Citation: Oh, S.-Y. Effect of Ethical

Climate in Hotel Companies on

Organizational Trust and

Organizational Citizenship Behavior.

Sustainability 2022, 14, 7886.

https://doi.org/10.3390/

su14137886

Received: 18 April 2022

Accepted: 22 June 2022

Published: 28 June 2022

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral

with regard to jurisdictional claims in

published maps and institutional affil-

iations.

Copyright: © 2022 by the author.

Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.

This article is an open access article

distributed under the terms and

conditions of the Creative Commons

Attribution (CC BY) license (https://

creativecommons.org/licenses/by/

4.0/).

sustainability

Article

Effect of Ethical Climate in Hotel Companies on OrganizationalTrust and Organizational Citizenship BehaviorSeok-Youn Oh

Department of Hotel and Tourism Management, Far East University, 76-32 Daehak-gil, Gamgok-myeon,Eumseong-gun, Chungcheongbuk-do 27601, Korea; seokyoh@hanmail.net

Abstract: This study identifies the factors of ethical climate in hotel companies in light of the growingimportance of ethics in corporate management. It determines the effects those factors have onorganizational trust and, in turn, the effect organizational trust has on organizational citizenshipbehavior (OCB). A survey was conducted on employees working at five-star hotels in Seoul, Korea,followed by an empirical analysis of the data. The ethical climate in hotel companies comprises sevenfactors: self-interest, efficiency, friendship and team interest, social responsibility, personal morality,rules and standard operating procedures, and laws and professional codes. The following werediscovered. First, among these ethical climate factors, social responsibility, personal morality, rulesand standard operating procedures, and laws and professional codes affected trust in supervisors.Second, social responsibility and laws and professional codes affected trust in the organization;trust in the supervisor and organization—factors of organizational trust—affected the OCB directedtoward individuals and the organization. Based on these results, this study provides ways toincrease organizational trust and improve the OCB of employees by creating an ethical climate inhotel companies.

Keywords: ethical management; ethical climate; organizational trust; organizational citizenshipbehavior (OCB); hotel employees

1. Introduction

The impact companies have on society is constantly growing due to private sector-ledeconomic development. With the increasing demand for corporate social responsibility,ethical management is perceived as an essential strategy for enhancing enterprise valueand ensuring sustainable development [1–3].

Hotel companies are highly dependent on human services; thus, the employee–customer relationship significantly determines the success or failure of a company. Moralityand ethical behavior of employees are important in these customer relationships [4]. Or-ganization members tend to violate ethical strictures due to excessive work demanded bythe organization or incorrect rules or procedures rather than personal reasons [5]. Orga-nization members tend to accept and internalize the organizational climate in their workenvironment—they are affected significantly by it [6]. Victor and Cullen [7] defined ethi-cal climate as a pervasive organizational characteristic that affects how an organization’sdecisions are made—the shared perception of what ethically correct behavior is and howethical issues can be handled [7]. Dickson et al. [8] referred to ethical climate as a specialcase of organizational climate, and Fritzsche [9] stressed that ethical climate is a subset oforganizational climate, rather than the ethical values of individuals. Nevertheless, Lu andLin [10] assert that the ethical climate within the organization has a significant impact onthe ethical behavior of members. Ethical climate performs many roles in an organization.It helps resolve ethical issues by guiding employees on what they must do when facinga moral dilemma [11–13]. In other words, ethical climate serves as the perceptual lensthrough which employees diagnose and assess situations in the organizational context [11].

Sustainability 2022, 14, 7886. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14137886 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2022, 14, 7886 2 of 18

Members that more strongly perceive the ethical climate in the organization showa stronger will to conduct ethical behaviors and practices [14]. No system can actually listall details related to the application of ethics and define them in advance. This is why theethical climate is more important in securing organizational ethicality than institutionalregulations. Unethical behavior by/in an egoistic organization can be reduced by creatingan ethical climate [15], and this can also change the organizational climate positively [16].

Organizational trust is important due to the nature of hotel jobs, which involvemany interactions among employees. No variable affects individual or group attitudes orbehavior as much as trust [17]. Trust is, accordingly, the most important factor that affectsthe interactions of organization members, and job performance can also be improved bytrust [18,19]. A high level of trust in leaders encourages organization members to find waysto have more impact during working hours and actively participate in activities aside fromtheir prescribed roles [20], thereby benefiting both the organization and its members [21].

In hotel companies, which must sensitively handle environmental changes ina customer-focused way, employees must deal with all kinds of different customers withdiverse backgrounds and cultures. There are limitations in how fully these employees canbe managed based on set rules due to their considerable variety of jobs. Therefore, the hotelstaff must make efforts and act voluntarily in addition to performing their given roles; theconcept that sums this up is organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). To adapt to rapidenvironmental changes and survive, such behavior, aside from the prescribed roles of mem-bers, is also important. It is difficult for organizations that depend only on the prescribedroles and behaviors of members to survive in competition [22]. In general, organizationswant employees to take ownership of their roles and behave in a way that considers theorganization’s interests, as opposed to simply performing their explicit duties [23]. OCB isan activity that promotes organizational functions not specifically prescribed by the orga-nization, based on voluntary motivation and the will of members [24]. OCB can increaseorganizational efficiency and improve performance without additional cost to or supportfrom the organization [25,26].

Accordingly, studies on ethical climate are being conducted in the hotel and hospitalityindustry. For example, there are studies on ethical work climate in lodging operations asperceived by general managers [27], ethical climate and organizational trust [28], and therelevance of variables such as the following: job satisfaction [29,30], job embeddedness [31],employee compassion [32], organizational commitment [29,33], organizational identifica-tion [34], OCB [35], employee incivility [36], workplace deviant behavior [37], and servicequality [30]. Moreover, there are studies on unethical managerial behavior [38].

However, there is little research on the effect that ethical climate in hotel companies hason organizational trust, and organizational trust’s effect on OCB. Lee et al. [28] examinedthe effect of ethical climate on organizational trust among employees of a food servicefranchise, and most studies have viewed ethical climate as a single factor [31,33,37].

In hotel companies, where ethical issues surface frequently, the ethical climate thatencourages the sharing of ethical awareness and promotes ethical decision making andbehavior is necessary to bring about ethical behavior among employees [7,10,14,27]. Orga-nizational trust among employees at hotel companies raises organizational performancenot only through explicitly defined roles that instill a sense of unity and commitment tothe organization, but also through undefined roles by inducing OCB where employeesvoluntarily perform tasks [22,25,35]. Hence, continuous progress based on performanceimprovements of an organization is possible by raising organizational trust among employ-ees and encouraging their voluntary participation or OCB through the establishment of anethical climate in hotel companies.

Therefore, this study examines the effect of ethical climate factors on organizationaltrust and how organizational trust affects OCB by identifying the ethical climate factorsin hotel companies. This will help provide ways to create an ethical climate that inducesethical values and behavior among organization members in hotel companies. Furthermore,this will provide implications for sustainable management through voluntary OCB and

Sustainability 2022, 14, 7886 3 of 18

employee cooperation by creating an ethical climate and building trust among members ofthe organization.

2. Literature Review2.1. Ethical Climate

One of the key strategic mechanisms for encouraging employees’ ethical behavior is topromote an ethical climate. Ethical climate here refers to a normative climate that reflectsorganizational procedures, policies, and practices related to moral outcomes [11].

Organizational ethical climate generally has two meanings. First, it is a general percep-tion of the organization’s typical practices and procedures containing ethical content [13].The ethical climate is the specific part containing ethical content among the practices andprocedures of the organization in various sectors. Another meaning of ethical climate is theshared perception of organization members about what ethically correct behavior is andhow ethical issues must be handled [9]. Victor and Cullen [7,13] provide a two-level theo-retical typology with reference to Kohlberg’s stages of moral development and Schneider’sattraction–selection–attrition framework to categorize ethical climate. They first classifiedthe ethical criterion dimensions into egoistic, benevolence, and principle and then intoindividual, local, and cosmopolitan based on the locus of analysis. On this basis, theycategorize ethical climate into nine types using the 3 × 3 matrix—self-interest, companyprofit, efficiency, friendship, team interest, social responsibility, personal morality, companyrules and procedures, and laws and professional codes.

Based on these nine theoretical factors, Victor and Cullen [7,13] developed 26 surveyitems on ethical climate. The empirical analysis in their 1987 study led Victor and Cullen topresent six types of ethical climate: professionalism, caring, company rules and procedures,instrumental, efficiency, and independence [7]. Subsequently, based on the empiricalanalysis in their 1988 study, they categorized ethical climate into five types: caring, lawand code, company rules, instrumental, and independence [13]. In 1993, Cullen et al. [39]increased the number of survey items from 26 to 36 items, assigning four items to each of thenine ethical climate factors. Based on their empirical analysis, they proposed a classificationof seven types: self-interest, efficiency, caring, social responsibility, independence, rulesand standard operating procedures, and laws and professional codes [39].

Martin and Cullen [40] pointed out that the nine theoretical factors of ethical climatepresented by Victor and Cullen [13] had not been substantiated by empirical analysis. Theyreviewed studies on ethical climate conducted from 1987 to 2005, based on which theydiscovered five factors—instrumental, caring, independence, law and code, and rules—andidentified how these five factors affect organizational commitment and job satisfaction.

Victor and Cullen [7,13] theoretically devised nine types of ethical climate. However,there are many cases of empirical research in which the typology provided by Victor andCullen is not found. The lack of consistency in the results of empirical research is due totheoretical limitations as well as the fact that researchers use a wide variety of scales [41].However, considering that five to seven types are mostly found in empirical studies, thetheory and ethical climate typology by Victor and Cullen can be viewed as generally valid.

Tseng and Fan [34] defined organizational ethical climate as members’ perceptionof ethical procedures, policies, and behaviors in the organization, making reference tothe definitions by Victor and Cullen [7,13] and Cullen et al. [39]. They referred to thestudy by Cullen et al. [39] and classified the ethical climate factors into self-interest, socialresponsibility, and laws and professional codes, and identified each of their effects onknowledge management. In general, organizations inform their members of what is rightor wrong and acceptable or unacceptable through ethical norms. When organizationmembers know and comply with accepted rules and standards, trustworthiness and long-term relationships with others can be promoted [34].

Goebel and Weißenberger [42] examined the relationship of informal controls andethical climates with trust and organizational performance. While they identified an effectof ethical climate on trust, they failed to identify an effect of ethical climate on organizational

Sustainability 2022, 14, 7886 4 of 18

performance. Lee et al. [28] examined food service franchise employees and identified howethical values affect ethical climate and how ethical climate affects organizational trust.Their study identified ethical climate as comprising responsibility, peers’ unethical behavior,and sales orientation in examining its effect on organizational trust. Responsibility turnedout to have a positive effect on organizational trust, while peers’ unethical behavior andsales orientation had negative effects on organizational trust.

DeConinck [43] examined how ethical climate affects trust in supervisors amongsalespeople, considering the influences of responsibility and trust, ethical norms, peerbehavior, and selling practices. The results of the empirical analysis showed that onlyethical norms and peer behavior affected trust in supervisors. Simha and Stachowicz-Stanusch [44] identified the ethical climate factors as egoistic local climate, benevolent localclimate, and principled local climate, and examined their effect on trust in supervisors andthe organization. Egoistic climate had a negative effect on trust in supervisors and theorganization, while benevolent climate had a positive effect on trust in supervisors andthe organization. Principled climate did not show an effect on trust in supervisors but didhave a positive effect on trust in the organization.

Lilly et al. [45] classified ethical climate into five factors—caring, law, rules, instrumen-tal, and independence—to determine their effect on organizational trust. The results of theempirical analysis showed that caring, law, and rules had a positive effect on organizationaltrust, while instrumental climate had a negative effect. Furthermore, Nedkovski et al. [46]examined the effect of ethical climate on trust, classifying ethical climate into three factors,i.e., egoistic, principled, and benevolent climate, and trust into three factors, i.e., trust incolleagues, trust in supervisors, and trust in the organization, to determine how ethicalclimate affects trust. The results demonstrated that principles and benevolence affect trust.Moreover, Agrawal [47] classified ethical climate into six factors—laws and codes, rulesand procedures, independence, caring, company interest, and self-interest—and examinedthe effect of each on trust in management. The results showed that laws and codes, rulesand procedures, and caring all affected trust in management.

Based on these studies, Hypotheses 1 and 2 were set.

Hypothesis 1. Ethical climate factors perceived by hotel employees have a significant effect on trustin supervisors.

Hypothesis 2. Ethical climate factors perceived by hotel employees have a significant effect on trustin the organization.

2.2. Organizational Trust

Trust is a key variable that explains organizational effectiveness, because employ-ees with high trust in members are committed to the organization [19,48]. Trust amongmembers of a company is important in multiple ways, producing goods such as boostingmorale, producing outcomes, and achieving organizational goals. Trust can be definedas the expectation, assumption, or belief that another person will be beneficial, favorable,or not detrimental to one’s interests [49]. Trust is the individual’s will to believe anotherperson’s actions when there is a mutual risk of opportunistic behavior [50]. There arevarious concepts of trust, which are mainly classified into two key concepts. First, trust isthe will to believe and accept the other person’s behavior when it is impossible to manageor monitor them [51]. Second, trust is about confidence in and positive expectations of theother person [52].

Trust within the organization can be classified into various types depending on theresearch perspective. However, it can be mainly divided into members’ “institutional trust”(vertical trust in the organization, lateral trust between departments) and “interpersonaltrust” among members (vertical trust between subordinate and supervisor; lateral trustamong coworkers) [53,54].

Sustainability 2022, 14, 7886 5 of 18

Özlük and Baykal [55] classified nurses’ organizational trust into the three categories—their trust in their coworkers, managers, and institutions—and examined their impacts onOCB. Wong et al. [56] explored the effect of justice on organizational trust and the effect oforganizational trust on OCB, where organizational trust was divided into the two factors—trust in supervisors and the organization. However, Huang et al. [57], while studying itsimpact on OCB, identified trust as a single factor—trust in management. Yoon et al. [58]also examined the impact of organizational trust on OCB as a single factor. Choong andNg [59] looked into the influence of trust on OCB among public secondary school teachersin Malaysia. Similarly, Amini and Kemal [60] examined the impact of trust on OCB amonghigh school teachers in Indonesia. Lastly, Engelbrecht and Hendrikz [61] studied the effectof trust in leaders on OCB among employees of various organizations in South Africa.

Nyhan and Marlowe [62] divided organizational trust into two dimensions: trust insupervisors and trust in the organization. Trust in supervisors is the subordinate’s will tobelieve in the supervisor’s behavior, promises, or intentions, constituting a positive mentalstate the subordinate has toward the supervisor [63]. Trust in the organization is the beliefthat the organization will be beneficial for its members [17].

Based on these studies, Hypotheses 3 and 4 were put forward.

Hypothesis 3. Factors of trust perceived by hotel employees have a significant effect on the OCBdirected toward the individuals (OCB-I).

Hypothesis 4. Factors of trust perceived by hotel employees have a significant effect on the OCBdirected toward the organization (OCB-O).

2.3. Organizational Citizenship Behavior

OCB is an index that measures extra-role performance, as opposed to the in-roleperformance of duties [64]. OCB is a critical concept for the reduction in employee turnoverrates and production costs of firms and improvement of organizational productivity andcustomer satisfaction [25,65]. OCB refers to voluntary and discretionary behavior conductedto promote organizational development and efficiency, separate from official tasks given bythe organization to individuals [66].

OCB can be explained in terms of altruism and compliance [67]. Altruism refers to thewillingness to help and behavior of helping colleagues and people, while compliance refersto observing job procedures and rules. Organ [66] classified OCB into altruism, conscien-tiousness, civic virtue, courtesy, and sportsmanship. Williams and Anderson [50] dividedOCB into OCB-I and OCB-O. OCB-I refers to behavior that helps individual members ofthe organization, such as supervisors, colleagues, and subordinates, and it includes altru-ism and courtesy, as presented by Organ [66]. OCB-O refers to behavior that contributesto organizational goals or benefits and includes sportsmanship, conscientiousness, andcivic virtue.

Ma et al. [68] developed the three-dimensional model of OCB by emphasizing theimportance of customers in the hotel industry. They added OCB directed toward thecustomer (OCB-C) to the two-dimensional model by Williams and Anderson [50]. Manystudies examining the effect of organizational trust on OCB have classified OCB intoOCB-I and OCB-O [58,69]. Therefore, this study was conducted by dividing OCB into twodimensions: OCB-I and OCB-O.

3. Methodology3.1. Development of Measures

Measurement items for ethical climate were classified into the nine factors presentedin the theoretical study by Victor and Cullen [7,13]. The survey comprised 36 itemsderived from Cullen et al. [11,39], Agrawal [47], and Ötken and Cenkci [70]. Measurementitems for trust were classified into two factors: trust in the supervisor and trust in theorganization. For the survey, 10 items were derived with reference to the studies by Nyhan

Sustainability 2022, 14, 7886 6 of 18

and Marlowe [62], Cook and Wall [53], and Podsakoff et al. [71]. Measurement items forOCB were classified into two factors: OCB-I and OCB-O. For the survey, 10 items werederived with reference to the studies by Williams and Anderson [50] and Ma et al. [68]. Theitems were rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale from “strongly disagree” (1) to “stronglyagree” (5), depending on how much the respondents agreed with the item.

The survey items were translated into Korean by a Ph.D.-holder in hotel managementwho is fluent in Korean and English. After translation, the items were pilot-tested bythree Ph.D.-holding researchers and three university students, and revised based on theirfeedback to ensure the items reflected the actual state of hotel companies and would beeasy for respondents to understand. As this study is related to ethics, it was necessary toreduce social desirability bias. Thus, the following notes were added to the questionnaire:“Confidential based on Article 13 of the Statistics Act”, “There are no right answers to thequestions”, and “Please write down how you actually feel instead of providing sociallydesirable answers”.

3.2. Data Collection and Analysis Method

For data collection, this study addressed a population of employees working at hotelcompanies in Korea. The spatial scope was limited to 5-star hotels located in Seoul (Republicof Korea), as these represent the country’s most luxurious hotels. Tourist hotels in Koreamust be registered with the Ministry of Culture, Sports, and Tourism; general lodgingbusiness can instead be reported to local governments. As of December 2020, there are133,066 rooms in 1071 tourist hotels in Korea and 54,190 rooms in 331 tourist hotels in Seoul.As Seoul is the city with the biggest market size in Korea, hotels in Seoul were selected asthe subjects [72]. Seoul has 23 five-star hotels, with a total of 10,705 rooms [72].

To measure the population, the sample was extracted from hotel employees working at13 five-star hotels in Seoul over approximately four weeks, from 4 to 25 October 2021. Datawere collected using the self-administered approach, explaining the purpose of the surveythrough acquaintances working at each hotel during the survey period. Subsequently,the questionnaire was distributed to the employees to provide answers directly in thesurvey. A total of 390 copies of the questionnaire were distributed, with 30 copies to eachof the 13 hotels in Seoul, and 365 copies were retrieved. In all, 342 copies were used in theempirical analysis, with the ones with insincere or unreliable responses excluded.

Survey data were analyzed using SPSS/PC Ver 18.0 and AMOS 18.0. Frequencyanalysis was conducted on the demographic characteristics of respondents, and exploratoryfactor, reliability, confirmatory factor, and correlation analyses were conducted to identifythe reliability and validity of the measurement scale as well as the correlations amongvariables. Finally, the structural equation model was analyzed to test the hypotheses anddetermine their causal relations.

4. Results4.1. Descriptive Statistics

Table 1 shows the results of frequency analysis of the demographic characteristics of342 respondents used as data. There were more male respondents (61.7%) than females(38.3%). Most were in their 30s (40.4%), followed by 20s (28.4%), 40s (24.3%), and 50s andabove (7.0%). In all, 6.4% of respondents were high school graduates or lower, 33.3% hadgraduated from two- or three-year colleges, 47.1% (the plurality) had graduated fromfour-year universities, and 13.2% had graduated from graduate school. Most of them wereentry-level employees (68.7%), followed by supervisory-level (25.1%) and managerial-levelor higher (6.1%). A total of 22.2% worked in rooms departments, 40.4% (a plurality) infood and beverage, 14.0% in culinary departments, 20.2% in marketing and managementsupport, and 3.2% in facility and safety management. Most respondents had no morethan 4 years of experience (33.6%) or 5–9 years of experience (33.3%) working in the hotelindustry, followed by 10–14 years (16.4%), 15–19 years (10.8%), and 20 years or more (5.8%).

Sustainability 2022, 14, 7886 7 of 18

Table 1. Respondents’ demographic characteristics (n = 342).

Variable Frequency(Person)

Percentage(%) Variable Frequency

(Person)Percentage

(%)

Gender Position

MaleFemale

211131

61.738.3

Entry levelSupervisory level

Managerial level or Executive level

2358621

68.725.16.1

Age Working department

20–2930–3940–49≥50

971388324

28.440.424.37.0

RoomsFood and beverage

CulinaryMarketing/operational support

Facilities

76138486911

22.240.414.020.23.2

Education level Years of experience in hotel industry

High school or lessTwo- or three-year college

Four-year universityMaster’s degree and above

2211416145

6.433.347.113.2

≤4 years5–9 years

10–14 years15–19 years≥20 years

115114563720

33.633.316.410.85.8

4.2. Measurement Model

Exploratory factor and reliability analyses were conducted to test the validity andreliability of ethical climate items as perceived by hotel employees. Factors were extractedusing a varimax rotation through principal component analysis. Exploratory factor analysiswas conducted on a total of 36 attributes; three variables were eliminated because theywere included in different factors compared to previous studies or had factor loadingsunder 0.5. This left 33 variables to be included in factor analysis.

As a result of exploratory factor analysis, self-interest and company profit were foundto be a single factor, as were friendship and team interest. Thus, seven ethical climatefactors were ultimately derived: self-interest and company profit, efficiency, friendshipand team interest, social responsibility, personal morality, rules and standard operatingprocedures, and laws and professional codes.

The total explanatory power of the seven factors was 63.791, and the minimum factorloading of variables (items) was at least 0.528, thereby proving convergent and discriminantvalidity. Cronbach’s alpha was higher than 0.840 for each factor.

Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to test the uni-dimensionality and statis-tics of latent factors and revise the factor structure model, eliminating variables withstandardized loadings under 0.5 and squared multiple correlations under 0.4. In thisprocess, all variables for company profit (combined into a single factor with self-interestin exploratory factor analysis) were eliminated. Thus, as a result of confirmatory factoranalysis, seven ethical climate factors were derived: self-interest, efficiency, friendshipand team interest, social responsibility, personal morality, rules and standard operatingprocedures, and laws and professional codes.

In confirmatory factor analysis on these seven ethical climate factors, the goodness-of-fit statistics were χ2 of 250.066 (df = 724, p < 0.001), χ2/df of 1.727, RMR of 0.032,standardized RMR of 0.049, TLI of 0.908, CFI of 0.919, and RMSEA of 0.046. Comparedwith the general indicators, which are the standard of evaluation in structural equationmodeling, all figures were acceptable. The absolute value of CR (t-value) to determinethe significance of unstandardized coefficients was higher than 1.96, indicating that novariables fell short of the significance level (p < 0.001). The results for the confirmatoryfactor analysis and fit analysis of the model are provided in Table 2.

Sustainability 2022, 14, 7886 8 of 18

Table 2. Summary of the confirmatory factor analysis.

Construct and Scale Item Standardized FactorLoadings

CR(t-Value)

Self-interest (AVE = 0.611, CCR = 0.825, Cronbach’s α = 0.810)

We hotel employees are interested in protecting our interests.We hotel employees consider our own interests first in decision making.

We hotel employees strive for our personal interests.

0.7660.7800.762

12.63112.490

Efficiency (AVE = 0.643, CCR = 0.843, Cronbach’s α = 0.760)

Performing tasks efficiently at our hotel is an important duty of employees.Performing tasks most efficiently is the best way to work at our hotel.

Our hotel considers work efficiency important.

0.6390.7170.791

10.35910.939

Friendship, team interest (AVE = 0.649, CCR = 0.880, Cronbach’s α = 0.834)

The main concern of our hotel is what is best for employees.Our hotel considers the situations (dispositions) of individual employees in decision making.

Our hotel considers the common interests of employees important.Our hotel strives to make the best choice for all employees.

Our hotel values the happiness of all employees.

0.6420.7590.7080.8010.653

11.53310.92711.98310.254

Social responsibility (AVE = 0.717, CCR = 0.835, Cronbach’s α = 0.739)

We hotel employees consider customers and public interests important whenperforming tasks.

Our hotel makes decisions considering the impact on customers and public interests.

0.7710.761 12.107

Personal morality (AVE = 0.706, CCR = 0.905, Cronbach’s α = 0.860)

Employees at our hotel tend to follow their moral beliefs when performing tasks.Employees judge what is “right or wrong” themselves when performing tasks.

Our hotel values and respects the personal judgment of employees about what is“right or wrong.”

Employees act according to their moral beliefs.

0.7840.7120.8400.776

13.45016.23614.865

Rules, standard operating procedures (AVE = 0.668, CCR = 0.889, Cronbach’s α = 0.840)

Strictly complying with rules and procedures is extremely important at our hotel.Our hotel requires all employees to comply with rules and procedures.Employees complying with rules and procedures succeed at our hotel.

Employees complying with hotel policies succeed.

0.7720.7260.8050.712

13.33214.90013.060

Laws, professional codes (AVE = 0.669, CCR = 0.858, Cronbach’s α = 0.769)

Following laws or professional ethical codes is an important matter in our hotel.Laws and professional codes must be observed first when performing tasks at our hotel.

Our hotel requires employees to comply strictly with legal standards or professional codes.

0.7050.7550.719

11.49411.119

Trust in supervisor (AVE = 0.612, CCR = 0.863, Cronbach’s α = 0.781)

I trust the words and actions of my supervisor.My supervisor truly cares about what is important to me.

I will support my supervisor even in difficulties.My supervisor provides considerable help in my working life.

0.6690.7030.6510.722

11.01510.34111.259

Trust in organization (AVE = 0.658, CCR = 0.885, Cronbach’s α = 0.801)

Our hotel strives to meet the expectations and interests of employees.I think our hotel’s promises or policies are worth believing and following.

I believe that our hotel management will make wise decisions for the company’s future.I trust our hotel.

0.6690.6960.7830.691

10.79611.77010.735

OCB-I (AVE = 0.616, CCR = 0.865, Cronbach’s α = 0.808)

I help my supervisor without request.I help new employees adjust well to the company.

I help my colleagues when they have too much work to do.I find the time to listen to my colleagues’ troubles or concerns.I help my colleagues absent from work due to certain reasons.

0.6690.6750.7130.6650.663

10.57311.05110.44810.417

Sustainability 2022, 14, 7886 9 of 18

Table 2. Cont.

Construct and Scale Item Standardized FactorLoadings

CR(t-Value)

OCB-O (AVE = 0.623, CCR = 0.868, Cronbach’s α = 0.802)

I do not waste time unnecessarily when performing tasks.I save and protect the company’s assets.

I well observe unofficial rules established to maintain the invisible order.I actively participate in unofficial events of the company, such as workshops and outings.

0.6490.7700.7830.666

11.48911.61910.291

Goodness-of-fit statistics: χ2 = 1250.066 (df = 724, p < 0.00), χ2/df = 1.727, RMR = 0.032,SRMR = 0.049, TLI = 0.908, CFI = 0.919, RMSEA = 0.046

Note 1: All standardized factor loadings are significant at a 99% confidence level. Note 2: CCR =(∑standardized estimate)2/{(∑standardized estimate)2 + ∑measurement error}. Note 3: AVE = ∑(standardizedestimate2)/{∑(standardized estimate2) + ∑measurement error}. Note 4: CCR = composite construct reliability;AVE = average variance extracted. Note 5: RMR = root mean square residual, SRMR = standardized RMR,TLI = Tucker–Lewis index, CFI = comparative fit index, RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation. Note6: OCB-I: organizational citizenship behavior directed toward the individuals. Note 7: OCB-O: organizationalcitizenship behavior directed toward the organization.

4.3. Correlation Analysis

Criterion-related validity refers to the ability of a measurement for a construct ora concept to predict the state of change for another construct or concept at a later time. Thecriterion-related validity of this study verifies the correlation between ethical climate andorganizational trust of hotel companies and OCB. In other words, if their correlations aresignificant, then it can be said that they satisfy the criterion-related validity. According tothe analysis, there was a positive correlation between both ethical climate and OCB, andorganizational trust and OCB, which is consistent with the hypotheses.

To test the discriminant validity, whether AVE is higher than squared correlations ofthe latent factors, we compared squared correlations and AVE among latent factors. Theresults showed that the AVE of self-interest, which was the lowest, was 0.611, and squaredcorrelations of social responsibility and rules and standard operating procedures, whichwere the highest, were 0.596, providing discriminant validity of all latent factors.

Table 3 below provides the results of correlation analysis/AVE analysis to test thereliability and validity of the model.

4.4. Structural Model

This study tested the structural equation model to identify how the ethical climate ofhotels as perceived by hotel employees affects trust and how trust affects OCB.

The structural equation model for all paths yielded the following goodness-of-fitstatistics: χ2 of 1370.130 (df = 740, p < 0.001), χ2/df of 1.852, RMR of 0.038, standardizedRMR of 0.059; TLI of 0.892, CFI of 0.903, and RMSEA of 0.050. Compared to standardindicators, all figures except TLI were acceptable.

Figure 1 depicts the results of the structural equation model analysis, and the resultsof estimating parameters among the factors of the structural equation model are as shownin Table 4.

The results of analyzing the structural equation model to test the hypotheses are asfollows.

First, for Hypothesis 1—ethical climate factors perceived by hotel employees affecttrust in supervisors—among ethical climate factors, social responsibility had a significanteffect on trust in supervisors, with a standardized estimate of 0.214 and a t-value of2.186 (p < 0.05). Personal morality also had a significant effect, with a standardized estimateof 0.293 and a t-value of 3.135 (p < 0.01). Furthermore, rules and standard operatingprocedures had a significant effect, with a standardized estimate of 0.266 and a t-value of2.773 (p < 0.01). Moreover, laws and professional codes had a significant effect, as well, witha standardized estimate of 0.351 and a t-value of 4.378 (p < 0.001). However, self-interest,

Sustainability 2022, 14, 7886 10 of 18

efficiency, and friendship and team interest did not show a significant effect (p < 0.05 level)on trust in supervisor.

Second, for Hypothesis 2—ethical climate factors perceived by hotel employees affecttrust in the organization—the factor of social responsibility had a significant effect, witha standardized estimate of 0.433 and a t-value of 3.638 (p < 0.001). Laws and professionalcodes also had a significant effect, with a standardized estimate of 0.306 and a t-value of3.510 (p < 0.001). However, self-interest, efficiency, friendship and team interest, personalmorality, and rules and standard operating procedures did not show significant effects ontrust in the organization at 0.05.

Third, for Hypothesis 3—factors of trust as perceived by hotel employees affect OCB-I—trust in supervisor had a significant effect, with a standardized estimate of 0.416 anda t-value of 4.893 (p < 0.001). Trust in the organization also had a significant effect, witha standardized estimate of 0.339 and a t-value of 4.098 (p < 0.001).

Fourth, for Hypothesis 4—factors of organizational trust as perceived by hotel employ-ees affect OCB-O—trust in supervisor had a significant effect, with a standardized estimateof 0.341 and a t-value of 4.109 (p < 0.001). Trust in the organization also had a significanteffect, with a standardized estimate of 0.390 and a t-value of 4.574 (p < 0.001).

Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 19

Figure 1. Results of structural model. Note 1: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. Note 2: Significant paths within the significance level of 0.05 (p < 0.05) are marked with →, and insignificant paths are marked with ⇢.

Table 4. Standardized estimates for the structural model.

Path Std. Estimate t-Value Status

Self-interest→Trust in supervisor −0.027 −0.478 Not supported

Efficiency→Trust in supervisor −0.017 −0.195 Not supported

Friendship, team interest→Trust in supervisor −0.071 −0.656 Not supported

Social responsibility→Trust in supervisor 0.214 2.186 * Supported

Personal morality→Trust in supervisor 0.293 3.135 ** Supported

Rules, standard operating procedures→Trust in supervi-sor

0.266 2.773 ** Supported

Laws, professional codes→Trust in supervisor 0.351 4.378 *** Supported

Self-interest→Trust in organization −0.051 −0.801 Not supported

Efficiency→Trust in organization 0.062 0.615 Not supported

Friendship, team interest→Trust in organization −0.099 −0.799 Not supported

Figure 1. Results of structural model. Note 1: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. Note 2: Significantpaths within the significance level of 0.05 (p < 0.05) are marked with→, and insignificant paths aremarked with

Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 19

Figure 1. Results of structural model. Note 1: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. Note 2: Significant paths within the significance level of 0.05 (p < 0.05) are marked with →, and insignificant paths are marked with ⇢ . Table 4. Standardized estimates for the structural model.

Path Std. Estimate t-Value Status

Self-interest→Trust in supervisor −0.027 −0.478 Not supported

Efficiency→Trust in supervisor −0.017 −0.195 Not supported

Friendship, team interest→Trust in supervisor −0.071 −0.656 Not supported

Social responsibility→Trust in supervisor 0.214 2.186 * Supported

Personal morality→Trust in supervisor 0.293 3.135 ** Supported

Rules, standard operating procedures→Trust in supervi-sor

0.266 2.773 ** Supported

Laws, professional codes→Trust in supervisor 0.351 4.378 *** Supported

Self-interest→Trust in organization −0.051 −0.801 Not supported

Efficiency→Trust in organization 0.062 0.615 Not supported

Friendship, team interest→Trust in organization −0.099 −0.799 Not supported

.

Sustainability 2022, 14, 7886 11 of 18

Table 3. Correlations and discriminant validity.

Construct (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11)

(1) Self-interest [0.611]

(2) Efficiency 0.429(0.184) [0.643]

(3) Friendship, team interest 0.434(0.188)

0.725(0.526) [0.649]

(4) Social responsibility 0.339(0.115)

0.585(0.342)

0.741(0.549) [0.717]

(5) Personal morality 0.315(0.099)

0.459(0.211)

0.574(0.329)

0.579(0.335) [0.706]

(6) Rules, standardoperating procedures

0.356(0.127)

0.430(0.185)

0.546(0.298)

0.556(0.309)

0.772(0.596) [0.668]

(7) Laws, professional codes 0.378(0.143)

0.576(0.332)

0.572(0.327)

0.542(0.294)

0.462(0.213)

0.529(0.280) [0.669]

(8) Trust in supervisor 0.292(0.085)

0.461(0.213)

0.577(0.333)

0.628(0.394)

0.719(0.517)

0.742(0.551)

0.640(0.410) [0.612]

(9) Trust in organization 0.238(0.0570

0.460(0.212)

0.536(0.287)

0.647(0.419)

0.517(0.267)

0.548(0.300)

0.566(0.320)

0.685(0.469) [0.658]

(10) OCB-I 0.325(0.106)

0.373(0.139)

0.366(0.134)

0.426(0.181)

0.477(0.228)

0.437(0.191)

0.541(0.293)

0.600(0.360)

0.570(0.325) [0.616]

(11) OCB-O 0.365(0.133)

0.590(0.348)

0.471(0.222)

0.499(0.249)

0.459(0.211)

0.450(0.203)

0.555(0.308)

0.523(0.274)

0.553(0.306)

0.742(0.551) [0.623]

Mean 3.201 3.537 3.532 3.589 3.497 3.482 3.622 3.579 3.684 3.683 3.660

S.D 0.852 0.761 0.816 0.808 0.816 1.414 0.867 0.789 0.770 0.756 0.873

Note 1: S.D = standard deviation. Note 2: Figures inside ( ) indicate the square root of correlation coefficientsamong latent variables. Note 3: Figures inside [ ] indicate AVE.

Table 4. Standardized estimates for the structural model.

Path Std. Estimate t-Value Status

Self-interest→Trust in supervisor −0.027 −0.478 Not supported

Efficiency→Trust in supervisor −0.017 −0.195 Not supported

Friendship, team interest→Trust in supervisor −0.071 −0.656 Not supported

Social responsibility→Trust in supervisor 0.214 2.186 * Supported

Personal morality→Trust in supervisor 0.293 3.135 ** Supported

Rules, standard operating procedures→Trust in supervisor 0.266 2.773 ** Supported

Laws, professional codes→Trust in supervisor 0.351 4.378 *** Supported

Self-interest→Trust in organization −0.051 −0.801 Not supported

Efficiency→Trust in organization 0.062 0.615 Not supported

Friendship, team interest→Trust in organization −0.099 −0.799 Not supported

Social responsibility→Trust in organization 0.433 3.638 *** Supported

Personal morality→Trust in organization 0.075 0.732 Not supported

Rules, standard operating procedures→Trust in organization 0.136 1.283 Not supported

Laws, professional codes→Trust in organization 0.306 3.510 *** Supported

Trust in supervisor→OCB-I 0.416 4.893 *** Supported

Trust in organization→OCB-I 0.339 4.098 *** Supported

Trust in supervisor→OCB-O 0.341 4.109 *** Supported

Trust in organization→OCB-O 0.390 4.574 *** Supported

Goodness-of-fit statistics: χ2 = 1370.130 (df = 740), p = 0.000, χ2/df = 1.852, RMR = 0.038,SRMR = 0.059, TLI = 0.892, CFI = 0.903, RMSEA = 0.050

Note 1: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. Note 2: OCB-I: organizational citizenship behavior directed toward theindividuals. Note 3: OCB-O: organizational citizenship behavior directed toward the organization.

Sustainability 2022, 14, 7886 12 of 18

5. Discussion and Conclusions

This study identified how the ethical climate in hotel companies as perceived byemployees affects organizational trust and how organizational trust affects OCB against thebackground of the growing importance of ethics in corporate business activities. The researchis intended to inform strategies to build organizational trust among members by creatingan ethical climate in hotel companies. This study intended to secure the competitiveness ofhotel companies by improving OCB, which is voluntary action through the cooperation ofmembers, and provide implications for sustainable growth and development.

A literature review was conducted accordingly to establish the concepts/factors mak-ing up ethical climate, organizational trust, and OCB in hotel companies, and the researchhypotheses were set based on the anticipated relations among the variables. A survey wasconducted on employees working in five-star hotels in Seoul, Korea, to collect data and testthe hypotheses, after which an empirical analysis was conducted.

As a result of exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, seven ethical climatefactors in hotel companies were derived: self-interest, efficiency, friendship and teaminterest, social responsibility, personal morality, rules and standard operating procedures,and laws and professional codes.

The results for Hypothesis 1 showed that, among ethical climate factors, social re-sponsibility, personal morality, rules and standard operating procedures, and laws andprofessional codes affected trust in supervisors. Laws and professional codes showed thegreatest effect, followed by personal morality, rules and standard operating procedures,and social responsibility. However, self-interest, efficiency, friendship, and team interest didnot affect trust in the supervisor. The results for Hypothesis 2 showed that factors of socialresponsibility and, to a lesser extent, laws and professional codes affected trust in the orga-nization. However, self-interest, efficiency, friendship and team interest, personal morality,and rules and standard operating procedures did not affect trust in the organization.

To sum up how ethical climate factors affect trust in the supervisor and organization,it was discovered that laws and professional codes showed the greatest effect on trust inthe supervisor, followed by personal morality, rules and standard operating procedures,and social responsibility. Additionally, social responsibility showed the greatest effect ontrust in the organization, followed by laws and professional codes.

Regarding Hypotheses 3 and 4, it was found that factors of organizational trust, suchas trust in the supervisor and organization, affected OCB-I and OCB-O. This is consistentwith the results of many previous studies that identified the effects of organizational truston OCB [55,56]. Between the two, trust in the supervisor turned out to have a greater effecton OCB-I, whereas trust in the organization showed a greater effect on OCB-O.

Ultimately, among the factors of ethical climate at hotel companies, in the order oflaw and professional codes, personal morality, rules and standard operating procedures,and social responsibility had the greatest impact on trust in supervisors. The factors ofsocial responsibility and laws and professional codes had the greatest impact on trust inthe organization in the given order. Regarding organizational trust, trust in supervisorshad a greater effect on OCB-I compared to trust in the organization, whereas trust in theorganization had a greater influence on OCB-O compared to trust in supervisors.

5.1. Implications

This study is the first to examine the impact of ethical climate factors, a theory pro-posed by Victor and Cullen [7,13], on OCB among employees at Korean hotel companies.Through a path analysis, the correlations between relevant factors were confirmed, addingto the significance of this study. Among the nine ethical climate factors provided in thetheoretical study by Victor and Cullen [7,13], self-interest and company profit were com-bined into a single factor, as in the case of friendship and team interest. Therefore, thisstudy observed a total of seven factors of ethical climate: self-interest and company profit,efficiency, friendship and team interest, social responsibility, personal morality, rules andstandard operating procedures, and laws and professional codes. There are few studies

Sustainability 2022, 14, 7886 13 of 18

that examine the types of ethical climate at hotel companies. Additionally, there is a lack ofconsistency between ethical climate types found in those studies because ethical climatetakes varying forms depending on the characteristics and circumstances of an organization.These are different from the nine dimensions of ethical climate suggested on a theoreticalbasis by Victor and Cullen [7,13]; however, the results are the same as in the study byCullen et al. [11], which examined accounting firms. This indicates that the ethical climatefactors in this study may not be perfect but are still likely to be reliable. There is a need toeither find a new definition based on a more sophisticated theoretical approach or restruc-ture the components of the factors of self-interest, company profit, and friendship and teaminterest among the nine ethical climate dimensions presented by Victor and Cullen [7,13]and used in this study and precedent research.

Among the given ethical climate factors, social responsibility, personal morality, rulesand standard operating procedures, and law and professional codes were found to have aneffect on trust in supervisors, a component of organizational trust. Furthermore, ethicalclimate factors of social responsibility and laws and professional codes had effects ontrust in the organization. The effects of ethical climate factors on trust in the supervisorand organization turned out to be different, which supports the study by Nyhan andMarlowe [62], claiming that there is a difference between trust in the supervisor and that inthe organization as perceived by subordinates. However, this finding may also be becausethe survey was taken during the COVID-19 pandemic, which posed many difficultiesfor the Korean hotel industry. In particular, the main customers of five-star hotels inSeoul are foreigners. With a rapid decline in the number of customers after the outbreakof the pandemic, many hotels urged their employees to take leaves of absence or earlyretirement, and this negative organizational climate may have been reflected in the resultsof this survey.

It was confirmed that social responsibility climate had effects on trust in supervisorsand the organization, both of which are factors of organizational trust. Such a findingimplies that trust in both supervisors and the organization increases when hotel companiesmake decisions by taking into consideration the impact of the decision on customers andpublic interest, and when they establish an ethical climate where employees prioritizecustomers and public interest while performing tasks. Personal morality climate influencedtrust in supervisors. Personal morality refers to hotel employees acting in line with theirmoral beliefs and ethical standards when carrying out their duties, which in turn createsan ethical climate where individuals make decisions based on their moral beliefs. Doingso raises employees’ trust in supervisors since their opinion is respected. Rules andstandard operating procedures climate had an effect on trust in supervisors because trustin supervisors increases when hotel companies establish an ethical climate that emphasizeemployees recognizing and following rules and standard operating procedures. Lawand professional codes climate influenced both trust in supervisors and the organization.This implies that when hotel companies create a law and professional codes climate byfollowing external laws and ethical codes and emphasizing their importance to employees,the employees’ trust in supervisors and trust in the organization increase.

Organizational trust factors of trust in supervisors and the organization had effects onthe OCB factors OCB-I and OCB-O. This finding implies that OCB-I (employees’ commit-ment to colleagues and supervisors without being rewarded or following regulations) andOCB-O (employee’s commitment to the organization) increase when trust in supervisors(employees’ gratitude toward supervisors and following their lead) and trust in the organi-zation (employees’ recognition of hotel companies following promises or regulations andfulfilling expectations) are formed. When there is a development in trust in supervisors andthe organization, parties which are responsible for managing employees, evaluating them,and distributing resources, OCB can increase because a virtuous cycle of trust is formedbased on employees’ observation and trust in the distribution and procedure decided bysupervisors and the organization. In other words, organizational trust is vital for enhancingOCB through the establishment of an ethical climate at hotel companies.

Sustainability 2022, 14, 7886 14 of 18

OCB is an important method to ensure the competitiveness and sustainable growth ofhotel companies [48]. It is important to first obtain trust to improve the OCB of employees.Employees who trust their supervisors tend to commit themselves to work, promotingOCB [19,73]. To gain trust from subordinates, supervisors must care for them, applycommon rules and standards, and try to listen to their problems or help solve them.Additionally, employees trust their company when they think it is ethical. Employees whotrust the organization are, in turn, more likely to engage in ethical behavior and makeethical decisions at work. Hotel companies must establish institutional measures or plansto create an ethical climate in the long term.

The results of the empirical analysis showed that the factor with the greatest effecton trust in the supervisor was laws and professional codes, which also affected trust inthe organization. Laws and professional codes are used to find the source of ethics andmorality outside the organization. External laws and professional codes perform a keyrole in preventing unethical behavior among employees. However, if hotel companies donot comply with these external laws and professional codes, employees will also tend todisregard them. Therefore, hotel organizations and supervisors must take the initiative incomplying with laws and professional codes when running the hotel or leading employees.

The ethical climate factor with the second-greatest effect after trust in the supervisor ispersonal morality. Many subordinates follow the decisions made by supervisors withoutsufficiently clarifying their own moral beliefs. There must be an organizational climate inwhich subordinates can have their moral beliefs respected and can freely express them,rather than following decisions made unilaterally according to the ethical standards ofsupervisors. Moreover, supervisors must give autonomy, discretion, and authority to subor-dinates so that they can display their own moral beliefs in making ethical value judgmentsor handling tasks. To foster employees’ trust in their supervisors, hotel companies shouldimprove their governance structure and engage in activities that make social contributions,such as donating to social causes or implementing environmental protection campaigns.

Social responsibility has the greatest impact on trust in the organization, and alsoinfluences trust in supervisors. Corporate social responsibility often considers externalparties of interest, such as local communities, the environment, customers, the government,and shareholders. However, the key parties of companies’ interest include internal partiesof employees and the labor union, and external parties [74]. With growing emphasis oncorporate social responsibility, numerous companies participate in social volunteer services,such as visiting social welfare facilities, e.g., orphanages, nursing homes, and disability carecenters. Although such activities were self-motivated at first, many companies have turnedthem into compulsory tasks by setting up dates for volunteer activities each year. Insteadof engaging in superficial volunteer services to form an ethical climate of being sociallyresponsible to raise employees’ organizational trust, hotel companies should consider theinterests of the employees, customers, and public during decision making to show theircommitment toward fulfilling social responsibility. Furthermore, rather than supportingand pressuring employees to work for customers’ rights and satisfaction, hotel companiesneed to support employees’ self-motivated social services that can improve the society.

Rules and standard operating procedures also have an effect on employees’ trust insupervisors. Hotels must establish rational rules and procedures and have employeesfollow them. However, with the rapidly changing business environment and diverseneeds of employees, there are limitations to management’s ability to control and manageemployees through only rules and standard procedures.

Organizational trust was found to have an impact on OCB. Trust in hotel companiesis vital because the relationships between employees become ever more complex andtheir self-interests become entangled as an organization grows, generating numerousconflicts. However, these conflicts cannot be completely solved solely through officialinternal policies or regulations [75]. To raise trust in supervisors, it is necessary to assigna role that fits them by identifying personality traits of leaders that influence trust orimprove their competency as leaders [19]. Managers at hotel companies should recognize

Sustainability 2022, 14, 7886 15 of 18

that trust in supervisors is an important predisposing factor that affects OCB and shoulddevelop ways to improve trust in supervisors when managing the hotel’s human resource.To raise trust in the organization, hotel companies should recognize the importance of anduphold a psychological contract—an implicit expectation for mutual exchange betweenthe organization and its employees, which is related to their obligation to provide fairemployment. Furthermore, hotel companies should establish a system through employees’participation and agreement, and prepare ways to implement an objective performanceevaluation and fair organizational management.

Hotel managers must perceive the importance of the effect ethical climate has ontrust in the supervisor and organizational trust and must strengthen the positive factorsof ethical climate, which will contribute to the improvement of OCB among employeesthrough trust in the supervisor and organization.

5.2. Limitations and Further Research Directions

This study has a few limitations. The results are not generalizable to all hotels in SouthKorea, as only 13 five-star hotels were selected through convenience sampling. Additionally,the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic could not be controlled.

Further research must develop or use a scale that ensures more validity and reliabilityin identifying suitable constructs to measure ethical climate in hotel companies. Ethicalclimate in companies is a variable that changes depending on time and situation, which iswhy longitudinal research must be conducted. It is deemed necessary to include OCB-C,proposed by Ma et al. [68], in studies on factors of OCB in hotels and other hospitalitycompanies where the importance of clients is more significant than in other industries.In general, more in-depth studies must also be conducted on the ethical climate in hotelcompanies, organizational trust, and OCB to develop an elaborate model suitable forapplication by hotel companies and expand the scope of research.

Funding: This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement: Ethical review and approval were waived for this studybecause personally identifiable information was not used, and there is no possibility of humanrights violations.

Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement: Due to confidentiality agreements with participants, this study’s dataare available only on request from the author.

Conflicts of Interest: The author declares no conflict of interest.

References1. Ferrell, O.C.; Fraedrich, J.; Ferrell, L. Business Ethics: Ethical Decision Making and Cases, 8th ed.; South-Western Cengage Learning:

Mason, OH, USA, 2011.2. Porter, M.E.; Kramer, M.R. The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2006,

84, 42–56.3. Kidder, R.M. How Good People Make Tough Choices: Resolving the Dilemmas of Ethical Living; HarperCollins Publishers: New York,

NY, USA, 2009.4. Davidson, M.; Manning, M.; Timo, N.; Ryder, P. The dimensions of organizational climate in four and five-star Australian hotels.

J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 2001, 25, 444–461. [CrossRef]5. Anand, V.; Ashforth, B.E.; Joshi, M. Business as usual: The acceptance and perpetuation of corruption in organizations. Acad.

Manag. Exec. 2004, 18, 39–55. [CrossRef]6. Kish-Gephart, J.; Harrison, D.A.; Treviño, L.K. Bad apples, bad cases, and bad barrels: Meta-analytic evidence about sources of

unethical decisions at work. J. Appl. Psychol. 2010, 95, 1–31. [CrossRef]7. Victor, B.; Cullen, J.B. A theory and measure of ethical climate in organizations. In Research in Corporate Social Performance;

Frederick, W.C., Ed.; JAI Press: Greenwich, CT, USA, 1987; pp. 57–71.8. Dickson, M.W.; Smith, D.B.; Grojean, M. An organizational climate regarding ethic: The outcome of leader values and the

practices that reflect them. Leadersh. Q. 2001, 12, 197–217. [CrossRef]9. Fritzsche, D.J. Ethical climate and the ethical dimension of decision making. J. Bus. Ethics 2000, 24, 125–140. [CrossRef]

Sustainability 2022, 14, 7886 16 of 18

10. Lu, C.S.; Lin, C.C. The effects of ethical leadership and ethical climate on employee ethical behavior in the international portcontext. J. Bus. Ethics 2014, 124, 209–223. [CrossRef]

11. Cullen, J.B.; Parboteeah, K.P.; Victor, B. The effects of ethical climates on organizational commitment: A two-study analysis. J. Bus.Ethics 2003, 46, 127–141. [CrossRef]

12. Duh, M.; Belak, J.; Milfelner, B. Core values, culture and ethical climate as constitutional elements of ethical behaviour: Exploringdifferences between family and non-family enterprises. J. Bus. Ethics 2010, 97, 473–489. [CrossRef]

13. Victor, B.; Cullen, J.B. The Organizational bases of ethical work climates. Adm. Sci. Q. 1988, 33, 101–125. [CrossRef]14. Lützén, K.; Kvist, B.E. Moral distress: A comparative analysis of theoretical understandings and inter-related concepts. HEC

Forum. 2012, 24, 13–25. [CrossRef] [PubMed]15. Peterson, D.K. The relationship between unethical behavior and the dimensions of the ethical climate questionnaire. J. Bus. Ethics

2002, 41, 313–326. [CrossRef]16. Cheng, M.Y.; Wang, L. The mediating effect of ethical climate on the relationship between paternalistic leadership and team

identification: A team-level analysis in the Chinese context. J. Bus. Ethics 2014, 129, 639–654. [CrossRef]17. Tan, H.H.; Tan, C.S.F. Toward the differentiation of trust in supervisor and trust in organization. Genet. Soc. Gen. Psychol. Monogr.

2000, 126, 241–260. [PubMed]18. Caldwell, C.; Dixon, R.D. Love, forgiveness, and trust: Critical values of the modern leader. J. Bus. Ethics 2010, 93, 91–101.

[CrossRef]19. Dirks, K.T.; Ferrin, D.L. Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications for research and practice. J. Appl. Psychol.

2002, 87, 611–628. [CrossRef]20. Burke, C.S.; Sims, D.E.; Lazzara, E.H.; Salas, E. Trust in leadership: A multi-level review and integration. Leadersh. Q. 2007,

18, 606–632. [CrossRef]21. Spence, L.; Finegan, H.K.; Shamian, J. The impact of workplace empowerment, organizational trust on staff nurses’ work

satisfaction and organizational commitment. Health Care Manag. Rev. 2001, 26, 7–23. [CrossRef]22. Bolino, M.C.; Turnley, W.H. Going the extra mile: Cultivating and managing employee citizenship behavior. Acad. Manag.

Perspect. 2003, 17, 60–71. [CrossRef]23. Shrestha, A.K.; Baniya, R. Emotional intelligence and employee outcomes: Moderating role of organizational politics. Bus.

Perspect. Res. 2016, 4, 15–26. [CrossRef]24. Jafari, P.; Bidarian, S. The relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behavior. Procedia Soc. Behav.

Sci. 2012, 47, 1815–1820. [CrossRef]25. Podsakoff, N.P.; Whiting, S.W.; Podsakoff, P.M.; Blume, B.D. Individual-and organizational-level consequences of organizational

citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 2009, 94, 122–141. [CrossRef] [PubMed]26. Sun, L.; Aryee, S.; Law, K.S. High-performance human resource practices, citizenship behavior and organizational. Acad. Manag.

J. 2007, 50, 558–577. [CrossRef]27. Upchurch, R.S.; Ruhland, S.K. The organizational bases of ethical work climates in lodging operations as perceived by general

managers. J. Bus. Ethics 1996, 15, 10. [CrossRef]28. Lee, Y.K.; Kim, S.H.; Banks, H.S.C.; Lee, K.H. An ethical work climate and its consequences among food-service franchise

employees. Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res. 2015, 20, 1286–1312. [CrossRef]29. Menes, C.C.; Haguisan, I.A. III. Ethical climate, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment of hotel employees. Philipp. Soc.

Sci. J. 2020, 3, 96–106. [CrossRef]30. Schwepker, C.H., Jr.; Hartline, M.D. Managing the ethical climate of customer-contact service employees. J. Serv. Res. 2005,

7, 377–397. [CrossRef]31. Karatepe, O.M. Inking perceived ethical climate to performance outcomes: The mediating role of job embeddedness. Ekon. Istraž.

Econ. Res. 2013, 26, 77–90. [CrossRef]32. Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara, P.; Guerra-Báez, R. Exploring the influence of ethical climate on employee compassion in the hospitality

industry. J. Bus. Ethics 2016, 133, 605–617. [CrossRef]33. Salem, I.E.; Elbaz, A.M.; Elkhwesky, Z.; Ghazi, K.M. The COVID-19 pandemic: The mitigating role of government and hotel

support of hotel employees in Egypt. Tour. Manag. 2021, 85, 104305. [CrossRef]34. Tseng, F.C.; Fan, Y.J. Exploring the influence of organizational ethical climate on knowledge management. J. Bus. Ethics 2011,

101, 325–342. [CrossRef]35. Teng, C.C.; Lu, A.C.C.; Huang, J.Y.; Fan, C.H. Ethical work climate, organizational identification, leader-member-exchange (LMX)

and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB): A study of three star hotels in Taiwan. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2020,32, 212–229. [CrossRef]

36. Karatepe, O.M.; Agbaim, I.M. Perceived ethical climate and hotel employee outcomes: An empirical investigation in Nigeria.J. Qual. Assur. Hosp. Tour. 2012, 13, 286–315. [CrossRef]

37. Haldorai, K.; Kim, W.G.; Chang, H.S.; Li, J.J. Workplace spirituality as a mediator between ethical climate and workplace deviantbehavior. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2020, 86, 102372. [CrossRef]

38. Wong, S.C.K.; Li, J.S. Will hotel employees’ perception of unethical managerial behavior affect their job satisfaction? Int. J.Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2015, 27, 853–877. [CrossRef]

Sustainability 2022, 14, 7886 17 of 18

39. Cullen, J.B.; Victor, B.; Bronson, J.W. The Ethical climate questionnaire: An assessment of its development and validity. Psychol.Rep. 1993, 73, 667–674. [CrossRef]

40. Martin, K.D.; Cullen, J.B. Continuities and extensions of ethical climate theory: A meta-analytic review. J. Bus. Ethics 2006,69, 175–194. [CrossRef]

41. Simha, A.; Cullen, J.B. Ethical climates and their effects on organizational outcomes: Implications from the past and propheciesfor the future. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 2012, 26, 20–33. [CrossRef]

42. Goebel, S.; Weißenberger, B.E. The relationship between informal controls, ethical work climates, and organizational performance.J. Bus. Ethics 2017, 141, 505–528. [CrossRef]

43. DeConinck, J.B. The effects of ethical climate on organizational identification, supervisory trust, and turnover among salespeople.J. Bus. Res. 2011, 64, 617–624. [CrossRef]

44. Simha, A.; Stachowicz-Stanusch, A. The effects of ethical climates on trust in supervisor and trust in organization in a Polishcontext. Manag. Decis. 2015, 53, 24–39. [CrossRef]

45. Lilly, J.; Duffy, J.A.; WIpawayangkool, K. The impact of ethical climate on organizational trust and the role of business performance:If business performance increases, does ethical climate still matter? J. Behav. Appl. Manag. 2016, 17, 33.

46. Nedkovski, V.; Guerci, M.; De Battisti, F.; Siletti, E. Organizational ethical climates and employee’s trust in colleagues, thesupervisor, and the organization. J. Bus. Res. 2017, 71, 19–26. [CrossRef]

47. Agrawal, R.K. Do ethical climates impact trust in management? A study in Indian context. Int. J. Org. Anal. 2017, 25, 804–824.[CrossRef]

48. Colquitt, J.A.; Scott, B.A.; LePine, J.A. Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: A meta-analytic test of their uniquerelationships with risk taking and job performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 2007, 92, 909–927. [CrossRef]

49. Robinson, S.L. Trust and breach of the psychological contract. Adm. Sci. Q. 1996, 41, 574–599. [CrossRef]50. Williams, L.J.; Anderson, S.E. Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and

in-role behaviors. J. Manag. 1991, 17, 601–617. [CrossRef]51. Mayer, R.C.; Davis, J.H.; Schoorman, F.D. An integrative model of organizational trust. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1995, 20, 709–734.

[CrossRef]52. Rousseau, D.; Sitkin, S.; Burt, R.; Camerer, C. Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1998,

23, 393–404. [CrossRef]53. Cook, J.; Wall, T. New work attitude measure of trust, organizational commitment and personal need non-fulfillment. J. Occup.

Psychol. 1980, 53, 39–52. [CrossRef]54. Whitener, E.M. The impact of human resource activities on employee trust. Hum. Res. Manag. Rev. 1997, 7, 389–404. [CrossRef]55. Özlük, B.; Baykal, Ü. Organizational citizenship behavior among nurses: The influence of organizational trust and job satisfaction.

Florence Nightingale J. Nurs. 2020, 28, 333–340. [CrossRef] [PubMed]56. Wong, Y.T.; Ngo, H.Y.; Wong, C.S. Perceived organizational justice, trust, and OCB: A study of Chinese workers in joint ventures

and state-owned enterprises. J. World Bus. 2006, 41, 344–355. [CrossRef]57. Huang, N.; Qiu, S.; Yang, S.; Deng, R. Ethical leadership and organizational citizenship behavior: Mediation of trust and

psychological well-being. Psychol. Res. Behav. Manag. 2021, 14, 655–664. [CrossRef]58. Yoon, D.; Jang, J.; Lee, J. Environmental management strategy and organizational citizenship behaviors in the hotel industry: The

mediating role of organizational trust and commitment. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2016, 28, 1577–1597. [CrossRef]59. Choong, Y.O.; Ng, L.P. The effects of trust on efficacy among teachers: The role of organizational citizenship behaviour as

a mediator. Curr. Psychol. 2022, 1–14. [CrossRef]60. Amini, A.; Kemal, I. The effect of trust and job satisfaction on citizenship organizational behavior in high school. AL-ISHLAH J.

Pendidik. 2021, 13, 1348–1357. [CrossRef]61. Engelbrecht, A.; Hendrikz, K. Influence of moral intelligence, principled leadership and trust on organizational citizenship

behaviour. S. Afr. J. Econ. Manag. Sci. 2020, 23, a3429. [CrossRef]62. Nyhan, R.C.; Marlowe, H.A., Jr. Development and psychometric properties of the organizational trust inventory. Eval. Rev. 1997,

21, 614–635. [CrossRef]63. Afsar, B.; Shahjehan, A.; Syed, S.I. Frontline employees’ high-performance work practices, trust in supervisor, job-embeddedness

and turnover intentions in hospitality industry. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2018, 30, 1436–1452. [CrossRef]64. Kim, E.J.; Park, S. The role of transformational leadership in citizenship behavior. Int. J. Manpow. 2019, 40, 1347–1360. [CrossRef]65. Miao, C.; Humphrey, R.H.; Qian, S. A meta-analysis of emotional intelligence effects on job satisfaction mediated by job resources,

and a test of moderator. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2017, 116, 281–288. [CrossRef]66. Organ, D.W. The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior. In Research in Organizational Behavior; Staw, B.M.,

Cummings, L.L., Eds.; Jai Press: Greenwich, CT, USA, 1990; pp. 43–72.67. Smith, C.A.; Organ, D.W.; Near, J.P. Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. J. Appl. Psychol. 1983,

68, 653–663. [CrossRef]68. Ma, E.; Qu, H.; Wilson, M.; Eastman, K. Modeling OCB for hotels don’t forget the customers. Cornell Hosp. Q. 2013, 54, 308–317.

[CrossRef]69. Ertürk, A. Increasing organizational citizenship behaviors of Turkish academicians mediating role of trust in supervisor on the

relationship between organizational justice and citizenship behaviors. J. Manag. Psychol. 2006, 22, 257–270. [CrossRef]

Sustainability 2022, 14, 7886 18 of 18

70. Ötken. A.V.; Cenkci, T. The impact of paternalistic leadership on ethical climate: The moderating role of trust in leader. J. Bus.Ethics 2012, 108, 525–536. [CrossRef]

71. Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Moorman, R.H.; Fetter, R. Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadersh. Q. 1990, 1, 107–142. [CrossRef]

72. Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism. 2020 Annual Report on Tourism Trends. Available online: https://www.mcst.go.kr/kor/s_policy/dept/deptView.jsp?pSeq=1846&pDataCD=0406000000&pType= (accessed on 1 October 2021).

73. Chen, C.H.; Wang, S.J.; Chang, W.C.; Hu, C.S. The effect of leader-member exchange, trust, supervisor support on organizationalcitizenship behavior in nurses. J. Nurs. Res. 2008, 16, 321–328. [CrossRef]

74. Post, J.E.; Preston, L.E.; Sachs, S. Redefining the Corporation: Stakeholder Management and Organizational Wealth; Stanford UniversityPress: Stanford, CA, USA, 2002.

75. Selznick, P. The Moral Commonwealth: Social Theory and the Promise of Community; University of California Press: Berkeley, CA, USA;Los Angeles, CA, USA, 1992.