees consider while assessing the external fairness of
the enterprise. Thus, social responsibility activities that target different stakeholders
could change employees’ reactions. A similar pattern of results was found by Erdogan
et al. (2015) and De Roeck et al. (2016). Erdogan et al. (2015) found that the impact of
commitment to environmental practices on organizational commitment and
organizational justice was more determinative for employees with high perceptions of
organizational support. De Roeck et al. (2016) found that the effect of employees’ CSR
perceptions on organizational identification through organizational pride is stronger
among the employees who hold high levels of overall justice.
Practical implications CSR
Besides its contribution to the current body of knowledge, this study provides useful perceptions
information to the hotel industry. In hotel businesses where the personnel turnover rate is on trust in
high, further focus should be placed on activities to establish trust between the organization
and the employees. Hotels are supposed to act in a fair way. One way to mirror the organization
organizational justice for external partners is to carry out social responsibility activities that
target environmental protection and benefit society (Rupp et al., 2006). Hotel enterprises can 403
gain employees’ trust by cooperating with non-governmental or charitable organizations
with the purpose of improving individuals’ quality of life. Providing financial support for
the construction of schools, hospitals, etc., which are needed by society, and giving
employment opportunities to local people can be taken as examples in this regard. Due to its
stronger impact on trust in an organization, hotels should also consider their employees and
act in a fair way toward them while carrying out social responsibility activities for the
benefit of society. If an enterprise ignores its employees while focusing on beneficial
activities for society, it might cause confusion and distrust among employees, which could
result in several negative attitudes and behaviors such as cynicism and absenteeism
(Kılıçoğlu, 2017). Another critical point is that employees should be aware of social
initiatives taken for the benefit of society at large. As mentioned by Du et al. (2010), one of
the prerequisites of stakeholders’ positive feedback on social and environmental initiatives
is that they should be adequately informed about those initiatives. Hotel management
should communicate those initiatives to its employees through various internal
communication channels.

Research limitations and future directions

Although this study shows good results, it has some limitations. First, only community and
natural environments were considered as an organization’s external stakeholders. By
incorporating into the research model the social responsibility activities for different
stakeholder groups such as future generations, customers and rival enterprises, much
broader and comprehensive results can be obtained. Second, this study limited employees’
returns to social responsibility initiatives with trust in an organization. However, a
dependent variable such as job performance or organizational citizenship behavior as
outcomes of organizational trust can be incorporated into the research model. The mediating
role of trust can be examined in the context of this relationship because trust is generally
examined as a mediator mechanism in the research models (Hon and Lu, 2010). Finally, this
study was conducted on hotel employees. However, it would be beneficial to obtain
generalizable findings through studies carried out on employees in different touristic
businesses (e.g. restaurant).

References
Aguilera, R.V. and Crespi-Cladera, R. (2016), “Global corporate governance: on the relevance of firms’
ownership structure”, Journal of World Business, Vol. 51 No. 1, pp. 50-57.
Aguilera, R.V., Rupp, D.E., Williams, C.A. and Ganapathi, J. (2007), “Putting the S back in corporate
social responsibility: a multilevel theory of social change in organizations”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 836-863.
Aguinis, H. and Glavas, A. (2012), “What we know and don’t know about corporate social
responsibility: a review and research agenda”, Journal of Management, Vol. 38 No. 4,
pp. 932-968.
Aktuna, M. (2007), “İnsan kaynakları yönetimi eğitim fonksiyonunun örgütsel güvene etkileri ve bir
uygulama”, master dissertation, Institute of Social Sciences, Dumlupınar University, Kütahya.
Avcıkurt, C. (2009), Turizm Sosyolojisi: Genel ve Yapısal Yaklaşım, Detay Yayıncılık, Ankara.
JHTI Bhattacharya, C.B. and Sen, S. (2004), “Doing better at doing good: when, why, and how
2,4 consumers respond to corporate social initiatives”, California Management Review, Vol. 47
No. 1, pp. 9-24.
Boğan, E. and Dedeoğlu, B.B. (2017a), “The effects of perceived behavioral integrity of supervisors on
employee outcomes: moderating effects of tenure”, Journal of Hospitality Marketing &
Management, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 511-531.
404 Boğan, E. and Dedeoğlu, B.B. (2017b), “The link between perceived corporate social responsibility,
commitment to tourism industry and willingness to recommend the organization”,
7th Advances in Hospitality and Tourism Marketing and Management Conference,
Famagusta, pp. 120-134.
Boğan, E., Çalışkan, C. and Dedeoğlu, B.B. (2018), “Turizm yazınında kurumsal sosyal sorumluluk:
Türkiye’de yapılan çalışmaların bibliyometrik analizi”, Turizm Akademik Dergisi, Vol. 5 No. 2,
pp. 47-62.
Boğan, E., Türkay, O. and Dedeoğlu, B.B. (2018), “Perceived corporate social responsibility and job
satisfaction: the mediator role of organizational identification”, International Journal of Business
and Management Studies, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 51-67.
Boğan, E., Ulama, Ş. and Sarıışık, M. (2016), “A research on effectiveness of websites in announcing
corporate social responsibility activities of chain and group hotels: the case of Turkey”,
International Conference on Eurasian Economies, Kaposvar, pp. 727-733.
Bowen, H.R. (1953), Social Responsibilities of the Businessman, Harper and Row, New York, NY.
Carroll, A.B. (1979), “A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 497-505.
Carroll, A.B. (1991), “The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: toward the moral management of
organizational stakeholders”, Business Horizons, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 39-48.
Carroll, A.B. (1999), “Corporate social responsibility: evolution of a definitional construct”, Business &
Society, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 268-295.
Chapple, W. and Moon, J. (2005), “Corporate social responsibility (CSR) in Asia: a seven-country study
of CSR web site reporting”, Business & Society, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 415-441.
Clarkson, M.E. (1995), “A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social
performance”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 92-117.
Coles, T., Fenclova, E. and Dinan, C. (2013), “Tourism and corporate social responsibility: a critical
review and research agenda”, Tourism Management Perspectives, Vol. 6, pp. 122-141.
Collier, J. and Esteban, R. (2007), “Corporate social responsibility and employee commitment”, Business
Ethics: A European Review, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 19-33.
Connelly, B.L., Certo, S.T., Ireland, R.D. and Reutzel, C.R. (2011), “Signaling theory: a review and
assessment”, Journal of Management, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 39-67.
Cropanzano, R., Byrne, Z.S., Bobocel, D.R. and Rupp, D.E. (2001), “Moral virtues, fairness heuristics,
social entities, and other denizens of organizational justice”, Journal of Vocational Behavior,
Vol. 58 No. 2, pp. 164-209.
Dahlsrud, A. (2008), “How corporate social responsibility is defined: an analysis of 37 definitions”,
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 1-13.
de Grosbois, D. (2012), “Corporate social responsibility reporting by the global hotel industry:
commitment, initiatives and performance”, International Journal of Hospitality Management,
Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 896-905.
De Roeck, K., El Akremi, A. and Swaen, V. (2016), “Consistency matters! How and when does corporate
social responsibility affect employees’ organizational identification?”, Journal of Management
Studies, Vol. 53 No. 7, pp. 1141-1168.
Dirks, K.T. and Ferrin, D.L. (2002), “Trust in leadership: meta-analytic findings and implications for
research and practice”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 4, pp. 611-628.
Du, S., Bhattacharya, C.B. and Sen, S. (2010), “Maximizing business returns to corporate social CSR
responsibility (CSR): the role of CSR communication”, International Journal of Management perceptions
Reviews, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 8-19.
on trust in
Erdogan, B., Bauer, T.N. and Taylor, S. (2015), “Management commitment to the ecological
environment and employees: implications for employee attitudes and citizenship behaviors”, organization
Human Relations, Vol. 68 No. 11, pp. 1669-1691.
Fairweather, J.R., Maslin, C. and Simmons, D.G. (2005), “Environmental values and response to 405
ecolabels among international visitors to New Zealand”, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 13
No. 1, pp. 82-98.
Farrington, T., Curran, R., Gori, K., O’Gorman, K.D. and Queenan, C.J. (2016), “Corporate social
responsibility: reviewed, rated, revised”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 30-47.
Folger, R. (2001), “Fairness as deonance”, in Gilliland, S.W., Steiner, D.D. and Skarlicki, D.P. (Eds),
Research in Social Issues in Management, Information Age, Greenwich, CT, pp. 3-33.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Fornell, C., Johnson, M.D., Anderson, E.W., Cha, J. and Bryant, B.E. (1996), “The American customer
satisfaction index”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60 No. 4, pp. 7-18.
Freeman, R.E. (1994), Strategic Management. A Stakeholder Approach, Pitman, Boston, MA.
Glavas, A. (2016), “Corporate social responsibility and organizational psychology: an integrative
review”, Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 7 No. 144, pp. 1-13.
Gond, J.P., El Akremi, A., Swaen, V. and Babu, N. (2017), “The psychological microfoundations of
corporate social responsibility: a person‐centric systematic review”, Journal of Organizational
Behavior, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 225-246.
Gursoy, D., Boğan, E., Dedeoğlu, B.B. and Çalışkan, C. (2019), “Residents’ perceptions of hotels’
corporate social responsibility initiatives and its impact on residents’ sentiments to community
and support for additional tourism development”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
Management, Vol. 39, pp. 117-128.
Hair, J.F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C. and Sarstedt, M. (2017), A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural
Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), 2nd ed., Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Hair, J.F., Matthews, L.M., Matthews, R.L. and Sarstedt, M. (2017), “PLS-SEM or CB-SEM: updated
guidelines on which method to use”, International Journal of Multivariate Data Analysis, Vol. 1
No. 2, pp. 107-123.
Hair, J.F., Babin, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. and Tatham, R.L. (2013), Multivariate Data Analysis:
Pearson New International Edition, 7th ed., Pearson Education, Harlow.
Hansen, D., Dunford, B.B., Boss, A.D., Boss, R.W. and Angermeier, I. (2011), “Corporate social
responsibility and the benefits of employee trust: a cross-disciplinary perspective”, Journal of
Business Ethics, Vol. 102 No. 1, pp. 29-45.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2015), “A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in
variance-based structural equation modeling”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 115-135.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2016), “Testing measurement invariance of composites using
partial least squares”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 405-431.
Holcomb, J.L., Upchurch, R.S. and Okumus, F. (2007), “Corporate social responsibility: what are top
hotel companies reporting?”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,
Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 461-475.
Hon, A.H. and Lu, L. (2010), “The mediating role of trust between expatriate procedural justice and
employee outcomes in Chinese hotel industry”, International Journal of Hospitality Management,
Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 669-676.
JHTI Houdré, H. (2008), “Sustainable development in the hotel industry”, Cornell Hospitality Industry
2,4 Perspectives, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 6-20.
Ilkhanizadeh, S. and Karatepe, O.M. (2017), “An examination of the consequences of corporate social
responsibility in the airline industry: work engagement, career satisfaction, and voice behavior”,
Journal of Air Transport Management, Vol. 59, pp. 8-17.
Jamali, D. (2008), “A stakeholder approach to corporate social responsibility: a fresh perspective into
406 theory and practice”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 82 No. 1, pp. 213-231.
Jung, S., Lee, S. and Dalbor, M. (2016), “The negative synergistic effect of internationalization and
corporate social responsibility on US restaurant firms’ value performance”, International Journal
of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 28 No. 8, pp. 1759-1777.
Kang, K.H., Lee, S. and Huh, C. (2010), “Impacts of positive and negative corporate social responsibility
activities on company performance in the hospitality industry”, International Journal of
Hospitality Management, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 72-82.
Kasim, A. (2009), “Managerial attitudes towards environmental management among small
and medium hotels in Kuala Lumpur”, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 17 No. 6,
pp. 709-725.
Kılıçoğlu, G. (2017), “Consistency or discrepancy? Rethinking schools from organizational hypocrisy to
integrity”, Management in Education, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 118-124.
Kim, E. and Ham, S. (2016), “Restaurants’ disclosure of nutritional information as a corporate social
responsibility initiative: customers’ attitudinal and behavioral responses”, International Journal
of Hospitality Management, Vol. 55, pp. 96-106.
Kim, H.L., Rhou, Y., Uysal, M. and Kwon, N. (2017), “An examination of the links between corporate
social responsibility (CSR) and its internal consequences”, International Journal of Hospitality
Management, Vol. 61, pp. 26-34.
Kline, R.B. (2011), Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, Guilford Press, New York, NY.
Koşar, D. and Koşar, S. (2017), “Örgütsel ikiyüzlülük”, in Özdemir, S. and Cemaloğlu, N. (Eds), Örgütsel
Davranış ve Yönetimi, Pegem Akademi, Ankara, pp. 595-617.
Kucukusta, D., Mak, A. and Chan, X. (2013), “Corporate social responsibility practices in four and five-
star hotels: perspectives from Hong Kong visitors”, International Journal of Hospitality
Management, Vol. 34, pp. 19-30.
Lee, C.K., Song, H.J., Lee, H.M., Lee, S. and Bernhard, B.J. (2013), “The impact of CSR on casino
employees’ organizational trust, job satisfaction, and customer orientation: an empirical
examination of responsible gambling strategies”, International Journal of Hospitality
Management, Vol. 33, pp. 406-415.
Lee, S., Singal, M. and Kang, K.H. (2013), “The corporate social responsibility – financial performance
link in the US restaurant industry: do economic conditions matter?”, International Journal of
Hospitality Management, Vol. 32, pp. 2-10.
Lee, Y.K., Lee, K.H. and Li, D.X. (2012), “The impact of CSR on relationship quality and relationship
outcomes: a perspective of service employees”, International Journal of Hospitality Management,
Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 745-756.
Lewicki, R.J., McAllister, D.J. and Bies, R.J. (1998), “Trust and distrust: new relationships and realities”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 438-458.
Lin, C.P. (2010), “Modeling corporate citizenship, organizational trust, and work engagement based on
attachment theory”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 94 No. 4, pp. 517-531.
McAllister, D.J. (1995), “Affect-and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation
in organizations”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 24-59.
McGehee, G.N., Wattanakamolchai, S., Perdue, R.R. and Onat Calvert, E. (2009), “Corporate social
responsibility within the US lodging industry: an exploratory study”, Journal of Hospitality &
Tourism Research, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 417-437.
McShane, L. and Cunningham, P. (2012), “To thine own self be true? Employees’ judgments of the CSR
authenticity of their organization’s corporate social responsibility program”, Journal of Business perceptions
Ethics, Vol. 108 No. 1, pp. 81-100.
on trust in
Martínez, P. and del Bosque, I.R. (2013), “CSR and customer loyalty: the roles of trust, customer
identification with the company and satisfaction”, International Journal of Hospitality organization
Management, Vol. 35, pp. 89-99.
Martínez, P., Pérez, A. and del Bosque, I.R. (2013), “Measuring corporate social responsibility in 407
tourism: development and validation of an efficient measurement scale in the hospitality
industry”, Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 365-385.
Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H. and Schoorman, F.D. (1995), “An integrative model of organizational trust”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 709-734.
Mellinger, G.D. (1956), “Interpersonal trust as a factor in communication”, The Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 304-309.
Merwe, M.V.D. and Wocke, A. (2007), “An investigation into responsible tourism practices in the
South African hotel industry”, South African Journal of Business Management, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 1-15.
Murray, D.W. and Ayoun, B.M. (2011), “Hospitality student perceptions on the use of sustainable
business practices as a means of signaling attractiveness and attracting future employees”,
Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 60-79.
Ozturk, A. and Karatepe, O.M. (2019), “Frontline hotel employees’ psychological capital, trust in
organization, and their effects on nonattendance intentions, absenteeism, and creative
performance”, Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 217-239.
Park, S.Y. and Levy, S.E. (2014), “Corporate social responsibility: perspectives of hotel frontline
employees”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 26 No. 3,
pp. 332-348.
Park, Y., Lee, C.K. and Kim, H. (2018), “The influence of corporate social responsibility on travel
company employees”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 30
No. 1, pp. 178-196.
Pivato, S., Misani, N. and Tencati, A. (2008), “The impact of corporate social responsibility on consumer
trust: the case of organic food”, Business Ethics: A European Review, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 3-12.
Qu, R. (2014), “Market orientation and organizational performance linkage in Chinese hotels: the
mediating roles of corporate social responsibility and customer satisfaction”, Asia Pacific
Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 19 No. 12, pp. 1399-1416.
Ringle, C.M., Wende, S. and Becker, J.M. (2017), “SmartPLS 3”, SmartPLS GmbH, Boenningstedt.
Rodríguez, F.J.G. and Cruz, Y.D.M.A. (2007), “Relation between social-environmental responsibility and
performance in hotel firms”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 26 No. 4,
pp. 824-839.
Rupp, D.E. and Mallory, D.B. (2015), “Corporate social responsibility: psychological, person-centric, and
progressing”, Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, Vol. 2
No. 1, pp. 211-236.
Rupp, D.E., Ganapathi, J., Aguilera, R.V. and Williams, C.A. (2006), “Employee reactions to corporate
social responsibility: an organizational justice framework”, Journal of Organizational Behavior,
Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 537-543.
Rupp, D.E., Shao, R., Thornton, M.A. and Skarlicki, D.P. (2013), “Applicants’ and employees’ reactions
to corporate social responsibility: the moderating effects of first-party justice perceptions and
moral identity”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 66 No. 4, pp. 895-933.
Şimşek, B. (1999), “Yöneticilerin çalışanlarına karşı etik sorumlulukları”, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi
Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 69-86.
Skarlicki, D.P. and Kulik, C.T. (2005), “Third-party reactions to employee (mis)treatment: a justice
perspective”, in Staw, B.M. and Kramer, R.M. (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior,
JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 183-229.
JHTI Spence, M. (1973), “Job market signaling”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 87 No. 3,
2,4 pp. 355-374.
Sprinkle, G.B. and Maines, L.A. (2010), “The benefits and costs of corporate social responsibility”,
Business Horizons, Vol. 53 No. 5, pp. 445-453.
Su, L., Huang, S. and Huang, J. (2018), “Effects of destination social responsibility and tourism impacts
on residents’ support for tourism and perceived quality of life”, Journal of Hospitality & Tourism
Research, Vol. 42 No. 7, pp. 1039-1057.
408
Su, L., Huang, S. and Pearce, J. (2018), “How does destination social responsibility contribute to
environmentally responsible behaviour? A destination resident perspective”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 86, pp. 179-189.
Tan, H.H. and Lim, A.K. (2009), “Trust in coworkers and trust in organizations”, The Journal of
Psychology, Vol. 143 No. 1, pp. 45-66.
Tekeli, M. and Buyruk, L. (2018), “The effect of perceived organizational justice to work alienation in
hospitality industry: the case of Nevşehir”, Journal of Multidisciplinary Academic Tourism, Vol. 3
No. 2, pp. 33-44.
Thompson, J.D. (1967), Organizations in Action, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Turker, D. (2009), “How corporate social responsibility influences organizational commitment”, Journal
of Business Ethics, Vol. 89 No. 2, pp. 189-204.
Türker, N. and Uçar, M. (2013), “Konaklama işletmelerinin sosyal sorumlulukları”, İşletme
Araştırmaları Dergisi, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 155-183.
Vlachos, P.A., Theotokis, A. and Panagopoulos, N.G. (2010), “Sales force reactions to corporate social
responsibility: attributions, outcomes, and the mediating role of organizational trust”, Industrial
Marketing Management, Vol. 39 No. 7, pp. 1207-1218.
Wang, C.J. (2014), “Do ethical and sustainable practices matter? Effects of corporate citizenship on
business performance in the hospitality industry”, International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 930-947.
WBCSD (1999), Corporate Social Responsibility: Meeting Changing Expectations, World Business
Council for Sustainable Development, Geneva.
Wong, A.I. and Gao, H.J. (2014), “Exploring the direct and indirect effects of CSR on organizational
commitment: the mediating role of corporate culture”, International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 500-525.
Yamak, S. (2007), Kurumsal Sosyal Sorumluluk Kavramının Gelişimi, Beta Publications, İstanbul.
Zand, D.E. (1972), “Trust and managerial problem solving”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 17
No. 2, pp. 229-239.

Corresponding author
Erhan Boğan can be contacted at: ebogan@adiyaman.edu.tr

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com