Corporate social responsibility as responsible leadership mediator for organizational citizenship behavior

Hamdani, Abdi; Sule, Ernie Tisnawati; Soemaryani, Imas; Yunizar Article Corporate social responsibility as responsible leadership mediator for organizational citizenship behavior Cogent Business & Management Provided in Cooperation with: Taylor & Francis Group Suggested Citation: Hamdani, Abdi; Sule, Ernie Tisnawati; Soemaryani, Imas; Yunizar (2024) : Corporate social responsibility as responsible leadership mediator for organizational citizenship behavior, Cogent Business & Management, ISSN 2331-1975, Taylor & Francis, Abingdon, Vol. 11, Iss. 1, pp. 1-13, https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2024.2336268 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/326201 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Cogent Business & Management ISSN: 2331-1975 (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/oabm20 Corporate social responsibility as responsible leadership mediator for organizational citizenship behavior Abdi Hamdani, Ernie Tisnawati Sule, Imas Soemaryani & Yunizar To cite this article: Abdi Hamdani, Ernie Tisnawati Sule, Imas Soemaryani & Yunizar (2024) Corporate social responsibility as responsible leadership mediator for organizational citizenship behavior, Cogent Business & Management, 11:1, 2336268, DOI: 10.1080/23311975.2024.2336268 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2024.2336268 © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group Published online: 18 Apr 2024. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 2668 View related articles View Crossmark data Citing articles: 1 View citing articles Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=oabm20 ManageMent | ReseaRch aRticle Cogent Business & ManageMent 2024, VoL. 11, no. 1, 2336268 Corporate social responsibility as responsible leadership mediator for organizational citizenship behavior abdi hamdani, ernie tisnawati sule, imas soemaryani and Yunizar Department of Management, Faculty economy and Business, Padjajaran university, Bandung, indonesia ABSTRACT corporate social responsibility (csR) serves as a company strategy to fulfill ethical responsibilities in business. however, csR requires conceptual support to operationalize this strategy at the individual level. this study aims to analyze the mediating role of csR in the effect of responsible leadership on organizational citizenship behavior. the research method used in this study was an explanatory survey. a questionnaire was distributed to 230 randomly recruited respondents from the four largest cement companies in indonesia (196 men and 34 women). the data were analyzed using seM variance with partial least squares (Pls-seM) technique. the results showed that responsible leadership affected organizational citizenship behavior directly and indirectly. in this regard, csR should be organized based on ethical considerations to maintain balance among stakeholders. conclusion: csR as a strategy to achieve a balance between mediate some of the influence of responsible leadership on organizational citizenship behavior. theoretical implications: the need to develop csR concepts based on stakeholder theory perspectives to maintain the balance of interests of the company’s stakeholders. Practical implications: csR implementation aims to strengthen the internal structure in terms of staffing which ultimately strengthens the organizational structure to realize organizational citizenship behavior. 1. Introduction Understanding of business practices oriented toward ethics can be developed based on the concept of csR (trong tuan, 2012). But, corporate social responsibility (csR) has long been controversial among business people and academics (Banerjee, 2008; May et al., 2007; sahoo et al., 2011). the classical economic theory asserts that businesses are responsible for producing goods and services to maximize shareholders’ health and profit maximization as the goal of a corporation (ahluwalia, 2022). it is believed that enterprises are not responsible for solving social, political and environmental problems. carroll and Brown (2018) it is argued that one of csR’s strongest opponents is the renowned economist Milton Friedman, who posited that social issues are not the concern of business actors but should be addressed by free market mechanisms. even though the companies are considered accountable for problems arising from their business activities, mainly social and environmental issues (tang & Zhou, 2012) including cement companies as mentioned (Durastanti & Moretti, 2020; habert et al., 2020). efforts are continuously made by companies to reduce environmental impacts (ahmad et al., 2021; Mohamadi & Khaleghi Mohammadi, 2023) including optimizing strategies using csR. csR serves as a strategy directing corporate activities toward profit goals as well as ethical responsibility toward the environment (harrison et al., 2020). csR itself needs to be understood based on its evolution (carroll, 2021; Khuong et al., 2021). currently, csR is known to have internal and external typology based on its orientation. internal csR is the company’s social responsibility actions toward ‘employees’, while external csR is csR activities oriented toward ‘society’ and ‘the environment’ (Bolton, 2020; chatzopoulou et al., 2022; Onkila & sarna, 2022). © 2024 the author(s). Published by informa uK Limited, trading as taylor & Francis group CONTACT abdi Hamdani [email protected]om Department of Management, Faculty economy and Business, Padjajaran university, Jalan Dipati ukur no. 46, Bandung 40132, indonesia https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2024.2336268 this is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. the terms on which this article has been published allow the posting of the accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent. ARTICLE HISTORY Received 9 april 2022 Revised 1 March 2024 accepted 25 March 2024 SUBJECTS corporate governance; corporate social Responsibility & Business ethics; human Resource Management; leadership KEYWORDS corporate social responsibility; organizational citizenship behavior; responsible leadership; stakeholders; ethical responsibilities REVIEWING EDITOR huifen (helen) cai, Middlesex University Business school, United Kingdom 2 a. haMDani etal. studies on external csR have a long history, whereas studies on internal csR with an employee orientation have emerged only in recent years (aggarwal & singh, 2023). studies on external csR have a long history, while research on internal csR focusing on employees has only emerged in recent years. studying csR from an employee perspective needs to be bail antecedent and outcome from csR. employees play vital roles in the company, and csR needs to pay attention to employees as stakeholders of the company (Onkila & sarna, 2022). current literature on the relationship between employees and csR is less comprehensive. Olanipekun etal. (2021) argues that the increase in csR turns out to increase the complexity of its reporting system, making csR practically difficult to trace. employees’ and the company’s adequate conceptual and practical understanding of csR is necessary to understand the role of csR (Ramdhan, 2022). empirically, internal csR practices in companies, particularly in state-owned enterprises, remain consistent with the study conducted by Ramdhan (2022) in indonesia. companies have not yet developed a strategic orientation toward internal csR. they are more focused on external csR, such as various societal segments and business sectors, as indicated by the study conducted by irawan et al. (2022). Rinawiyanti et al. (2023) have provided insights into internal csR, although it was not specifically discussed in their study. external csR has become a mandatory practice in state-owned companies in indonesia. however, there has been limited research specifically on internal csR, including its influencing factors and impacts, particularly in cement companies in indonesia. Previous studies report that csR drives organizational citizenship behavior (OcB) (newman et al., 2015). internal and external csRs are known to, directly and indirectly, affects employees’ OcB (Kunda etal., 2019). OcB is known to play a pivotal role in determining organizational performance and sustainability (takeuchi et al., 2015). hazzi (2018) views that OcB is mainly aimed to promote individuals and organizational well-being, instead of an obligatory, emotionally-expressive behavior aiming at gaining reward. OcB is vital for organizations to thrive while, at the same time, risky for individuals who are likely to critically voice their thought (Fischer etal., 2019). csR is reported to play mediating role in a company’s performance (Kim & thapa, 2018). in another study, csR is found to be the predictor of employees’ OcB through the mediating role of leadership (gao & he, 2017). Meanwhile, another study suggests that leadership moderates the effect of csR on employee behavior (De Roeck & Farooq, 2018). in general, the csR function itself requires support from other factors, including leadership. leadership plays a vital role in the implementation of csR (lam & Khare, 2010; Prabhakar et al., 2016; Ramdhan et al., 2021). csR has been long viewed as the manifestation of leaders’ social awareness. leadership is reported to affect OcB through csR and organizational trust (tourigny et al., 2019). in another study, responsible leadership is reported to moderate csR (Javed et al., 2019). Referring to lópez-concepción et al. (2022), leadership that always considers csR based on broad considerations (corporate stakeholders) tends to cause controversy. the existing literature still indicates an inconsistency regarding the role and position of leadership in csR. Further inquiries are necessary to see employees’ perspectives on how csR affects OcB, including its relationship with leadership to obtain a context-appropriate understanding. there is a missing link between csR and OcB (Malik etal., 2021). an inconsistency regarding the csR-OcB relationship was also noticed in previous studies (Fu et al., 2014; Youn & Kim, 2022). Velte (2022) adds that heterogeneity in csR practices and studies has resulted in diverse consequences between one csR and another. in this regard, analyzing the mediating role of csR is necessary to extend our existing knowledge of this topic and improve the practices of csR. the contribution of this research is to elucidate the concept of csR to fill the gap regarding the impact of csR on employees and to demonstrate the role of leadership in csR. the researcher develops the csR concept based on carroll and Brown (2018) in connection with citizenship behavior through the lens of stakeholder theory. stakeholder theory acknowledges the obligations and responsibilities of companies toward various stakeholder groups (Freeman & Dmytriyev, 2017; s. Kim, 2023; sweeney & coughlan, 2008). however, stakeholder theory is inherently ‘controversial’ and to date has not reached a consensus on how or why companies consider stakeholders’ interests. the research findings serve as a framework for companies to prioritize based on the interests of sustainable stakeholders. in the present study, csR was scrutinized as the mediating variable between responsible leadership and OcB. to be more specific, the present study aims to analyze the mediating role of csR in the effect of responsible leadership on cOgent BUsiness & ManageMent 3 OcB. thus, the present study is expected to unravel the complex mediating role of csR and confirms the importance of employees in the implementation of csR programs. 2. Literature review and hypotheses 2.1. Responsible leadership Responsible leadership is based on an ideal ethical discourse and is understood as a continuum from a leader who acts rationally instrumental-strategically to an outstanding responsible leader (Waldman & galvin, 2008). Maak et al. (2016) see responsible leadership as the art and skills that build and maintain relationships with stakeholders inside or outside the organization responsible leadership is constructed mainly by ethics and morality (luu, 2023). leadership as the natural growth of people who come together to achieve group goals. Responsible leaders broadly weigh the consequences of decisions and use their influence to include stakeholders in the decision-making process and to solve morally complex situations in consensus among all affected parties. the main difference between responsible leadership and another form of leadership lies in its focus on society and the environment and sustainable value creation (han et al., 2019; Ur Rehman et al., 2023). De Klerk and swart (2023) assert two crucial components in Rl ‘avoiding harm’, which refers to compliance with regulatory requirements and ‘doing good’, which involves activities beyond those mandated by the law. construction in this research refers to Waldman et al. (2020) that the general definition of Rl is the executive orientation or mindset to meet the needs of corporate stakeholders. three key Rl concepts are at the executive level and are individual-oriented, related to csR, Rl orientation emerges in various forms such as traditional economic orientation, idealistic, opportunity-seeking/strategic and integrator. Rl marks a shift from traditional leader-follower interactions to a more inclusive leader-stakeholder interaction model (Wang et al., 2023). 2.2. Corporate social responsibility the proposed a fairly well-known definition of csR as an aggregation of corporate obligations expected by the whole community (carroll, 1979; l. Zhao et al., 2022). elkington (1998) saw that the concept of modern csR is based on so-called the triple bottom line principle, namely the balanced relationship between profit, people and the planet. Kotler and nancy define it as the company’s commitment to the community’s welfare improvement. efforts to realize organizational non-profit goals other than profit are positive changes in society through policy actions and actions directed by parties outside the organization (hansen et al., 2015). csR is voluntarily in nature and beyond a business entity’s (amin-chaudhry, 2016). carroll and Brown (2018) propose the concept of csR related to business ethics, stakeholder management, sustainability, corporate citizenship behavior, shared value creation and business-conscious capitalism driven by social goals. a company should be seen as an ethically and legally accountable entity (Manzoor et al., 2019). internal csR is related to csR beneficiaries who are directly related to the company (eg employees and owners), while external is related to the company’s externals, including customers, suppliers and the government, among others (Bolton, 2020; Ranjan & Dash, 2024). as an ethically and legally accountable entity, companies should take care of their employees Ramdhan (2022) states that as an accountable condition of the company both ethically and legally to carry out the task of taking care of its employees, environment and the community to ensure its sustainability. csR is a strategic decision that may take the form of community development, charity, or philanthropy. however, li and chen remind us that csR involves a more complex behavioral process than just actions by the company across various dimensions of its social responsibility (athanasiadou et al., 2024). 2.3. Organizational citizenship behavior Organizational citizenship behavior (OcB) refers to a discretionary behavior that socially and psychologically maintains and improves one’s task performance (Organ, 1997). this definition of OcB is widely used in many recent studies (gerpott et al., 2019; ghavifekr & adewale, 2019; tagliabue et al., 2020). OcB 4 a. haMDani etal. comes from altruistic motivation and develops in a specific context (Fischer et al., 2019). hazzi (2018) added the concept of organizational citizenship behavior based on moral and dispositional factors Organizational citizenship behavior refers to a series of interactions demonstrating mutual trust, loyalty and commitments (Khan et al., 2019). individual voluntary behavior, which is not directly or explicitly acknowledged by the formal reward system, and overall supports the efficient operation of the organization (athanasiadou et al., 2024). 2.4. The effect of responsible leadership on CSR the leadership determines every activity of the company including directing it to implement ethical responsibility and awareness. Responsible leadership is likely to promote the realization of ethical initiatives in csR programs (Waldman et al., 2020). Responsible leadership is found to promote csR (golja, 2019; Maak et al., 2016; Manzoor et al., 2019; Ramdhan, 2022; Voegtlin et al., 2012). leaders are faced with organizational legitimacy, different demands from heterogeneous stakeholders from inside and outside the organization, increasingly complex decisions (including moral dilemmas) and acceptable solutions for all parties. csR represents how responsible leadership is oriented to improvement. leadership seeks to drive change in organizational values and mobilize subordinates for the social good. Responsible leadership combines leadership style and social responsibility by considering the interests of various stakeholders (including employees) and seeks to integrate economic, social and ecological benefits (han etal., 2019). the previous study conducted by athanasiadou etal. (2024) and liu etal. (2021) also report the effect of responsible leadership on csR. Responsible leadership pays attention to ethical issues, builds relationships with stakeholders and sets long-term goals therefore, it is expected that H1: Responsible leadership influences CSR 2.5. The direct effect of responsible leadership on OCB leaders-subordinates interaction appears to encourage the subordinates’ behavioral change. a leader is a role model and a motivator for employees. the leader-follower interaction influence the employees’ view of the leadership positively (sikand & saxena, 2022). Responsible leadership is found to directly affect OcB (h. Zhao & Zhou, 2019). Organizational citizenship behavior requires employees’ higher cognitive resources and control regarding the risk of their actions. interaction with the leader and the leader’s attention to subordinates becomes a strong impulse for coworkers to issue discretion. han et al. (2019) confirmed that the influence occurred based on the interaction both of them. Based on the description above, it is hypothesized that H2: Responsible leadership influences OCB. 2.6. The mediating role of CSR in the effect of responsible leadership on OCB a leader can promote employees’ OcB directly or indirectly through csR. the leadership is responsible for influencing the implementation of csR (Maak et al., 2016; Voegtlin et al., 2012; Wang et al., 2023). Previous studies have reported that csR affects OcB (De Roeck & Farooq, 2018; newman et al., 2015). csR may improve employees’ pride and normative identity and eventually triggers them to act (Youn & Kim, 2022). there are value attributes such as fairness in csR identified by employees that encourage them to demonstrate OcB. there is a perception of fairness and support for workload that enables employees to reduce actions that are inconsistent with organizational demands (Ranjan & Dash, 2024). leaders represent ethical orientation through csR as a form of responsibility to employees. employees perceiving leaders’ care and understanding are likely to exhibit behaviors expected by their leaders in return. csR may mediate the effect of leadership on employees’ behavior (Manzoor etal., 2019; Ramdhan, 2022). golja (2019) emphasized that leadership brings changes at the personal level related to the internal environment (employees) through csR activities. Zhao and Zhou (2019) demonstrate a responsible leadership role toward OcB reinforced by csR. csR and its social interactions with leaders help employees develop normative definitions that serve as guidelines for their behavior based on justice felt by employees. csR and responsible leadership drive changes in positive employee behavior. csR serves as one of the relevant mediating pathways for leaders to shape OcB (sikand & saxena, 2022). Responsible cOgent BUsiness & ManageMent 5 leadership influences OcB where csR is used as a mediator to demonstrate ethical behavior and social responsibility. thus, it is proposed that H3: CSR mediates the influence of responsible leadership on OCB the proposed model in this study is as follows (see Figure 1). 3. Method 3.1. Research method this explanatory survey study involved 230 employees from four indonesian cement companies (ie semen tiga Roda, semen Baturaja, solusi Bangun indonesia and semen gresik). 3.2. Sampel and procedure sample selection used inclusion criteria, namely employees willing to participate as respondents who have worked for a minimum of three years in the company and are not within six months of retirement. the sampling technique employed proportional cluster random sampling. the respondents were recruited proportionally across companies. all respondents in this study had at least three-years of experience. the survey results indicate that most of the respondents were males (85.2%, n = 196), with only 34 female respondents (14.8%). Most of them held bachelor’s degree (54%, n = 125), while 28.3% of them was vocational high school graduates (n = 65), and only 17.4% of them held master’s degree (n = 40). the respondents were divided into six categories based on their tenure: 3–5 years (6.9%, n = 16), 5–10 years (26.5%, n = 61), 10–15 years (17%, n = 39), 15–20 years (15.7%, n = 36), 20–25 years (19.1%, n = 44) and 25 years (14.8%, n = 34). the research began after receiving official permission from the authorities of 4 companies, (ie semen tiga Roda, semen Baturaja, solusi Bangun indonesia and semen gresik). to approach the target sample, the nature and purpose of the research were discussed. after obtaining permission from higher authorities, researchers collected the data from four companies online for two weeks. the company’s hR managers were involved to validate the respondents’ characteristics. 3.3. Measurement Responsible leadership was measured using five statements designed by Voegtlin et al. (2012). One of the statements reads ‘My leader shows awareness of relevant stakeholder claims’. csR was measured based on Manzoor etal. (2019) proposed indicators, including the company’s comprehensive ethic code, sponsorship of local organizations and school events and priority on environment-related events. Organizational citizenship behavior was measured based on the concept proposed in Podsakoff et al. (2000) and singh and singh (2018) study, consisting of five, six and three statements measuring altruism, conscientiousness and civic virtue, respectively. the self-reported scale utilized a 5 self-report measurement scale with a scale of five-point likert scale, ranging between 5 (strongly agree) and 1 (strongly disagree). the data from 230 questionnaire responses were analyzed using seM-Pls. seM Pls is more flexible in handling complex models and data that do not meet normality assumptions. there is an option to use bootstrapping techniques to provide confidence interval estimates and address potential distributional assumptions violations. 4. Result this section presents the descriptive statistics, t-test and partial least squares (Pls) to depict the relationships among the variables being investigated. the reliability of the instruments in this study was tested using cronbach’s alpha. Figure 1. Proposed model. 6 a. haMDani etal. as displayed in table 1, OcB, responsible leadership and csR exhibited acceptable alpha reliability values for scale and subscale. the outer model in seM is part of the model that describes the relationship between latent variables and their indicators. the outer model is known as the measurement model. this model reveals equations that have a connection between latent variables and indicators. the first step in assessing reflective measurement models involves checking the indicators’ weight. loading factors higher than 0.70 are recommended, as they indicate that the construct explains more than 50% of the indicator variance, thus providing acceptable reliability of the item. Based on table 2, the result of the study indicates that each loading factor was acceptable to account for the latent variable. Responsible leadership has five items with a factor loading between 0.71 and 0.81, csR has sixteen items with a factor loading between 0.82 and 0.87, while OcB has 13 items with a factor loading between 0.72 and.0. 83. Regarding the internal consistency reliability, composite reliability was applied (Jöreskog, 1988). higher values usually indicate higher reliability, yet the value of 0.95 and higher are problematic as they indicate redundancy, thereby reducing the validity of the construct (Diamantopoulos et al., 2012; Drolet & Morrison, 2001). each variable was generally accepted and no issue of construct validity was noticed. the test results of internal consistency using composite reliability and aVe are presented in table 3. Table 1. alpha reliability (n = 230). Variable Cronbach’s alpha Responsible leadership 0.835 CsR 0.971 organizational citizenship behavior 0.951 Source: researcher processed data. Table 2. outside loading results (n = 230). Variable Code Loading factor t-test Responsible leadership RL1 0.71 15.6 RL2 0.81 22.3 RL3 0.77 22.4 RL4 0.77 17.7 RL5 0.81 21.9 CsR CsR1 0.83 18.1 CsR2 0.83 17.7 CsR3 0.83 19.7 CsR4 0.82 20.1 CsR5 0.87 31.4 CsR6 0.85 27.2 CsR7 0.82 21.7 CsR8 0.87 26.5 CsR9 0.83 20.0 CsR10 0.82 22.6 CsR11 0.85 25.4 CsR12 0.83 21.2 CsR13 0.83 21.7 CsR14 0.86 22.3 CsR15 0.82 21.9 CsR 16 0.78 19.0 oCB oCB1 0.83 24.5 oCB2 0.83 21.7 oCB3 0.81 23.4 oCB4 0.81 24.2 oCB5 0.81 24.7 oCB6 0.73 14.1 oCB7 0.72 13.1 oCB8 0.77 15.7 oCB9 0.77 19.3 oCB10 0.79 19.1 oCB11 0.80 24.3 oCB12 0.8 18.2 oCB13 0.81 24.3 Source: researcher processed data. cOgent BUsiness & ManageMent 7 as displayed in table 3, the composite reliability of responsible leadership, csR and OcB were higher than 0.70. this indicates that each variable meets composite reliability requirements. convergent validity is the extent to which constructs converge to explain the variance of their items. the metric used to evaluate the convergent validity of constructs is the average extracted variance (aVe) for items on each construct. the acceptable aVe is 0.50 or higher, indicating that the construct explains at least 50% of the item variance (hair etal., 2019). in this study, responsible leadership, csR and OcB exhibit good discriminant reliability, as their aVe scores were higher than 0.5. the value of all the roots of the aVe (Fornell-larcker criterion) of each construct is more significant than its correlation with other variables as in the following table 4. the next step is to test the heterotraite-mononitrate ratio (htMt), the average value of the correlation of items across constructions relative to the average (geometric) correlation for items measuring the same construct. the threshold value for district construction (as this study suggests) is 0.85, higher than which indicates that discriminant validity does not exist (henseler et al., 2015). table 5 shows that all htMt results are lower than 0.85. thus, it is very different. this means that there is adequate discriminant validity. the constructs in the model are sufficiently different from each other. each observed variable can distinguish its respective latent variable construct. 4.1. The direct effect the test results show that htMt < 0.9, indicating that all constructs have been valid for discriminant validity based on htMt calculations. the results of the hypothesis tests are displayed in table 6. Models on Pls are evaluated with a value of t-statistical significance on each path. the results of table 6 describe the relationship between responsible leadership, csR and OcB. the test results showed a significant influence of responsible leadership with csR with a pathway coefficient (0.732). t-statistics: t-table 13.99 > 1.960 and p value.000. it can be concluded that responsible leadership has a significant effect on csR. Responsible leadership has no significant influence on the OcB with a path coefficient (0.273). t-statistics: t-table 1.95 < 1.960 and p value.052. csR has a significant influence on OcB with a path coefficient value (0.317). t-statistic: t-table 2.048 > 1.960 and p value.041. Table 3. Composite reliability and aVe values (n = 230). Variable Composite reliability aVe Responsible leadership 0.91 0.60 CsR 0.89 0.69 oCB 0.87 0.63 Source: researcher processed data. Table 4. Fornell-Larcker criterion. Latent variables Responsible leadership CsR oCB Responsible leadership 0.83 CsR 0.73 0.76 oCB 0.52 0.51 0.79 Source: researcher processed data. Table 5. HtMt assessment results (n = 230). Latent variables Responsible leadership CsR oCB Responsible leadership – CsR 0.80 – oCB 0.55 0.53 – Source: researcher processed data.