Post on 29-Sep-2020
Improving Environmental Performance through Unit-Level Organizational Citizenship
Behaviors for the Environment: A Capability Perspective
ELISA ALTa*
aLord Ashcroft International Business School, Anglia Ruskin University
Faculty Office LAB 322, East Road, Cambridge, CB1 1PT, UK
+44 (0) 1245 493131, ext. 5039
Email: elisa.alt@anglia.ac.uk
*Corresponding author
HEIKO SPITZECKb
bFundação Dom Cabral
Av. Dr Cardoso de Melo, 1184, 15º andar, Vila Olímpia, 04548-004, São Paulo (SP), Brazil
+55 11 35134717
Email: heiko@fdc.org.br
Please cite this paper as:
Alt, E., & Spitzeck, H. 2016. Improving environmental performance through unit-level
organizational citizenship behaviors for the environment: A capability perspective. Journal of
Environmental Management, 182(1): 48–58. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.07.034
1
Improving Environmental Performance through Unit-Level Organizational Citizenship
Behaviors for the Environment: A Capability Perspective
ABSTRACT
Organizational citizenship behaviors for the environment (OCBEs) are increasingly
advocated as a means of complementing formal practices in improving environmental
performance. Adopting a capability perspective, we propose that a firm’s employee
involvement capability translates into environmental performance through the manifestation
of unit-level OCBEs, and that this relationship is amplified by a shared vision capability. In a
cross-country and multi-industry sample of 170 firms, we find support for our hypotheses,
shedding light on contextual determinants of OCBEs, and on how firms may engender a
positive relationship between top-down environmental initiatives and bottom-up behaviors.
Keywords: corporate greening; employee involvement; environmental performance;
informal behaviors; organizational citizenship behaviors; shared vision
2
1. INTRODUCTION
Organizational citizenship behaviors for the environment (OCBEs), defined as
“individual and discretionary social behaviors not explicitly recognized by the formal reward
system and contributing to improve the effectiveness of environmental management of
organizations” (Boiral, 2009, p. 223), are a topic of burgeoning interest to researchers of
corporate greening (Boiral et al., 2013; Daily et al., 2009; Lamm et al., 2013, 2014; Paillé et al.,
2013, 2014, 2015; Temminck et al., 2013; Weaver et al., 2014). Most of the prior work in this
area has focused on antecedents of OCBEs at the individual level (Norton et al., 2015), such as
psychological empowerment (Lamm et al., 2014), affective commitment (Lamm et al., 2013;
Temminck et al., 2013), environmental values and perceived behavioral control (Boiral et al.,
2013), job commitment and satisfaction (Paillé and Boiral, 2013; Paillé and Mejía-Morelos,
2014), perceived organizational and supervisory support (Paillé et al., 2013; Paillé and Raineri,
2015; Raineri and Paillé, 2015), commitment to colleagues, and intention to help others (Paillé et
al., 2015).
However, relatively little research has looked at the contextual factors that enable the
manifestation of OCBEs at the unit level (e.g., Paillé et al., 2014). This is important because
without an appropriate understanding of the contextual determinants of OCBEs, managers may
overlook invaluable opportunities to enhance firms’ environmental performance, which may tap
into employees’ tacit knowledge and reap the benefits of their involvement beyond formal
management systems (Boiral, 2009; Boiral and Paillé, 2012; Taylor et al., 2012).
One way by which managers endeavor to engage their workforces in corporate greening
efforts is by developing a capability of integrating information conveyed by employees into the
development of environmental practices (e.g., Sharma and Henriques, 2005; Tung et al., 2014),
3
which we define as employee involvement capability. Although this employee involvement
capability may improve environmental performance through formal environmental practices
(Wagner, 2011), current research suggests that informal and voluntary green behaviors of
employees (Lülfs and Hahn, 2013; Norton et al., 2015; Temminck et al., 2013), such as OCBEs,
may also act as alternative mechanisms.
The purpose of this paper is to theorize and test the relationships between a firms’
employee involvement capability, the manifestation of OCBEs at the unit-level, and
environmental performance. In particular, we are interested in understanding contextual factors
that may reinforce both formal (i.e., employee involvement capability) and informal (i.e.,
OCBEs) aspects of corporate greening. To this end, we consider how the presence of a shared
vision capability may complement a firm’s employee involvement capability, and intensify the
manifestation of OCBEs at the unit-level.
Current evidence suggests that sharing a vision with employees is positively associated
with the adoption of proactive environmental practices (Aragón-Correa et al., 2008; Torugsa et
al., 2012). Because shared vision implies that employees contribute to defining a firm’s
objectives (Aragón-Correa et al., 2008), they may attach more meaning and importance to their
involvement in environmental management (Oswald et al., 1994), and hence engage more in
behaviors that go beyond their obligations or job descriptions (Ramus and Killmer, 2007), such
as OCBEs.
By applying a capability perspective to the study of OCBEs, we contribute to the
literature in corporate greening and voluntary green behaviors of employees in important ways.
First, our focus on how employee involvement and shared vision capabilities interact and link to
OCBEs at the unit level sheds light on how firms may engender a positive relationship between
4
top-down environmental initiatives and bottom-up behaviors, that is, between required and
voluntary employee green behaviors (Norton et al., 2015). This is particularly relevant as
previous research demonstrates this relationship is not always positive neither significant
(Norton et al., 2014). Second, to date few studies have examined the relationship between
OCBEs and environmental performance (e.g., Paillé et al., 2014; Roy et al., 2013). We add to
previous studies by considering perceptions of the manifestation of OCBEs at the unit level,
since citizenship behaviors are likely to impact organizational outcomes especially when
exhibited in large numbers and considered in the aggregate (Organ, 1988). In particular, we heed
recent Norton et al.’s (2015) recent call for research into the conditions under which the
antecedents of employee green behaviors are particularly influential, and how such behaviors
result in important outcomes.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. First, we develop our hypotheses
linking a formal employee involvement capability to OCBEs and environmental performance,
and establish the role of a shared vision capability in magnifying these relationships. Next, we
describe and discuss our methods and results, testing our hypotheses in a cross-country and
multi-industry sample of 170 firms. Last, we highlight the implications of our findings for
corporate greening theory and practice, and outline limitations and avenues for future research.
Figure 1 illustrates our hypotheses and serves as a roadmap for our study.
5
Figure 1. Research model
2. THEORY DEVELOPMENT
2.1. Employee Involvement, Unit-level OCBEs, and Environmental Performance
The contribution of employee involvement to corporate greening has been addressed
mainly through three different perspectives in the Organizations and the Natural Environment
(ONE) literature. Studies have framed employee involvement as an operations or total quality
management tool, a strategic firm capability, or as an individual behavior. These multiple facets
of employee involvement are rather complementary than exclusive, but have been mostly
explored in isolation.
From an operations management perspective, employee involvement has been related to
energy and natural resources conservation (Kornbluh et al., 1985), reduction in toxic releases
(Bunge et al., 1996; Kitazawa and Sarkis, 2000; Ruiz-Quintanilla et al., 1996), green design
(Florida, 1996), cleaner technology (Remmen and Lorentzen, 2000), cost savings and
environmental benefits in general (Hanna et al., 2000; Theyel, 2000). Through the lenses of the
natural-resource-based view (NRBV) of the firm (Hart, 1995), employees are key stakeholders
and their involvement is seen as a strategic capability: firms that develop the ability of
6
integrating employees have been linked to more advanced environmental practices (Buysse and
Verbeke, 2003; Darnall et al., 2008; Sharma and Henriques, 2005). Finally, from a behavioral
perspective, employees’ tacit knowledge and informal behaviors have been associated with
significant environmental improvements (Boiral, 2005; Rothenberg, 2003), such as the
identification of pollution sources and the management of emergency situations (Boiral, 2002).
In this paper, we focus on the two latter perspectives in order to provide a more encompassing
view of employee involvement in corporate greening, which considers the relationships between
formal and informal green behaviors.
Across studies, employee involvement has been observed and measured in various ways,
mainly through employee suggestions and participation in project teams. These types of
involvement can encompass both formal and informal behaviors. For example, suggestions can
occur spontaneously or via institutionalized means, and participation in project teams may be
mandatory or voluntary. Although recent studies have started to simultaneously address both
task-related and proactive green behaviors (e.g., Bissing-Olson et al., 2013; Norton et al., 2014,
2015), previous research has overlooked the relationships that might exist between formal and
informal aspects of corporate greening.
We suggest that when firms possess an employee involvement capability, that is, an
ability to formally integrate employees’ suggestions and information into environmental
practices (Sharma and Henriques, 2005), they might as well spark employee involvement in
informal or voluntary behaviors. This is because when a firm values employee participation, it
demonstrates an intent “to establish a long-term exchange relationship” (Sun et al., 2007, p. 560)
with them, which in turn conveys the idea of organizational support. Specifically, perceived
organizational support is one of the key constructs of social exchange theory, which proposes
7
that “an employee who sees the employer as supportive is likely to return the gesture”
(Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005, p. 883). Applied to corporate greening research, social
exchange theory suggests that employees are more likely to display OCBEs if they feel
supported (Paillé and Boiral, 2013; Paillé and Mejía-Morelos, 2014; Paillé and Raineri, 2015;
Paillé et al., 2013, 2015), based on norms of reciprocity. In this context, OCBEs can be viewed
as a form of repayment in exchange for organizational support (Paillé et al., 2013).
Extant literature conceptualizes perceived organizational support in two different and
complementary ways (Paillé and Raineri, 2015). The first perspective, rooted in applied
psychology, defines perceived organizational support as employees’ “global beliefs concerning
the extent to which the organization values their contributions and cares about their well-being”
(Eisenberger et al., 1986, p. 500). Following this perspective, a number of recent studies have
established perceived organizational support as an important antecedent of OCBEs (Lamm et al.,
2013, 2014; Paillé and Boiral, 2013; Paillé et al., 2013; Paillé and Mejía-Morelos, 2014; Paillé
and Raineri, 2015; Temminck et al., 2013). The second perspective, specific to the corporate
greening literature, suggests that employees feel supported when the organization communicates
information on environmental topics, and when they are encouraged to and recognized for
participating with suggestions (Ramus and Steger, 2000; Ramus, 2002). Because an employee
involvement capability requires employees to share suggestions and information about
environmental practices (Sharma and Henriques, 2005), we follow this second perspective in our
study.
As Paillé and Mejía-Morelos (2014, p. 126) suggest, “if employees are aware that
becoming greener is an important objective of their employer, and the employer demonstrates its
interest in creating, developing and maintaining high-quality relationships in the long term,
8
individuals might be more prone to reciprocate by performing [OCBEs] on the job.” We argue
that a formal employee involvement capability indicates that the natural environment is an
important concern for the organization, and that employees are supported to participate. In turn,
employees are then likely to reciprocate by engaging in OCBEs (Paillé and Raineri, 2015),
consistently with social exchange theory. Specifically, we suggest that an employee involvement
capability signals organizational support by valuing the environmental contributions of
employees, hence stimulating them to go beyond job descriptions.
Hypothesis 1: A firm’s employee involvement capability will be positively associated with
the manifestation of organizational citizenship behaviors for the environment at the unit
level.
Podsakoff and MacKenzie (1997, p. 148) suggest that “the synergies created by OCBs
may have widespread consequences for organizations”. This is particularly true when OCBs can
be observed in the aggregate, or at the unit level (Organ et al., 2006; Schnake and Dumler,
2003). Indeed, OCBs have been linked to salesperson performance (MacKenzie et al., 1991,
1993), unit and work group performance (Podsakoff et al., 1997; Podsakoff and MacKenzie,
1994), and organizational performance (Sun et al., 2007). Drawing on this rationale, Boiral
(2009) and Daily et al. (2009) suggested that OCBEs could lead to better environmental
performance, a relationship that has thus far received scant empirical attention in the literature
(e.g., Paillé et al., 2014; Roy et al., 2013).
The conceptualization of informal greening behaviors through OCB dimensions specifies
employees’ contribution to corporate greening, facilitating their measurement and thus the
understanding of their concrete impact on firm performance, and in particular environmental
performance. Past research has argued that employee environmental initiatives can improve
9
firms’ environmental performance and thus minimize impacts on the natural environment
(Ramus and Steger, 2000). Accordingly, “it is reasonable to assume that [OCBEs] contribute to
the improvement of organizational eco-efficiency” (Boiral, 2009, p. 229) and that “cumulative
patterns of environmental contributions” (Daily et al., 2009, p. 246) at the unit level may lead to
better environmental performance, as employees go beyond their job descriptions. Specifically,
the spontaneity of OCBEs can improve environmental performance by complementing formal
management systems (Roy et al., 2013), and by allowing employees to share tacit knowledge
(Boiral, 2009), hence going beyond prescribed or repetitive behaviors (Paillé et al., 2014).
Hypothesis 2: The manifestation of organizational citizenship behaviors for the
environment at the unit level will be positively associated with a firm’s environmental
performance.
Taken together, our arguments suggest that the contribution of an employee involvement
capability to environmental performance is not only enabled by proactive environmental
strategies as previous research suggests, but also by informal mechanisms such as OCBEs.
Hence, if an employee involvement capability may engender an increase in unit-level OCBEs
based on norms of reciprocity, it might as well indirectly relate to positive changes in firms’
environmental performance.
Hypothesis 3: The manifestation of organizational citizenship behaviors for the
environment at the unit level will mediate the relationship between a firm’s employee
involvement capability and environmental performance.
2.2. The Role of Shared Vision
We argue, however, that the existence of an employee involvement capability is a
10
necessary but not sufficient condition for enabling the occurrence of unit-level OCBEs that lead
to better environmental performance. Previous studies have found inconclusive evidence
regarding the relationship between top-down environmental initiatives and employee green
behaviors (Norton et al., 2014; Ramus and Steger, 2000). Although Norton et al. (2014) suggest
these inconsistencies may be due to a lack of attention to psychological mechanisms that link
formal initiatives to behavior, we offer a complementary explanation at the unit level.
We suggest that shared vision, which is defined as the capability of ensuring that “the
firm’s objectives are important and appropriate and that all of its members may contribute to
defining them” (Aragón-Correa et al., 2008, p. 91), may act as a boundary condition on the
predicted relationship between employee involvement capability and unit-level OCBEs. The
presence of a shared vision has been previously linked to proactive environmental strategies
(Aragón-Correa et al., 2008; Hart, 1995; Torugsa et al., 2012), and it could likewise amplify the
effects of a formal employee involvement capability on OCBEs, inspiring and motivating
employees (Oswald et al., 1994) to go beyond job descriptions in their efforts to improve
environmental performance.
Organizations with high levels of shared vision might be more effective at embedding
employee green behaviors into their culture (Norton et al., 2015). At the group level, for
example, Kim et al. (2014) demonstrated that a process similar to shared vision influenced the
occurrence of employee green behaviors, creating a proenvironmental ambiance shaped by open
discussions, sharing of relevant knowledge, and communication of various viewpoints on
environmental aspects. Likewise, at the unit level, a shared vision capability can ensure clear
communication of environmental policies and objectives, and that the commitment of the
organization to the natural environment (evidenced through an employee involvement capability)
11
is substantive rather than symbolic (Raineri and Paillé, 2015). As Leana and Van Buren (1999, p.
548) suggest, “if individuals believe that their efforts are an integral part of a collective, they are
more likely to spend time doing things the organization and/or its members find useful”.
Specifically, we argue that when shared vision is high, the presence of an employee
involvement capability will increase the occurrence of OCBEs at the unit level, as employees
will have more clarity about organizational goals and perceive organizational commitment to the
natural environment as substantive. By the same token, when shared vision is low, organizational
goals may be perceived as unclear, and the presence of a formal employee involvement
mechanism may indicate to employees a symbolic commitment to the natural environment,
thereby reducing the occurrence of OCBEs at the unit level.
Assuming that shared vision intensifies the association between employee involvement
capability and unit-level OCBEs, it is also likely that shared vision will conditionally influence
the strength of the indirect relationship between employee involvement capability and
environmental performance. Because shared vision promotes goal clarity (Jansen et al., 2008)
and ownership of organizational objectives, it can intensify the extent to which an employee
involvement capability relates to OCBEs, and contributes to environmental performance through
OCBEs.
Hypothesis 4a: The greater a firm’s shared vision, the stronger the positive effect
between an employee involvement capability and the manifestation of unit-level
organizational citizenship behaviors for the environment.
Hypothesis 4b: Shared vision will moderate the positive and indirect effect of an
employee involvement capability on a firm’s environmental performance (through unit-
12
level organizational citizenship behaviors for the environment). Specifically, unit-level
organizational citizenship behaviors for the environment will mediate the indirect effect
when shared vision levels are high but not when they are low.
3. METHODS
3.1. Data and Sample
We tested our hypothesis in a cross-country and cross-industry setting through an online
survey, targeting one key informant per business unit. In particular, we chose to contact
managers in the areas of sustainability, corporate social responsibility (CSR), and environmental
management for two reasons. First, because individuals in these positions are involved in
initiatives to improve environmental performance (Winn and Angel, 2000) and to promote pro-
environmental behaviors in the workplace. Second, these positions often call for a great level of
cross-functional integration, thereby allowing managers to observe how the different areas of
their business units contribute to corporate greening.
The population of our study consisted of firms registered in a global directory of
corporate non-financial reports (CorporateRegister.com), as we intended to reach a large number
of sustainability, CSR, and environmental managers and directors, who are typically involved in
reporting tasks. After discarding governments, NGOs, and consultancy firms, we scanned the
4216 available reports from 2006-2009 for managers and directors email addresses. For those
instances where searching in reports did not produce results, we scanned firms’ websites. Our
final target population consisted of 1577 firms that could be reached via electronic contacts. Data
collection was carried out between June-October 2009. After sending 3 reminders for potential
participants, we received 196 answers, achieving a response rate of 12.40%. Finally, we
eliminated incomplete answers, using a sample of 170 firms in our analyses. Our response rate,
13
although relatively low, is similar to that of other cross-industry studies in the ONE field (e.g.,
Darnall et al., 2008; Delmas and Keller, 2005). Sample characteristics are described in Table 1.
Average work experience in the field (n = 165)
9.98 (s.d. a = 9.32) years
Average job tenure (n = 163) 12 (s.d. = 10.02) yearsSize (n = 170)Large (> 1000 employees) 129 (75.90%)Medium (250 – 1000 employees) 22 (12.90%)Small (< 250 employees) 19 (11.20%)Industry (n = 170)Financials 33 (19.40%)Industrials 32 (18.80%)Utilities 26 (15.30%)Consumer services 18 (10.60%)Basic materials 17 (10.00%)Consumer goods 17 (10.00%)Telecommunications 8 (4.70%)Health care 7 (4.10%)Oil and gas 6 (3.50%)Technology 6 (3.50%)Country development level (n = 170)Advanced economies 132 (77.60%)Emerging and developing economies 38 (22.40%)Continent (n = 170)Europe 108 (63.50%)Latin America 24 (14.10%)Asia 17 (10.00%)Northern America 10 (5.90%)Oceania 7 (4.10%)Africa 4 (2.40%)
Table 1. Sample characteristics
3.2. Measures1
3.2.1. Employee Involvement Capability
We measured firms’ employee involvement capability by using Sharma and Henriques’
(2005) scale. Specifically, we selected the items that were related to employees (3 items, = .81,
item example: ‘Employee information via taskforce recommendations’). We asked respondents
1 All survey items are described in detail in the supplementary material document.
14
to assess how important the actions of employees were in shaping their firms’ environmental
practices (from 1 = No impact to 7 = Complete influence).
3.2.2. Unit-level OCBEs
As OCBE measures were not available at the time of data collection, we adapted items
from established and validated scales when available, following procedures outlined in
Podsakoff et al. (1990), and the rationale proposed by Boiral (2009). Organ et al. (2006) suggest
that seven dimensions compose the OCB construct: helping behavior, sportsmanship,
organizational loyalty, organizational compliance, individual initiative, self-development, and
civic virtue. We adapted items from all dimensions but civic virtue, for it can be empirically
similar to the more general measures of compliance (Organ et al., 2006). In all cases, differences
between the names of the adapted scales and the intended OCB dimensions do not imply
divergent content (Podsakoff et al., 2000). As we were interested in measuring unit-level
OCBEs, we asked respondents to rate to what extent they agreed with a range of statements
concerning employees’ behavior in their business unit.
We measured helping behavior (3 items, = .93, item example: ‘Take steps to try to
prevent problems with the natural environment’) and sportsmanship (3 items, = .84, reverse-
coded item example: ‘Complain about the additional work resultant from environmental
practices (like waste segregation and recycling, etc.)’) by adapting Podsakoff et al. (1990)
courtesy and sportsmanship scales. Organizational loyalty (3 items, = .74, item example:
‘Defend the compliance with pro-environmental policies and objectives when other employees
criticize it’) and individual initiative (4 items, = .89, item example: ‘Frequently communicate
to co-workers suggestions on how the group can improve its environmental performance’) were
measured by adapting Moorman and Blakely (1995) loyal boosterism and individual initiative
15
scales. Organizational compliance (3 items, = .72, item example: ‘Compliance with
environmental policies and procedures is above the norm’) was measured by adapting Williams
and Anderson (1991) OCBO scale. Finally, as self-development had not received any empirical
confirmation in the OCB literature at the time of data collection (Organ et al., 2006; Podsakoff et
al., 2000), we developed a scale to assess this dimension (3 items, = .90, item example:
‘Constantly participate in programs of education for sustainable development’) based on Boiral
(2009). In our model, the six factors were considered indicators of a single core construct (19
items, = .94)2.
3.2.3. Environmental Performance
Environmental performance was measured with a scale from Hubbard’s (2009)
Organizational Sustainability Performance Index (5 items, = .88, item example: ‘Energy
use/unit’). Specifically, we asked managers and directors to rate whether their firms’
performance at the time (2008/2009) was better or worse than prior performance (2006/2007),
using seven-point Likert scales ranging from (1) ‘Much worse’ to (7) ‘Much better’. Our choice
for a perceptual performance measure rather than archival data was based on the significant
industry differences in accounting conventions (Powell, 1995) of our sample, and is consistent
with other studies examining the relationships between environmental performance and OCBEs
(e.g., Boiral et al., 2013; Paillé et al., 2014).
3.2.4. Shared Vision
We assessed shared vision by using Aragón-Correa et al.’s (2008) scale (3 items, = .82,
item example: ‘Everybody in this business unit freely contributes his/her points of view about
2 Detailed information about the adaptation and development of the OCBE scale, as well as confirmatory factor analyses, are available in the supplementary material document.
16
how to run the firm smoothly’). We asked respondents to rate to which extent they agreed with
each statement (from 1 = Strongly disagree to 7 = Strongly agree).
3.2.5. Control Variables
Financially successful firms are more likely to invest in environmental management
initiatives that lead to better environmental performance (Ambec and Lanoie, 2008; Bansal,
2005). Hence, we controlled for financial performance using Judge and Douglas’ (1998) scale (4
items, = .89, item example: ‘Market share change’). Seven-point Likert scales ranging from (1)
‘Much worse’ to (7) ‘Much better’ were used, asking respondents to compare their firm’s
performance to that of other firms in their specific industries. This relative approach was
necessary to control for industry differences in the level of performance, due to the cross-
industry nature of our sample. Finally, we controlled for industry effects, size measured as the
number of employees (see Table 1), and country development level (cf. Raines and Prakash,
2005), using dummy-coded variables.
4. RESULTS
4.1. Measurement model and common method variance
In order to control for common method variance, we performed a single-method-factor
test (Podsakoff et al., 2003), and compared the fit indices of the measurement model with those
of the measurement model including a common latent factor. Fit indices for the measurement
model were similar to those of the model with a common latent factor (see Table 2 below), with
both models indicating an adequate fit to the data. The comparison of standardized regression
weights from the measurement model to the weights of the model with a common latent factor
did not reveal any differences greater than .200 (Cohen, 1969; Gaskin, 2016), with the largest
17
difference at .15. For this reason, common method bias was unlikely to be a serious problem in
our data set.
χ2 df χ2/ df
RMSEA SRMR IFI
NNFI CFI
Null model 4270.38 561
7.61 - - - - -
Measurement model 709.30*** 511
1.39 .05 .06 .95 .94 .95
Measurement model with common latent factor
700.25*** 510
1.37 .05 .06 .95 .94 .95
Table 2. Results of model comparisons (N=170)*** p<.001χ2 = chi-square; df = degrees of freedom; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; SRMR = standardized root mean square residual; IFI = incremental fit index; NNFI = non-normed fit index; CFI = comparative fit index.
4.2. Hypotheses testing
Table 3 displays correlations and descriptive statistics of the study variables. Correlation
coefficients show that employee involvement capability was positively and significantly related
to OCBEs (r = .27, p < .01), and that OCBEs were positively and significantly related to
environmental performance (r = .34, p < .01). In addition, shared vision was positively and
significantly related to employee involvement capability (r = .46, p < .01), OCBEs (r = .40, p
< .01), and environmental performance (r = .29, p < .01). Industry controls were not significantly
related to any of our main effect variables, and hence were not included in subsequent analyses.
Size and country development level variables were included due to significant correlations with
OCBEs and environmental performance.
18
Mean s.d. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 151. Employee involvement capability
4.99 1.1-
2. Unit-level OCBE 5.47 .93 .27**-
3. Environmental performance 5.15 .85 .34** .34**-
4. Shared vision 5.58 .95 .46** .40** .29**-
5. Financial performance 4.78 1.1 .20** .19* .37** .24**-
6. Basic materials .10 .30 .00 .08 .02 -.08 .01 -7. Consumer goods .10 .30 -.01 -.01 .04 -.01 -.08 -.11 -8. Consumer services .11 .31 .09 -.02 .07 .05 .01 -.11 -.11 -9. Financials .19 .40 .04 -.05 -.14 .12 .08 -.16* -.16* -.17*
-10. Health care .04 .20 -.03 -.01 -.03 .02 .05 -.07 -.07 -.07 -.10 -11. Industrials .19 .39 .00 -.07 .13 -.02 .05 -.16* -.16* -.17* -.24** -.10 -12. Technology .04 .19 -.05 .02 .06 -.23** -.32** -.06 -.06 -.07 -.09 -.04 -.09 -13. Telecommunications .05 .21 -.09 -.06 -.09 -.03 -.08 -.07 -.07 -.08 -.11 -.05 -.11 -.04 -14. Utilities .15 .36 -.02 .08 -.13 .04 .06 -.14 -.14 -.15 -.21** -.09 -.21** -.08 -.09 -15. Oil & gas .04 .19 .00 .08 .13 .01 .07 -.06 -.06 -.07 -.09 -.04 -.09 -.04 -.04 -.08 -16. Size: Small (< 250 employees) .11 .32 .09 .00 .01 .07 -.05 -.12 .07 .00 -.03 -.07 .07 -.07 -.08 .16* -.0717. Size: Medium (250 – 1000) .13 .34 -.04 -.20** -.14 -.01 -.12 .05 -.07 -.08 .12 .01 -.05 .02 .00 -.02 .0218. Size: Large (> 1000) .76 .43 -.03 .16* .10 -.04 .13 .05 .00 .06 -.07 .05 -.01 .03 .06 -.10 .0319. Advanced economies .78 .42 .19 .01 -.19* -.07 -.27** -.01 .08 .05 -.06 .04 .01 .10 -.01 -.05 -.1320. Emerging economies .22 .42 .19* -.01 .19* .07 .27** .01 -.08 -.05 .06 -.04 -.01 -.10 .01 .05 .13
Table 3. Correlations and descriptive statisticsn = 170. *Correlation is significant at p < .05. **Correlation is significant at p < .01.
19
Due to small sample size, it was not possible to assume a normal sampling
distribution (MacKinnon et al., 2002; Preacher and Hayes, 2004), and hence we used
bootstrapping to test our hypotheses. Bootstrapping is a nonparametric resampling method
that is considered to outperform the Sobel and causal steps approaches in terms of power and
control over Type I error rate (MacKinnon et al., 2002; MacKinnon et al., 2004). We applied
this method in both mediation and moderated mediation tests, using Preacher and Hayes
(2008) and Preacher et al. (2007) SPSS macros3.
Table 4 contains results for hypotheses 1-3. In support of Hypothesis 1, employee
involvement capability was positively associated with unit-level OCBEs, as indicated by a
significant unstandardized regression coefficient (B = .21, t = 3.46, p = .001). Also, in support
of Hypothesis 2, the positive relationship between unit-level OCBEs and environmental
performance was confirmed (B = .26, t = 3.09, p = .002).
Bootstrapping results show that employee involvement capability had a positive
indirect effect on environmental performance (M = .06). OCBEs mediated the relationship,
with a 95% bias-corrected confidence interval (BCCI) around the indirect effect not
containing zero (.02, .12). Hence, Hypothesis 3 was supported.
Variable B SE t pEmployee involvement capability to unit-level OCBE (a path)
.21 .06 3.46 .001
Direct effect of unit-level OCBE on environmental performance (b path)
.26 .09 3.09 .002
Total effect of employee involvement capability on environmental performance (c path)
.25 .07 3.65 .000
Direct effect of employee involvement capability on environmental performance (c’ path)
.20 .07 2.80 .006
Partial effect of control variables on environmental performanceFinancial performance .25 .07 3.60 .000Size: Medium (250 – 1000) -.17 .23 -.72 nsSize: Large (> 1000) -.02 .18 -.10 nsEmerging economies .17 .14 1.25 ns
3 INDIRECT, MODMED, and MODPROBE.
20
Model summary for environmental performance model
R2 Adj. R2
F p
.27 .24 9.79 .000Bootstrap results for indirect effect M SE LL 95%
BCCIUL 95%
BCCIEffect .06 .03 .02 .12Table 4. Regression results for simple mediationn = 170. Unstandardized regression coefficients are reported. Bootstrap sample size = 5000. LL = lower limit; BCCI = bias-corrected confidence interval; UL = upper limit. Omitted dummy variables are ‘Size: Small (< 250 employees)’ and ‘Advanced economies’.
Table 5 contains results for hypotheses 4a and 4b. Before testing our moderation
hypotheses, we centered the means of all measures to reduce multicollinearity (Aiken and
West, 1991). Hypothesis 4a suggests that the positive relationship between employee
involvement capability and unit-level OCBEs would be stronger for firms with high rather
than low shared vision. Results indicated that the interaction term between employee
involvement capability and shared vision on unit-level OCBEs was significant (B = 0.11, t =
2.01, p = .046). To inspect this interaction, we conducted simple slopes analyses (Aiken and
West, 1991; Hayes and Matthes, 2009). We assessed the effects of employee involvement
capability on unit-level OCBEs for low (one standard deviation below the mean), medium
(mean), and high (one standard deviation above the mean) levels of shared vision. In support
of hypothesis 4a, the regression slope was stronger for higher levels of shared vision (B = .21,
t = 2.42, p = .017), in comparison to medium (B = .12, t = 1.80, p = .074), and lower levels (B
= .03, t = .39, p = ns). Figure 2 illustrates the interaction effect.
21
Figure 2. Shared vision as a moderator of the relationship between employee involvement capability and unit-level OCBEs
Lastly, in order to test hypothesis 4b, we examined the conditional indirect effect of
employee involvement capability on environmental performance through unit-level OCBEs
at three values of shared vision (see Table 5): the mean (-.00), one standard deviation above
the mean (.86), and one standard deviation below the mean (-.86). The conditional indirect
effect was confirmed with 95% BCCI around the indirect effect not containing zero for
moderator values at 1 standard deviation above the mean (.01, .13). Hence, the indirect and
positive effect of employee involvement capability on environmental performance through
unit-level OCBEs was confirmed when levels of shared vision were high, but not when
shared vision levels were moderate or low, in support of Hypothesis 4b.
Predictor B SE t pUnit-level
OCBEConstant -.09 .15 -.58 nsEmployee involvement capability .12 .07 1.80 .07
4Shared vision .30 .07 4.55 .00
0Employee involvement capability X Shared vision .11 .05 2.01 .04
6Financial performance .08 .06 1.31 nsSize: Medium (250 – 1000) -.24 .20 -1.24 ns
22
Size: Large (> 1000) .15 .15 .98 nsEmerging economies -.15 .12 -1.26 ns
Environmental performanceConstant -.02 .17 -.13 nsEmployee involvement capability .19 .08 2.40 .01
8Shared vision .06 .08 .77 nsEmployee involvement capability X Shared vision .03 .06 .51 nsUnit-level OCBE .24 .09 2.60 .01
0Financial performance .24 .07 3.48 .00
1Size: Medium (250 – 1000) -.17 .23 -.73 nsSize: Large (> 1000) -.01 .18 -.03 nsEmerging economies .16 .14 1.19 nsModel summary for environmental performance
R2 Adj. R2
F p ∆R2 F p
.24 .23 7.24 .000 .02 4.05 .046
Conditional indirect effect at shared vision = Mean ± 1 s.d.Shared vision Indirec
t effectSE Z p LL
95% BCCI
UL 95% BCCI
- 1 s.d. (-.86) .01 .02 .36 ns -.03 .07Mean (.00) .03 .02 1.41 ns -.00 .09+1 s.d. (.86) .05 .03 1.71 .09 .01 .13
Table 5. Regression results for shared vision hypothesesn = 170. Unstandardized regression coefficients are reported. Bootstrap sample size = 5000.Omitted dummy variables are ‘Size: Small (< 250 employees)’ and ‘Advanced economies’.
5. DISCUSSION
Our main objective in this paper was to theorize and test the relationships between a
firms’ employee involvement capability, the manifestation of OCBEs at the unit-level, and
environmental performance. Our findings demonstrate that a firm’s employee involvement
capability translates into environmental performance through the manifestation of unit-level
OCBEs, and that this relationship is magnified in the presence of a shared vision capability.
By observing how OCBEs act as mechanisms between contextual and performance variables,
we follow on the footsteps of previous research examining both OCBs and OCBEs. Our
findings are consistent with those of Sun et al. (2007), who found that high-performance
human resource practices translated into performance indicators through service-oriented
23
OCBs. Likewise, our observations echo those of Paillé et al. (2014), who found that OCBEs
acted as mechanisms of the relationships between strategic human resource management and
environmental performance. Our focus on the capabilities of employee involvement and
shared vision sheds light on the employee participation aspect of high-performance human
resource practices, and expands our understanding of the contextual determinants of OCBEs
and environmental performance at the unit level.
Our findings linking perceptions of OCBEs at the unit level to perceptions of
improvements in environmental performance indicators align with both past qualitative
research on informal employee green behaviors (Boiral, 2002, 2005; Rothenberg, 2003), and
quantitative research specifically focused on OCBEs (Boiral et al., 2013; Paillé et al., 2014).
Although the change in perceptions of environmental performance improvements was
relatively small when associated to perceptions of employees’ OCBEs, “even a moderate
reduction in contaminant discharge may enable companies to comply with future regulatory
standards, to avoid certain major investments in the acquisition of anti-pollution systems or
even to realize savings in terms of energy and material” (Boiral, 2005, p. 357). Furthermore,
our results were significant for firms across various industries and countries. Our sample
contained both ‘dark green’ industries (e.g. industrials)—where the contributions of OCBEs
may be obvious due to the intense use of natural resources—and ‘light green’ industries (e.g.
financials), where such contributions may be less immediately clear (Glen et al., 2009).
Our results also indicated that the environmental applications of OCBs suggested in
theory (Boiral, 2009, Daily et al., 2009) not only are empirically feasible, but also important
tools in assessing concrete aspects of employees’ informal behaviors and their relationship
with environmental performance, in line with Boiral and Paillé’s (2012) measure of OCBEs.
Similarly to other studies (e.g., Temminck et al., 2013), at the time we collected the data for
our study, no measures of OCBEs were available. Yet, we argue that our adaptation adds to
24
Boiral and Paillé’s (2012) OCBE measure by including an organizational loyalty dimension,
as well as more items for the self-development dimension. In our model, the six OCBE
dimensions were valid and significant indicators of a single core construct, consistently with
the findings of previous meta-analyses that support the idea of defining OCB as a latent
construct (LePine et al., 2002). In this way, “the behavioral dimensions should be thought of
as imperfect indicators of OCB…[and] explanations for differences in findings across
dimensions should be avoided” (LePine et al., 2002: 55). However, this latent factor structure
should be seen with the caveat that employees may not adopt simultaneously all the range of
informal behaviors comprised in OCBE dimensions. For instance, an employee may easily
act in a way that protects organizational environmental values (organizational compliance),
but feel uncomfortable in encouraging others to try environmental friendly ways of doing
their job (individual initiative).
Finally, findings regarding our control variables must also be noted. The positive and
significant correlation between financial performance and both environmental performance
and the OCBE construct suggests that sampled firms may be realizing competitive
advantages from their corporate greening efforts (Hart, 1995). On the other hand, it may also
be the case that financially successful firms are investing more in environmental
improvements (Ambec and Lanoie, 2008; Bansal, 2005) and in initiatives that may
incentivize the occurrence of OCBEs, such as training and rewards associated to
environmental performance. Alternatively, OCBEs may also act as mediators between
financial and environmental performance, and vice-versa. Recently, Surroca et al. (2010)
demonstrated that intangibles such as human capital mediated the relationship between
responsibility performance and financial performance in both directions. Their measure of
human capital included a range of human resource practices provided by Sustainalytics data,
25
including employee participation, which may relate to informal behaviors comprised in the
OCBE construct.
5.1. Theoretical Implications
The present study makes noteworthy contributions to both corporate greening and
OCBE research. First, we extend research on the contextual determinants of OCBEs (Paillé et
al., 2014), by examining how employee involvement capability links to the manifestation of
OCBEs at the unit level, and ultimately to environmental performance. In particular, our
focus on an employee involvement capability specifies a form of organizational support for
environmental initiatives, hence expanding our understanding of how managers can go about
motivating employees to engage in OCBEs. An employee involvement capability for
environmental management resembles participation initiatives of high-performance human
resource practice toolkits (Leana and Van Buren, 1999), and as such may foster high-quality
exchange relationships that stimulate employees to reciprocate with informal behaviors that
advance corporate greening (Sun et al., 2007), as suggested by social exchange theory (Paillé
et al., 2013).
Second, we establish the occurrence of high levels of shared vision as a boundary
condition for linking employee involvement capability to environmental performance through
OCBEs. This finding adds to explanations of how formal or top-down initiatives may
engender informal or bottom-up green behaviors, shedding light on inconsistencies
highlighted in previous research (Norton et al., 2014; Ramus and Steger, 2000).
Offering an explanation at the unit level, our findings demonstrate that, without
shared vision, formal mechanisms for employee involvement in environmental management
might be perceived as superficial or symbolic. In contrast, organizations with high levels of
26
shared vision may reap the benefits of an employee involvement capability, by signaling a
substantive commitment to the natural environment. Under such circumstances, the presence
of an employee involvement capability may foster the deep engagement that results in
OCBEs and improved environmental performance, empowering employees through clear
communication of objectives, and the feeling that these objectives are important and
amenable to their influence (Aragón-Correa et al., 2008).
Last, the diversity of our sample highlights the generalizability of our results to firms
in multiple industries and countries. Previous studies examining antecedents of OCBEs and
their links with environmental performance have focused on a single country, such as Canada
(Boiral et al., 2013; Paillé and Boiral, 2013; Paillé et al., 2013; Paillé and Raineri, 2015),
China (Paillé et al., 2014), or Turkey (Erdogan et al., 2015). Hence, our findings also extend
OCBE research to a more diverse set of countries.
5.2. Managerial Implications
Attaining sustainable environmental performance indicators is a major challenge to
firms of all types, sizes, and nationalities. Behind firms’ efforts to reduce emissions, waste,
and energy use, among other objectives, multiple socio-technical aspects come together.
Many of these aspects are captured in firms’ formal practices. However, formal practices
cannot cover all the behaviors that would be possible or desirable to enhance a firm’s
environmental performance (Boiral, 2002, 2007, 2009; Daily et al., 2009), and do not
necessarily engender employee engagement (Norton et al., 2014). For managers, our findings
demonstrate that developing both employee involvement and shared vision capabilities is an
important step to promote informal green behaviors (or OCBEs) as well as environmental
performance. Environmental issues are complex and diverse, and so is the relationship of
humans and systems with the natural environment. Many employees “do not just wait to be
told what to do” (Parker et al., 2010, p. 847), bringing their individual concerns, motivations,
27
and values related to the natural environment to the workplace (Bansal, 2003; Daily et al.,
2009; Ramus, 2001). Hence, inviting employees to shape environmental practices (through an
employee involvement capability), and to contribute their view on how to run the firm
(through shared vision), are of paramount importance to generate the deep engagement that
can lead to a stronger environmental performance.
5.3. Limitations and Future Research
Three main limitations should be noted in our study. First, we measured general
perceptions of the occurrence of OCBEs at the business unit level, relying on sustainability,
CSR, and environmental managers and directors as key informants. We opted for this
approach in order to access a more comprehensive cross-country sample of firms. Although
answers from both employees and respective supervisors would have been desirable, we
argue that due to their specific environmental nature, OCBEs are likely to be observed by
such key informants. In contrast, general OCBs are directed at multiple organizational
aspects, and thus can only be observed either by individuals who display such behaviors or
those working closely. Also, if it is OCB in the aggregate that promotes effective change
(Organ et al., 2006; Schnake and Dumler, 2003), the unit-level perceptions captured in our
survey indicate the existence of OCBEs throughout sampled firms. Importantly, we highlight
that our approach is consistent with multiple recent studies in the OCBE literature that use a
single key respondent approach (e.g., Lamm et al., 2013, 2014; Paillé and Boiral, 2013; Paillé
and Mejía-Morelos, 2014; Paillé and Raineri, 2015; Paillé et al., 2013, 2015; Raineri and
Paillé, 2015). Most of these studies surveyed one employee or working adult per
organization; in our study we take an alternative and complementary approach, surveying
managers on their perceptions about employees at the unit-level.
Second, it is not possible to confirm causal relationships due to our cross-sectional
study design. Although there is controversy regarding the causality between OCBs and
28
performance in general (Organ et al., 2006), the possibility of reverse causality does not
invalidate our theoretical rationale, as relationships may also be bidirectional, feeding one
another in virtuous flows (Weick, 1979). And third, we could not obtain objective
performance measures due to the diversity of industries in our sample, which would
jeopardize comparability among firms.
As a final observation, although our tests for common method variance alleviated
concerns regarding the validity of our results, we should note that the chi-square index for the
measurement model was higher than the chi-square index for the model with the common
latent factor. We view this as a minor limitation, given the ratio between both indexes and
corresponding degrees of freedom was below the recommended cut-off of 2.0, and that the
root mean square error of approximation, the standardized root mean square residual, and
incremental, non-normed and comparative fit indexes were identical for both models. To
alleviate concerns with the potential influence of common method bias in our mediation
hypothesis, we ran a mediation test including a common latent factor. Bootstrapping results
showed that employee involvement capability had a positive indirect effect on environmental
performance, with OCBEs mediating the relationship even when controlling for a common
latent factor4. Finally, regarding our moderation hypothesis, common method bias was also
not a concern. Evidence from both analytical derivation and Monte-Carlo simulations
suggests that interaction effects do not result from methodological artifacts created by
common method bias (Evans, 1985; Siemsen et al., 2010). In sum, common method bias did
not pose a threat to the validity of our results.
Future studies could adopt mixed methods to overcome the limitations of our design.
Qualitative studies, for example, could capture OCBEs that are specific to certain industries
and cultural settings. Longitudinal designs could allow the observation of the occurrence and
timing (Zutshi and Sohal, 2004) of OCBEs, isolating the contribution of employees’ informal 4 M = .39, 95% BCCI (.27, .52).
29
behaviors from concurrent technical improvements (Boiral, 2005). Finally, multi-level
designs (Aguilera et al., 2007) could be used to aggregate individual OCBEs at the unit level,
as well as measuring the extent to which managers and employees share a common vision,
further enhancing or detracting from environmental performance.
6. CONCLUSION
Our main objective in this paper was to examine how a firm’s employee involvement
capability may translate into environmental performance improvements through the
manifestation of unit-level OCBEs. By specifying the occurrence of shared vision as a
boundary condition of this relationship, we qualify conventional knowledge and suggest that
developing a formal employee involvement capability is a necessary but not sufficient
condition to promote informal green behaviors among employees that will positively
influence environmental performance. Based on a cross-country and multi–industry sample,
our findings shed light on the contextual determinants of OCBEs, and on how firms may
engender a positive relationship between top-down environmental initiatives and bottom-up
green behaviors.
Funding: This study was supported by the Alßan Programme, the European Union
Programme of High Level Scholarships for Latin America, scholarship no. E06D101365BR.
7. REFERENCES
Aguilera R, Rupp DE, Williams CA, Ganapathi J. 2007. Putting the s back in corporate
social responsibility: a multilevel theory of social change in organizations. Academy
of Management Review 32: 836–863. DOI:10.5465/AMR.2007.25275678
Aiken L, West S. 1991. Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions. Sage:
London, UK.
30
Ambec S, Lanoie P. 2008. Does it pay to be green? A systematic overview. Academy of
Management Perspectives 22: 45–62. DOI:10.5465/AMP.2008.35590353
Aragón-Correa JA, Hurtado-Torres N, Sharma S, García-Morales VJ. 2008.
Environmental strategy and performance in small firms: a resource-based perspective.
Journal of Environmental Management 86: 88–103.
DOI:10.1016/j.jenvman.2006.11.022
Bansal P. 2003. From issues to actions: the importance of individual concerns and
organizational values in responding to natural environmental issues. Organization
Science 14: 510–527. DOI: 10.1287/orsc.14.5.510.16765
Bansal P. 2005. Evolving sustainably: a longitudinal study of corporate sustainable
development. Strategic Management Journal 26: 197–218. DOI: 10.1002/smj.441
Bissing-Olson MJ, Iyer A, Fielding KS, Zacher H. 2013. Relationships between daily
affect and pro-environmental behavior at work: the moderating role of pro-
environmental attitude. Journal of Organizational Behavior 34: 156–175. DOI:
10.1002/job.1788
Boiral O. 2002. Tacit knowledge and environmental management. Long Range Planning
35: 291–317. DOI:10.1016/S0024-6301(02)00047-X
Boiral O. 2005. The impact of operator involvement in pollution reduction: case studies in
Canadian chemical companies. Business Strategy and the Environment 14: 339–360.
DOI: 10.1002/bse.431
Boiral O. 2007. Corporate greening through ISO 14001: a rational myth? Organization
Science 18: 127–146. DOI 10.1287/orsc.1060.0224
Boiral O. 2009. Greening the corporation through organizational citizenship behaviors.
Journal of Business Ethics 87: 221–236. DOI 10.1007/s10551-008-9881-2
Boiral O, Paillé P. 2012. Organizational citizenship behaviour for the environment:
31
measurement and validation. Journal of Business Ethics 109: 431–445. DOI
10.1007/s10551-011-1138-9
Boiral O, Talbot D, Paillé P. 2013. Leading by example: a model of organizational
citizenship behavior for the environment. Business Strategy and the Environment.
DOI: 10.1002/bse.1835
Bunge J, Cohen-Rosenthal E, Ruiz-Quintanilla A. 1996. Employee participation in
pollution reduction: preliminary analysis of the Toxics Release Inventory. Journal of
Cleaner Production 4: 9–16. DOI:10.1016/S0959-6526(96)00006-6
Buysse K, Verbeke A. 2003. Proactive environmental strategies: a stakeholder
management perspective. Strategic Management Journal 24: 453–470. DOI:
10.1002/smj.299
Cohen J. 1969. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Academic Press:
New York, NY.
Cropanzano R., Mitchell, MS. 2005. Social exchange theory: an interdisciplinary review.
Journal of Management 31: 874–900. DOI: 10.1177/0149206305279602
CorporateRegister.com [online]. Global Directory of Corporate Social Responsibility
(CSR) Resources. Retrieved April 1, 2009 from <http://www.corporateregister.com/>
Daily BF, Bishop JW, Govindarajulu N. 2009. A conceptual model for organizational
citizenship behavior directed toward the environment. Business and Society 48: 243–
256. DOI: 10.1177/0007650308315439
Darnall N, Jolley GJ, Handfield R. 2008. Environmental management systems and green
supply chain management: complements for sustainability? Business Strategy and the
Environment 17: 30–45. DOI: 10.1002/bse.557
Delmas M, Keller A. 2005. Free riding in voluntary environmental programs: the case of
the U.S. EPA WasteWise program. Policy Sciences 38: 91–106. DOI:
32
10.1007/s11077-005-6592-8
Eisenberger R, Huntington R, Hutchinson S, Sowa D. 1986. Perceived organizational
support. Journal of Applied Psychology 71, 500–507. DOI: 10.1037/0021-
9010.71.3.500
Erdogan B, Bauer TN, Taylor S. 2015. Management commitment to the ecological
environment and employees: implications for employee attitudes and citizenship
behaviors. Human Relations, DOI: 10.1177/0018726714565723
Evans MG. 1985. A Monte Carlo study of the effects of correlated method variance in
moderated multiple regression analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes 36: 305–323. DOI: 10.1016/0749-5978(85)90002-0
Florida R. 1996. Lean and green: the move to environmentally conscious manufacturing.
California Management Review 39: 80–105. DOI: 10.2307/41165877
Gaskin J. 2016. Confirmatory factor analysis. Available at:
http://statwiki.kolobkreations.com/index.php?title=Confirmatory_Factor_Analysis
(accessed 17 March 2016).
Glen J, Hilson C, Lowitt E. 2009. The emergence of green talent. Business Strategy
Review 20: 52–56. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8616.2009.00631.x
Hanna MD, Newman WR, Johnson P. 2000. Linking operational and environmental
improvement through employee involvement. International Journal of Operations
and Production Management 30: 148–165. DOI: 10.1108/01443570010304233
Hart SL. 1995. A natural-resource-based view of the firm. Academy of Management
Review 20: 986–1014. DOI: 10.5465/AMR.1995.9512280033
Hayes AF, Matthes J. 2009. Computational procedures for probing interactions in OLS
and logistic regression: SPSS and SAS implementations. Behavior Research Methods
41: 924–936. DOI: 10.3758/BRM.41.3.924
33
Hubbard G. 2009. Measuring organizational performance: beyond the triple bottom line.
Business Strategy and the Environment 19: 177–191. DOI: 10.1002/bse.564
Jansen JJP, George G, van den Bosch FAJ, Volberda HW. 2008. Senior team attributes
and organizational ambidexterity: the moderating role of transformational leadership.
Journal of Management Studies 45: 982–1007. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-
6486.2008.00775.x
Judge WQ, Douglas TJ. 1998. Performance implications of incorporating natural
environmental issues into the strategic planning process: an empirical assessment.
Journal of Management Studies 35: 241–262. DOI: 10.1111/1467-6486.00092
Kim A, Kim Y, Han K, Jackson SE, Ployhart RE. 2014. Multilevel influences on
voluntary workplace green behavior: individual differences, leader behavior, and
coworker advocacy. Journal of Management. DOI:10.1177/0149206314547386
Kitazawa S, Sarkis J. 2000. The relationship between ISO 14001 and continuous source
reduction programs. International Journal of Operations and Production
Management 20: 225–248. DOI: 10.1108/01443570010304279
Kornbluh H, Crowfoot J, Cohen-Rosenthal E. 1985. Worker participation in energy and
natural resources conservation. International Labour Review 124: 737–754.
Lamm E, Tosti-Kharas J, King CE. 2014. Empowering employee sustainability: perceived
organizational support toward the environment. Journal of Business Ethics 128: 207–
220. DOI 10.1007/s10551-014-2093-z
Lamm E, Tosti-Kharas J, Williams EG. 2013. Read this article, but don’t print it:
organizational citizenship behavior toward the environment. Group & Organization
Management 38: 163–197. DOI: 10.1177/1059601112475210
Leana CR, Van Buren HJ. 1999. Organizational social capital and employment practices.
Academy of Management Review 24: 538–555. DOI:10.5465/AMR.1999.2202136
34
LePine JA, Erez A, Johnson DE. 2002. The nature and dimensionality of organizational
citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology 87: 52–65. DOI: 10.1037/0021-
9010.87.1.52
Lülfs R, Hahn R. 2013. Corporate greening beyond formal programs, initiatives, and
systems: a conceptual model for voluntary pro‐environmental behavior of
employees. European Management Review 10: 83–98. DOI: 10.1111/emre.12008
MacKenzie SB, Podsakoff PM, Fetter R. 1991. Organizational citizenship behavior and
objective productivity as determinants of managerial evaluations of salespersons’
performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50: 123–150.
DOI:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90037-T
MacKenzie SB, Podsakoff PM, Fetter R. 1993. The impact of organizational citizenship
behavior on evaluation of salesperson performance. Journal of Marketing 57: 70–80.
DOI: 10.2307/1252058
MacKinnon DP, Lockwood CM, Hoffman JM, West SG, Sheets V. 2002. A comparison
of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychological
Methods 7: 83–104. DOI: 10.1037/1082-989X.7.1.83
MacKinnon DP, Lockwood CM, Williams J. 2004. Confidence limits for the indirect
effect: distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral
Research 39: 99–128. DOI: 10.1207/s15327906mbr3901_4
Moorman RH, Blakely GL. 1995. Individualism-collectivism as an individual difference
predictor of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior
16: 127–142. DOI: 10.1002/job.4030160204
Norton TA, Parker SL, Zacher H, Ashkanasy NM. 2015. Employee green behavior: a
theoretical framework, multilevel review, and future research agenda. Organization &
Environment 28: 103–125. DOI: 10.1177/1086026615575773
35
Norton TA, Zacher H, Ashkanasy NM. 2014. Organisational sustainability policies and
employee green behaviour: the mediating role of work climate perceptions. Journal of
Environmental Psychology 38: 49–54. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.12.008
Organ DW. 1988. Organizational Citizenship Behavior: the Good Soldier Syndrome.
Lexington Books: Lexington, KY.
Organ DW, Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB. 2006. Organizational Citizenship Behavior:
its Nature, Antecedents, and Consequences. Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA.
Oswald SL, Mossholder KW, Harris SG. 1994. Vision salience and strategic involvement:
implications for psychological attachment to organization and job. Strategic
Management Journal 15: 477–489. DOI: 10.1002/smj.4250150605
Paillé P, Boiral O, Chen Y. 2013. Linking environmental management practices and
organizational citizenship behaviour for the environment: a social exchange
perspective. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 24: 3552–
3575. DOI:10.1080/09585192.2013.777934
Paillé P, Boiral O. 2013. Pro-environmental behavior at work: construct validity and
determinants. Journal of Environmental Psychology 36: 118–128. DOI:
10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.07.014
Paillé P, Chen Y, Boiral O, Jin J. 2014. The impact of human resource management on
environmental performance: an employee-level study. Journal of Business Ethics 121:
451–466. DOI 10.1007/s10551-013-1732-0
Paillé P, Mejía-Morelos JH. 2014. Antecedents of pro-environmental behaviours at work:
the moderating influence of psychological contract breach. Journal of Environmental
Psychology 38: 124–131. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.01.004
Paillé P, Mejía-Morelos JH, Marché-Paillé A, Chen CC, Chen Y. 2015. Corporate
greening, exchange process among co-workers, and ethics of care: an empirical study
36
on the determinants of pro-environmental behaviors at coworkers-level. Journal of
Business Ethics. DOI 10.1007/s10551-015-2537-0
Paillé P, Raineri N. 2015. Linking perceived corporate environmental policies and
employees eco-initiatives: the influence of perceived organizational support and
psychological contract breach. Journal of Business Research. DOI:
10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.02.021
Parker SK, Bindl U, Strauss K. 2010. Making things happen: a model of proactive
motivation. Journal of Management 36: 827–856. DOI: 10.1177/0149206310363732
Podsakoff PM, Ahearne M, MacKenzie SB. 1997. Organizational citizenship behavior
and the quantity and quality of workgroup performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology 82: 262–270. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.82.2.262
Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee J-Y, Podsakoff NP. 2003. Common method biases in
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies.
Journal of Applied Psychology 88: 879–903. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Moorman RH, Fetter R. 1990. Transformational leader
behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and
organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly 1: 107–142. DOI:
10.1016/1048-9843(90)90009-7
Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB. 1994. Organizational citizenship behaviors and sales unit
effectiveness. Journal of Marketing Research 31: 351–363. DOI: 10.2307/3152222
Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB. 1997. Impact of organizational citizenship behavior on
organizational performance: a review and suggestion for future research. Human
Performance 10: 133–151. DOI: 10.1207/s15327043hup1002_5
Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Paine JB, Bachrach DG. 2000. Organizational citizenship
behaviors: a critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions
37
for future research. Journal of Management 26: 513–563.
DOI: 10.1177/014920630002600307
Powell T. 1995. Total quality management as competitive advantage: a review and
empirical study. Strategic Management Journal 16: 15–37.
DOI: 10.1002/smj.4250160105
Preacher KJ, Hayes AF. 2004. SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in
simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments and Computers
36: 717–731. DOI: 10.3758/BF03206553
Preacher KJ, Hayes AF. 2008. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and
comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods
40: 879–891. DOI: 10.3758/BRM.40.3.879
Preacher KJ, Rucker DD, Hayes AF. 2007. Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses:
theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research 42: 185–227.
DOI: 10.1080/00273170701341316
Raineri N, Paillé P. 2015. Linking corporate policy and supervisory support with
environmental citizenship behaviors: the role of employee environmental beliefs and
commitment. Journal of Business Ethics. DOI 10.1007/s10551-015-2548-x
Raines SS, Prakash A. 2005. Leadership matters: policy entrepreneurship in corporate
environmental policy making. Administration and Society 37: 3–22.
DOI: 10.1177/0095399704272594
Ramus CA. 2001. Organizational support for employees: encouraging creative ideas for
environmental sustainability. California Management Review 43: 85–105.
DOI: 10.2307/41166090
Ramus CA. 2002. Encouraging innovative environmental actions: what companies and
managers must do. Journal of World Business 37: 151–164. DOI:10.1016/S1090-
38
9516(02)00074-3
Ramus CA, Killmer AB. 2007. Corporate greening through prosocial extrarole behaviors
– a conceptual framework for employee motivation. Business Strategy and the
Environment 16: 554–570. DOI: 10.1002/bse.504
Ramus CA, Steger U. 2000. The roles of supervisory support behaviors and
environmental policy in employee ‘ecoinitiatives’ at leading-edge European
companies. Academy of Management Journal 43: 605–626. DOI:10.2307/1556357
Remmen A, Lorentzen B. 2000. Employee participation and cleaner technology: learning
processes in environmental teams. Journal of Cleaner Production 8: 365–373.
DOI:10.1016/S0959-6526(00)00039-1
Rothenberg S. 2003. Knowledge content and worker participation in environmental
management at NUMMI. Journal of Management Studies 40: 1783–1802.
DOI: 10.1111/1467-6486.00400
Roy M-J, Boiral O, Paillé P. 2013. Pursuing quality and environmental performance:
initiatives and supporting processes. Business Process Management Journal 19: 30–
53 DOI: 10.1108/14637151311294859
Ruiz-Quintanilla SA, Bunge J, Freeman-Gallant A, Cohen-Rosenthal E. 1996. Employee
participation in pollution reduction: a socio-technical perspective. Business Strategy
and the Environment 5: 137–144. DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-
0836(199609)5:3<137::AID-BSE67>3.0.CO;2-K
Schnake ME, Dumler MP. 2003. Levels of measurement and analysis issues in
organizational citizenship behavior research. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology 76: 283–301. DOI: 10.1348/096317903769647184
Sharma S, Henriques I. 2005. Stakeholder influences on sustainability practices in the
Canadian forest products industry. Strategic Management Journal 26: 159–80. DOI:
39
10.1002/smj.439
Siemsen E, Roth A, Oliveira P. 2010. Common method bias in regression models with
linear, quadratic, and interaction effects. Organizational Research Methods 13: 456–
476. DOI: 10.1177/1094428109351241
Sun L, Aryee S, Law KS. 2007. High-performance human resource practices, citizenship
behavior, and organizational performance: a relational perspective. Academy of
Management Journal 50: 558–577. DOI:10.5465/AMJ.2007.25525821
Surroca J, Tribó JA, Waddock S. 2010. Corporate responsibility and financial
performance: the role of intangible resources. Strategic Management Journal 31:
463–490. DOI: 10.1002/smj.820
Taylor A, Cocklin C, Brown R. 2012. Fostering environmental champions: a process to
build their capacity to drive change. Journal of Environmental Management 98: 84–
97. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.12.001
Temminck E, Mearns K, Fruhen L. 2013. Motivating employees towards sustainable
behaviour. Business Strategy and the Environment. DOI: 10.1002/bse.1827
Theyel G. 2000. Management practices for environmental innovation and performance.
International Journal of Operations and Production Management 20: 249–266. DOI:
10.1108/01443570010304288
Torugsa NA, O’Donohue W, Hecker R. 2012. Capabilities, proactive CSR and financial
performance in SMEs: empirical evidence from an Australian manufacturing industry
sector. Journal of Business Ethics 109: 483–500. DOI 10.1007/s10551-011-1141-1
Tung A, Baird K, Schoch H. 2014. The relationship between organisational factors and
the effectiveness of environmental management. Journal of Environmental
Management 144: 186–196. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.05.025
Wagner M. 2011. Corporate performance implications of extended stakeholder
40
management: new insights on mediation and moderation effects. Ecological
Economics 70: 942–950. DOI:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.12.010
Weaver ST, Ellen PS, Mathiassen L. 2014. Contextualist inquiry into organizational
citizenship: promoting recycling across heterogeneous organizational actors. Journal
of Business Ethics. DOI 10.1007/s10551-014-2165-0
Weick KE. 1979. The Social Psychology of Organizing. Addison-Wesley: Reading, MA.
Williams LJ, Anderson SE. 1991. Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as
predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management
17: 601– 617. DOI: 10.1177/014920639101700305
Winn MI, Angell LC. 2000. Towards a process model of corporate greening.
Organization Studies 21: 1119–1147. DOI: 10.1177/0170840600216005
Zutshi A, Sohal A. 2004. A study of the environmental management system (EMS)
adoption process within Australasian organizations – 2. Role of stakeholders.
Technovation 24: 371–386. DOI:10.1016/S0166-4972(02)00115-3
41