Organization OR Environment? Disentangling Employees’ Rationales Behind Organizational Citizenship Behavior for the Environment

Abstract

Scholars and managers have raised the question of how to encourage employees to perform discretionary pro-environmental behaviors at work, termed organizational citizenship behaviors toward the environment (OCB-Es). This study examined how rationales for organizational sustainability relate to employees’ OCB-Es. We considered two rationales—eco-centric and organization-centric—and two sources—employees’ rationales and their perceptions of their employers’ rationales. Results from 489 working adults across a variety of organizations and occupations revealed that both eco-centric and organization-centric rationales at both individual and perceived organizational levels related to employees’ OCB-Es. Furthermore, we found interactive effects, such that employees’ perceptions of their organizations’ rationales were more important than their own rationales in determining OCB-Es. These findings contribute to a theoretical understanding of the complex and interrelated factors motivating employees to perform voluntary sustainability behaviors in organizations. In addition, our results are valuable for managers looking to increase employee sustainability behaviors.

Keywords

sustainability in organizations pro-environmental behavior organizational citizenship behaviors organizational identification

The topic of what motivates people to act in environmentally friendly ways has gained recent attention in both the academic and popular press. Furthermore, the question of what motivates companies to pursue pro-environmental strategies, programs, and product lines has been studied extensively (e.g., Babiak & Trendafilova, 2011; Bansal & Roth, 2000; González-Benito & González-Benito, 2006; Lo, Peters, & Kok, 2012; Salzmann, Ionescu-Somers, & Steger, 2005; Williamson, Lynch-Wood, & Ramsay, 2006). However, the pro-environmental behaviors of individual employees have only recently begun to receive attention (Ciocirlan, 2017; Lülfs & Hahn, 2013; Ones, Dilchert, Viswesvaran, & Judge, 2007). One such research effort has focused on the everyday discretionary behaviors that employees perform to conserve resources at work. These behaviors, often termed organizational citizenship behaviors toward the environment (OCB-Es), are the focus of an increasing number of articles seeking to understand their antecedents, consequences, distinction from related constructs, and measurement validation (Boiral, 2009; Boiral & Paillé, 2012; Boiral, Talbot, & Paillé, 2013; Daily, Bishop, & Govindarajulu, 2009; Lamm, Tosti-Kharas, & King, 2015; Lamm, Tosti-Kharas, & Williams, 2013; Paillé, Mejía-Morelos, Marché-Paillé, Chen, & Chen, 2016; Paillé & Raineri, 2015; Raineri & Paillé, 2016; Temminck, Mearns, & Fruhen, 2015).

Despite this promising research stream, much about OCB-Es remains unclear. Notably, there has been little effort to explore the rationale for why employees believe behaving sustainably is important. Several potential rationales exist. People may intrinsically believe that preserving the environment is a moral imperative, an end in itself (De Groot & Steg, 2008; Stern & Dietz, 1994; Thompson & Barton, 1994). Conversely, they may believe in the extrinsic value of environmental protection for business reasons, such as improved reputation or cost savings (Porter & van der Linde, 1995). Taking into account the rationales associated with organizational sustainability also makes relevant a consideration of the multilevel sources of these rationales. That is, the rationales may stem from what employees themselves believe or from employee perceptions of organizational beliefs. Employees’ perceptions of what their organizations believe matter a great deal, often more than actual company actions (e.g., Glavas & Godwin, 2013); however, currently scholars have not attempted to differentiate between these sources.

In this study, we begin to address these gaps in the literature by investigating the rationales and sources for why employees engage in OCB-Es at work. We start on the personal individual level by exploring two different rationales toward supporting organizational sustainability: eco-centric and organization-centric rationales. Then we apply these same two rationales at the organizational level to consider the extent to which employees form perceptions of whether the organizations’ rationales for sustainability are eco-centric or organization-centric.

We develop arguments regarding how employees’ personal and perceived organizational rationales relate to OCB-Es both separately and in an interaction. To complete the picture, we also examine the extent to which organizational attachment, in the form of organizational identification, moderates the relationship between rationales for organizational sustainability and OCB-Es. In sum, the approach presented in this article should provide a much clearer picture of the complex and interrelated cognitive factors associated with employees’ decisions to perform voluntary sustainability-oriented behaviors at work.

This article makes a number of key contributions. First, we break away from past trends of using general environmental beliefs as a predictor for behavior within organizations by conceptualizing variables specifically for the work context. Second, we consider a multilevel perspective by coupling employee beliefs with employee perceptions of organizational beliefs. Third, we juxtapose our organizational sustainability variables with an important job attitude variable, organizational identification, to test for interaction effects. Finally, we create an improved OCB-E measure and empirically test our model in a sample of 489 adults working full-time in a variety of occupations and detail implications for future research and practice.

Literature Review and Hypotheses

Research on organizational sustainability has historically tended to take a firm-centric view; however, recently a complementary individual-level perspective has emerged in recognition that “social performance at the corporate level cannot occur without contributions by individuals” (Daily et al., 2009, p. 245). New sustainability policies will never be implemented successfully without employee buy-in, as “comprehensive corporate greening requires initiatives and responsive conduct by employees throughout the entire company” (Lülfs & Hahn, 2013, p. 84). Furthermore, individual behaviors may appear to have minimal impact; however, aggregating their impact across a company may be more significant (Ramus, 2001).

Organizational Citizenship Behavior Toward the Environment

Over the past 5 years, researchers have begun investigating OCB-E. This research stream builds from the extensive literature on organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs), discretionary behaviors not recognized by formal reward systems that benefit the organization and/or its employees (Organ, 1988). Research has distinguished between two types of OCBs, one directed toward the organization (OCB-O), such as giving advanced notice when missing work, and the other toward individuals (OCB-I), such as taking a personal interest in coworkers (Williams & Anderson, 1991). Although OCB-Is primarily benefit other employees, they also indirectly help the organization.

Building from similar logic, OCB-Es are conceptualized as a third type of OCB, defined as “voluntary behavior not specified in official job descriptions that, through the combined efforts of individual employees, help to make the organization and/or society more sustainable” (Lamm et al., 2013, p. 165). Scholars have found OCBs and OCB-Es to be positively related, yet conceptually distinct (Lamm et al., 2013; Paillé & Boiral, 2013). OCBs encompass a wide variety of helping behaviors, while OCB-Es apply only to specific, pro-environmental behaviors, and thus have different determinants from traditional OCBs (Paillé & Boiral, 2013).

When individual employees consume fewer resources at work, they help not only the environment but also the organization, which benefits from decreased financial, time, and labor expenses for the resources. Scholars have established several antecedents of OCB-Es: affective commitment (Lamm et al., 2013; Temminck et al., 2015), environmental concern (Temminck et al., 2015), environmental values (Boiral et al., 2013; Lamm et al., 2013), perceived behavioral control (Boiral et al., 2013), perceived organizational support (Lamm et al., 2013; Paillé & Mejía-Morelos, 2014), perceived organizational support toward the environment (Lamm et al., 2015; Temminck et al., 2015), psychological empowerment (Lamm et al., 2015), and supervisory support (Raineri & Paillé, 2016). Taken together, these results shed light on employees’ attitudes about sustainability, their organizations, and their organizations’ support for sustainability. It is clear that employees who felt committed, empowered, and supported at work were more likely to perform OCB-Es. Despite advances in understanding the factors associated with OCB-Es, we still do not know why employees believe acting sustainably is important for their organizations.

Personal Rationale for Organizational Sustainability

What we term a personal rationale for organizational sustainability is the extent to which employees personally believe that organizations, including their employers, should make operating in an environmentally sustainable manner a priority. The argument supporting this relationship is that employees who believe environmental sustainability is important will take more sustainable actions at work than those who do not.

We see two primary rationales for why employees might believe it is important for their organizations to behave sustainably. They might believe sustainability is inherently important as an end in itself, or that sustainability is instrumentally important in that it makes good business sense, or both. We refer to these two rationales as eco-centric and organization-centric, respectively. We contend that the eco-centric rationale differs in a meaningful way from a rationale based upon a strategic assessment of potential organization-specific costs and benefits of pro-sustainability behavior. This distinction mirrors that in nonbusiness contexts showing people made environmental decisions from feeling that it was a moral imperative versus a cost-benefit analysis (e.g., De Groot & Steg, 2008; Steg, Bolderdijk, Keizer, & Perlaviciute, 2014; Stern, 2000).

Eco-Centric Rationale

The eco-centric rationale represents the extent to which employees value organizational sustainability because they believe that organizational efforts to preserve the natural environment are a moral imperative (Thomas, 2007; Thomas & Lamm, 2012). The eco-centric rationale is similar to so-called altruistic values, which have been linked to pro-environmental behaviors (Steg & Vlek, 2009). We follow scholars in arguing that before taking sustainable actions in the workplace, individuals will determine if the actions are in alignment with their sustainability beliefs and if they are, they will take action (Stern, 2000; Stern & Dietz, 1994). Employees who support organizational sustainability for eco-centric reasons believe that it is the right thing to do. Thus, we expect that these employees will be more likely to perform OCB-Es than those who do not support an eco-centric rationale.

Hypothesis 1a: Employees’ personal eco-centric rationales for organizational sustainability will positively relate to OCB-Es.

Organization-Centric Rationale

If the personal eco-centric rationale represents employees’ beliefs that organizational sustainability is the right thing to do, the organization-centric rationale represents sustainability as the smart thing to do. The organization-centric rationale implies that the primary rationale for behaving sustainably at work is not based in morality or ethics but is instead predicated on a pragmatic assessment that it makes good business sense. The business case for sustainability initiatives argues that they have produced tangible short-term financial benefits for companies, for example, through cost reduction and product differentiation, as well as less tangible long-term benefits such as accelerated innovation and reputational enhancement among key stakeholders (Davis, 1973; Wood, 1991). In other words, an organization-centric rationale for sustainability is motivated by a concern for organizational success, independent of the fact that it is good for the environment (Brønn & Vidaver-Cohen, 2009). From this perspective, personal and organizational sustainability efforts are among a class of behaviors that lead to greater profitability, and are seen as an instrumental means to that end. How employees feel personally about the state of the planet is irrelevant; if employees believe sustainability contributes to company success, they are more likely to behave sustainably. Accordingly, we expect that employees who believe their companies should act sustainably for organization-centric reasons will perform more OCB-Es than those who do not.

Hypothesis 1b: Employees’ personal organization-centric rationales for organizational sustainability will positively relate to OCB-Es.

Perceived Organizational Rationale for Sustainability

Next we shift the focus away from personal rationales for sustainability at work, toward employees’ perceptions of their companies’ sustainability rationales. We use the term perceived organizational rationale for sustainability to reflect the degree to which employees perceive that their organizations support sustainability. Through exposure to the organizations’ missions, policies, practices, key decision makers’ words or actions, and informal communications, employees developed opinions about the priorities of their organizations and their supervisors (Ramus & Steger, 2000). Glavas and Godwin (2013) argued that employees’ perceptions of how socially responsible their companies are matter more than the organizations’ actual behavior in terms of determining organizational identification. Similarly, we believe employees’ perceptions of their companies’ rationales for operating sustainably are more relevant in determining their OCB-Es than a more objective indicator of what the organization actually values.

Past studies that have considered perceived corporate values toward the environment conceptualized these values as unidimensional, indicating the degree to which various organizational behaviors indicated, or influenced perceptions of, support for organizational sustainability (e.g., Andersson & Bateman, 2000; Andersson, Shivarajan, & Blau, 2005; Cordano & Frieze, 2000; Sharma, 2000). However, the deeper question of the perceived rationales for the organizations’ level of support for sustainability has not been examined. The current study begins to fill this gap by assuming that the same eco-centric and organization-centric rationales outlined above for individual employees apply to employees’ perceptions of what their organizations believe as well. This approach therefore assumes that before taking action, employees make judgments not only about whether sustainability appears to be a priority for their company but also the organizations’ rationale for why sustainability matters.

Eco-Centric Rationale

The eco-centric rationale for perceived organizational sustainability reflects employees’ perceptions that organizations’ sustainability priorities are primarily for moral reasons. While the degree and authenticity of the morality would be difficult to measure objectively, individuals make subjective determinations of whether their companies’ sustainability decisions are rooted in a genuine desire to protect natural resources. Research has shown that employees engaged in socially responsible behavior at work if they believed their supervisors valued it (Ramus & Steger, 2000). Determining that the organization values sustainability from an eco-centric perspective will likely motivate employees to increase their level of OCB-Es because it makes them feel like they are working toward a greater good for the organization in particular, and society in general.

Hypothesis 2a: Employees’ perceptions that the organizations’ rationales for sustainability are eco-centric will positively relate to OCB-Es.

Organization-Centric Rationale

The organization-centric rationale for perceived organizational sustainability importance reflects employees’ perceptions that the organizations’ sustainability priorities are primarily for business, rather than moral, reasons. This prioritization could be due to increased legitimacy, impression management, or simply cost savings from reduced resource consumption (Thomas & Lamm, 2012). Employees want their organizations to make sound business decisions, as the strength of the company, and their employment in it, is dependent on organizational success. In a case study of a Finnish oil and chemical firm, Ramus (2001) found that emphasizing the business case for sustainability helped employees act more sustainably. We believe the same relationship will hold for OCB-Es, such that employees who perceive their organizations value sustainability for organization-centric reasons will be more likely to perform OCB-Es to act in alignment with organizational priorities.

Hypothesis 2b: Employees’ perceptions that the organizations’ rationales for sustainability are organization-centric will positively relate to OCB-Es.

Moderation Effects

Interaction Between Personal and Perceived Organizational Rationales

Employees’ rationales for organizational sustainability are not happening at discrete intervals, where either personal or perceived organizational rationales are present and dominant. Rather, employees likely hold simultaneous views about their own rationales for sustainability as well as their organizations’. In recognition that the relationship between employees’ personal rationales regarding sustainability and their performance of OCB-Es may be influenced by their perceptions about what the organizations’ value, we examined both the main and interactive effects of personal and perceived organizational rationales for sustainability on OCB-Es.

The rich literature on value congruence (Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005), or the match between individual and organizational values, can help us understand how the relationship between personal rationales for organizational sustainability and OCB-Es might be dependent on perceived organizational rationales for organizational sustainability. One common way of conceptualizing and operationalizing the relationship between personal and perceived organizational beliefs is by looking at their interaction (Kristof, 1996). For individuals with their own organizational sustainability rationales, whether eco-centric or organization-centric, perceiving that the organization prioritizes the same rationale will deeply resonate. For example, consider an environmental activist who supports organizational sustainability primarily from an eco-centric perspective. If she believes that her organization wants to reduce its carbon footprint because it is the moral thing to do, she will likely take extra steps to behave sustainably at work. Conversely, if the activist feels that the organization espouses such values for strategic, rather than moral, reasons this can contribute to a perceived lack of value congruence, and accordingly fewer sustainable behaviors. By the same argument, we expect a similar moderation regarding the organization-centric rationale, such that the behavior of individuals who personally endorse an organization-centric rationale for sustainability will be influenced by their perception of whether the company shares this perspective. As person-organization fit perceptions affected OCBs in general (Hoffman & Woehr, 2006; Ruiz-Palomino & Martínez-Cañas, 2014), it is reasonable to expect them to affect OCB-Es as well. Recently, scholars have called for further investigation into the influence of a match between individual and organizational values on prosocial behaviors (Raineri & Paillé, 2016). Note that if employees do not personally value organizational sustainability, then there is not an opportunity for value congruence and the moderation would not be expected. However, the main effect previously hypothesized for perceived organizational rationales could still be in effect. In sum, we expect a moderation whereby the relationship between personal rationales for organizational sustainability and OCB-Es will be enhanced when employees perceive that their companies hold the same rationales.

Hypothesis 3a: Perceived eco-centric rationales on the organizational-level will moderate the relationship between eco-centric rationales on the individual level and OCB-Es, such that employees will report more OCB-Es when rationales are congruent.

Hypothesis 3b: Perceived organization-centric rationales on the organizational-level will moderate the relationship between organization-centric rationales on the individual level and OCB-Es, such that employees will report more OCB-Es when rationales are congruent.

Organizational Identification

Organizational identification reflects an individual’s perception of oneness with an organization such that membership becomes self-defining (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). We believe organizational identification will moderate the relationship between organizational sustainability rationales and OCB-Es in a manner that these positive relationships will intensify for employees who strongly identify with their organizations. When employees identify strongly, they are more likely to share the values, goals, and beliefs of their employers (Ashforth, Harrison, & Corley, 2008). Organizational identification was linked to behaviors that support the company, including OCBs (Riketta, 2005). Furthermore, employees who strongly identify with their employers have a vested interest in the organization’s success, in part because they perceive organizational failure as their own failure (Ashforth & Mael, 1989).

Perhaps not surprisingly, organizational identification was enhanced for employees whose perceived internal and external image of their employers’ corporate social responsibility efforts was positive (Glavas & Godwin, 2013). In addition, employees reported higher organizational identification when they perceived that their employers supported their efforts toward sustainability (Lamm et al., 2015). However, despite evidence that beliefs about sustainability and organizational identification were positively related, there has never been a consideration of how organizational identification might enhance the relationship between employees’ organizational sustainability beliefs and their own pro-environmental behaviors.

For employees with strong personal rationales for organizational sustainability, whether eco-centric or organization-centric, strong organizational identification will likely enhance their drive to perform OCB-Es. For employees who believe it is a moral imperative to act sustainably at work, as in an eco-centric rationale, their desire to perform OCB-Es will be even higher if they identify strongly with the organization because doing so will help boost their self-esteem. Strong identification with the organization should also enhance the relationship between an organization-centric rationale and employee performance of OCB-Es, because employees may see acting sustainably as a way to enhance the company’s reputation or external image as a “green” company, or help save money due to decreased resource consumption. Since strongly identified employees see advancing organizational values, goals, and outcomes as a priority, they will work extra hard to deliver what they believe is important for organizational success.

Hypothesis 4a: Organizational identification will moderate the relationship between employees’ personal eco-centric rationales for sustainability and OCB-Es, such that employees will report more OCB-Es when they perceive eco-centric rationales for sustainability and strongly identify with their organizations than when they do not strongly identify with their organizations.

Hypothesis 4b: Organizational identification will moderate the relationship between employees’ personal organization-centric rationales for sustainability and OCB-Es, such that employees will report more OCB-Es when they perceive organization-centric rationales for sustainability and strongly identify with their organizations than when they do not strongly identify with their organizations.

For employees who perceive their organizations value sustainability, organizational identification will likely enhance their performance of OCB-Es as well. Recent theory suggests that both external and internal perceptions of a company’s corporate social responsibility efforts will increase organizational identification because being socially responsible is seen as being prestigious and meaningful (Glavas & Godwin, 2013). Thus, for employees who perceive that their companies’ rationales for sustainability are eco-centric, strong identification with their organizations will likely enhance their drive to perform OCB-Es because they share the drive to work toward this prestigious, meaningful, and morally imperative goal. In addition, employees identified more strongly with organizations that held a positive external image and identified more weakly with organizations perceived badly by others (Dutton, Dukerich, & Harquail, 1994). Accordingly, for employees who believe their organizations’ rationales for sustainability are organization-centric, organizational identification will enhance their OCB-Es because they believe their companies’ business outcomes and reputations may improve as a result.

Hypothesis 5a: Organizational identification will moderate the relationship between employees’ perceptions that the organizations’ rationales for sustainability are eco-centric and OCB-Es, such that employees will report more OCB-Es when they perceive that their organizations’ rationales are eco-centric and strongly identify with their organizations than when they do not strongly identify with their organizations.

Hypothesis 5b: Organizational identification will moderate the relationship between employees’ perceptions that the organizations’ rationales for sustainability are organization-centric and OCB-Es, such that employees will report more OCB-Es when they perceive that their organizations’ rationales are organization-centric and strongly identify with their organizations than when they do not strongly identify with their organizations.

Our full theoretical model and all study hypotheses are illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Illustration of conceptual model and hypotheses.

Method

Participants and Procedure

We tested our hypotheses using a sample of adults working in a range of organizations and occupations. Participants received an e-mail asking them to complete an online survey. Consistent with similar studies (e.g., Baltes, Zhdanova, & Clark, 2011; He & Li, 2011), we utilized a snowball sampling methodology. The researchers offered undergraduate students enrolled in a general management class extra credit for sending out the recruitment e-mail to the students’ personal contacts. Criteria for recruitment were being older than 18 years of age and working in full-time jobs at least 30 hours per week in for-profit organizations. Neither the students sending out the recruitment e-mail nor prospective respondents were aware of study aims. The survey was titled “Employee Attitude Survey” to avoid bias toward participants who were particularly environmentally conscious. We also took the recommended step (Conway & Lance, 2010; Podsakoff, Mackenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003) in our survey design to minimize the impact of common method variance on our results by randomizing independent and dependent scale items to alleviate some framing or priming concerns. A total of 155 students sent surveys to their own contacts, resulting in 1,212 surveys begun and 872 completed (72%).

We screened each completed survey in order to ensure the quality or validity of responses. We used standard protocol to identify insufficient effort in responding (Huang, Curran, Keeney, Poposki, & DeShon, 2012). That is, responses were removed if they met any of the following criteria: (1) completed in less than 6 minutes (average for all respondents = 12 minutes), (2) nonresponse for entire blocks of items, (3) repetitive patterns or sequences reflecting rote responses, and (4) contradictory responses to at least two matched pairs of similar items (response = 1 or 2 for one item and 4 or 5 for the other). We believed our predictions would be most relevant for people working in full-time jobs in the United States who had sufficient time to develop opinions about their employers. Accordingly, we also removed respondents who reported currently working outside the United States, who had been at their current jobs for less than 1 year, and who worked at their jobs less than 30 hours per week on average. In total, we removed 383 respondents (44%) who met one or more of these criteria.

The 489 remaining respondents were 49% female, and 32 years of age (SD = 10.53, range = 19-65) on average. They reported that they had worked in their current organizations for 4 years and 8 months on average (SD = 4.94, range = 1-36). Forty-nine percent of respondents did not hold managerial positions, with the remaining 51% split between lower (19%), middle (19%), upper (10%), and top management (2%) positions.

Measures

Personal Rationale for Organizational Sustainability

Since we could find no current measure of respondents’ personal sustainability rationales, we created a scale measure for this study. Separate items assessed eco-centric and organization-centric rationales. The authors generated a list of items based on a review of published literature on rationales for sustainable behavior in general, which were then adapted to an organizational context (e.g., De Groot & Steg, 2008; Porter & van der Linde, 1995; Stern & Dietz, 1994). The eco-centric scale consisted of three items, for example, “It is very important to businesses to learn how to make products or provide services in ways that don’t harm the environment.” The organization-centric scale consisted of five items, including “I believe that good environmental practices can save companies money.” For these and all scale items in this study, participants rated their agreement or disagreement with the statements on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = Strongly Disagree, 5 = Strongly Agree), except where noted. A full list of item text and descriptive statistics for each scale used in this study can be found in the appendix.

We used a pilot study to assess these measures for dimensionality and reliability. The researchers e-mailed an online survey link to 175 individuals, and requested that the link be forwarded to additional participants. We required that respondents be at least 18 years old, and work at least 30 hours per week for an organization in order to have sufficient knowledge of organizational culture and practices. This approach yielded 493 completed surveys. The same data quality and validity screens described above were applied to each response, and the resulting screened data set included 254 responses (52% of completed). The respondents were 52% female, and averaged 34.5 years of age (SD = 12.25, range = 18-65). They reported working in their current organizations for 5.6 years on average (SD = 6.21, range = 1-50). All currently worked in the United States, with 46% in nonmanagerial positions, and the remaining 55% split between lower (11%), middle (25%), upper (12%), and top management (6%) positions.

Exploratory factor analysis on the eight items using principal component extraction and Varimax rotation yielded two distinct factors with Eigenvalue greater than one and factor loadings .60 or higher (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy [MSA] = .80), one for three eco-centric items and one for five organization-centric items. We estimated ordinal alphas as the reliability coefficient alphas, as recommended for Likert-type scale item responses, such as those reported in this study (Gadermann, Guhn, & Zumbo, 2012; Holgado-Tello, Chacón-Moscoso, Barbero-García, & Vila-Abad, 2010). Ordinal α were .85 and .70 for the eco-centric and organization-centric scales, respectively.

We repeated these analyses on the current study sample. Again, exploratory factor analysis on the eight items using the same approach described above yielded two distinct factors. Items loaded on their intended factor with loadings greater than .65 (MSA = .82). Ordinal alphas for the eco-centric and organization-centric rationale scales were .82 and .82, respectively.

Perceived Organizational Rationale for Sustainability

Since we found no existing measure to assess respondents’ perceived organizational rationales for organizational sustainability, we created a new scale measure, as described above for personal rationales. These items focused on what employees believed their companies valued regarding sustainability, rather than what they valued. Five items captured an eco-centric rationale, for example, “My company believes that reducing its environmental impact is the right thing to do, even if it costs more.” Four items reflected an organization-centric rationale, for example, “My company believes that good environmental practices will contribute to its success in the long run.” Participants rated their agreement or disagreement on a 6-point Likert-type scale (1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree with separate choice Don’t Know, coded as missing data).

Again, exploratory factor analysis using the same methodology as above revealed a two-factor solution where items loaded on their intended factors greater than .65 (MSA = .90). We also conducted exploratory factor analysis using the complete set of 16 items for personal and perceived organizational rationales, and found the intended four-factor solution, where scale items loaded on intended factors greater than .65 (MSA = .87). Ordinal αs for the perceived organizational eco-centric and organization-centric scales were .88 and .90, respectively.

Organizational Identification

We measured organizational identification using Mael and Ashforth’s (1992) six-item scale. This scale is commonly used to capture organizational identification from a social identity perspective, and has retained a high degree of overlap with other organizational identification scales (e.g., Miller, Allen, Casey, & Johnson, 2000; Riketta, 2005). Ordinal alpha was .90.

Organizational Citizenship Behavior Toward the Environment

We used a 10-item scale measure to assess participants’ performance of OCB-Es at work. We combined two of the only published OCB-E scales at the time, one of which taps “low-intensity” behaviors and the other which taps “high-intensity” behaviors (Ciocirlan, 2017). Seven items were drawn from Lamm et al.’s (2013) OCB-E scale, designed to tap everyday “low-intensity” actions taken by employees to promote sustainability, such as powering down electronics when not in use, and recycling paper and bottles. We combined these items with 3 items adapted from Boiral and Paillé’s (2012) measure, which addresses more extensive and collaborative “high-intensity” OCB-Es. These three items were the following: “I am a person who collaborates with other employees on ways to improve our organization’s environmental sustainability,” “I am a person who suggests to my supervisor ways to improve our organization’s environmental practices,” and “I am a person who tries to help others learn about ways to improve our organization’s environmental sustainability.” Participants used a 6-point Likert-type scale (1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree, with separate response choice for Not Applicable, which was coded as missing data) to rate these items. Ordinal alpha for this scale was .87.

Control variables

We also assessed demographic variables that might affect the hypothesized relationships. These included age, gender, organizational tenure, managerial level, and organization size.

Results

Hypothesis Tests

Table 1 presents descriptive statistics, ordinal alphas, and Pearson’s correlations for all study variables. To test Hypotheses 1 and 2, we used multiple regression analysis, which allowed us to examine the relationship between our independent and dependent variables, taking into account a number of control variables (Aiken & West, 1991). We first entered the control variables and then the relevant independent variable.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics, Ordinal Alphas, and Pearson’s Correlations for Study Variables.

	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
Personal rationale for organizational sustainability
1. Eco-centric	4.22	0.65	.82
2. Organization-centric	3.99	0.60	.39***	.82
Perceived organizational rationale for sustainability
3. Eco-centric	3.35	0.83	.24***	.21***	.88
4. Organization-centric	3.85	0.83	.24***	.34***	.60***	.90
5. Organizational identification	3.61	0.76	0.10*	.21***	.40***	.32***	.90
6. Organizational citizenship behavior toward the environment	3.71	0.70	0.26***	.24***	.25***	.20***	.22***	.87
7. Gender	0.53	0.50	0.10*	.07	.14**	.05	.08	.12**
8. Age	32.35	10.52	0.07	−.02	.18***	.05*	.11*	.11*	.04
9. Organizational tenure	4.67	4.95	−0.02	−.03	.16***	.07**	.07	.08	.11*	.55***
10. Organization size	3.20	1.26	0.07	.09**	.13**	.22***	−.01	−0.12**	.04	.02	.12**
11. Managerial level	1.98	1.14	0.04	−.06*	.03	−.03	.16***	.11*	.03	.23***	.20***	−0.28***

Note. Ordinal alphas are along the diagonals in bold. All scale measures were calculated as the mean of their underlying items, rated 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. Gender was coded 0 = male, 1 = female. Age and organizational tenure are reported in years. Organization size was coded 1 = 1-9 employees, 2 = 10-100 employees, 3 = 101-1,000 employees, 4 = 1,001-10,000 employees, 5 = greater than 10,000 employees. Managerial level was coded 1 = nonmanagement, 2 = lower management, 3 = middle management, 4 = upper management, 5 = top management.

***

p < .001. **p < .01. *p < .05.

In Hypotheses 1a and 1b, we predicted that employees’ eco-centric and organization-centric rationales for organizational sustainability, respectively, would relate to OCB-Es. In support of these hypotheses, we found that both eco-centric (β = .19, p < .001) and organization-centric rationales (β = .18, p < .001) positively related to OCB-Es. Hypotheses 2a and 2b predicted that employees’ perceptions that their organizations’ rationales for sustainability were eco-centric and organization-centric, respectively, would relate to OCB-Es. Again, as predicted, both perceived organizational eco-centric (β = .17, p = .004) and organization-centric (β = .13, p = .03) rationales positively related to OCB-Es. The results are presented in Table 2.

Table 2.

Multiple Regression Results for Study Hypotheses 1 to 3.

	Standardized β^a
	Organizational citizenship behavior toward the environment (OCB-E)
	Hypotheses 1a and 1b	Hypotheses 2a and 2b	Hypothesis 3a	Hypothesis 3b
Control variables (Step 1)
Gender	0.09*	0.10*	0.07	0.10*
Age	0.07	0.08	0.05	0.10
Organizational tenure	0.05	−0.009	0.01	0.02
Organization size	−0.14**	−0.185***	−0.16***	−0.186***
Managerial level	0.04	0.04	0.05	0.06
Independent variables (Step 1)
Personal rationale for organizational sustainability
Eco-centric	0.19***		0.22***
Organization-centric	0.18***			0.18***
Perceived organizational rationale for sustainability
Eco-centric		0.17**	0.21***
Organization-centric		0.13*		0.17***
Interactions (Step 2)
Personal * Perceived organizational rationale—Eco-centric			−0.13**
Personal * Perceived organizational rationale—Organization-centric				−0.17***
Model F statistic	10.49***	8.35***	11.608***	10.88***
Model adjusted R²	0.12	0.11	0.17	0.15
Change in adjusted R² (Step 2-1)			0.02**	0.03***
f² (Change in R²/(1 − Model R²)			0.02	0.03

Note. Standard errors ranged from .00 to .06.

***

p < .001. **p < .01. *p < .05.

We tested Hypotheses 3, 4, and 5 using the recommended method for testing two-way interactions via multiple regression analysis (Aiken & West, 1991). That is, we centered both the independent and moderator variables, and then multiplied them to create an interaction term. Finally, we entered the interaction variable into the regression equation as a third step following the control variables (Step 1) and each of the centered independent variables (Step 2).

Hypotheses 3a and 3b predicted that perceived organizational eco-centric and organization-centric rationales, respectively, would moderate the relationship between personal organizational sustainability importance and OCB-Es, such that when these values were congruent, performance of OCB-Es would be enhanced. We expected the interaction terms to be positive for both hypotheses. However, we found that the interaction term for the eco-centric rationale was significant but negative (β = −.13, p = .003). A similar pattern emerged with the interaction term for the organization-centric rationale (β = −.17, p < .001). These results indicated that support for moderation was found for Hypotheses 3a and 3b; however, the interaction coefficient was negative instead of positive. To better interpret the extent to which these results were consistent with our hypothesis logic, we graphed the shape of the interactions and calculated the simple slope gradient using the procedure recommended by Dawson (2014). That is, we estimated high and low predicted values based on the model coefficients presented in Table 2, where high and low corresponded to one standard deviation above and below the mean, respectively. A simple slope test revealed significant gradients for both Hypothesis 3a and 3b (gradients = .21 and .18, respectively, all ps < .001). These illustrations, shown in Figures 2 and 3, revealed that employees with a high personal rationale were unaffected by the level of perceived organizational rationale, while employees with a low personal rationale were motivated by a high perceived organizational rationale. As we explore further in the Discussion, these results nevertheless appear consistent with our hypothesized logic that high perceived organizational sustainability rationales will enhance employees’ OCB-Es.

Figure 2.

Illustration of moderation results for Hypothesis 3a: Eco-centric rationale.

Figure 3.

Illustration of moderation results for Hypothesis 3b: Organization-centric rationale.

In Hypotheses 4 and 5, we predicted that for both the personal and perceived organizational levels, employees’ organizational identification would moderate the relationship between the eco-centric and organization-centric rationales and OCB-Es. We expected all interaction terms to be positive for these hypotheses. We did not find a significant interaction between the personal eco-centric rationale and organizational identification (β = −.07, p = .09), meaning Hypothesis 4a was not supported. We found a significant interaction between the personal organization-centric rationale and organizational identification (β = −.14, p = .002). This interaction coefficient was negative, the opposite of what we predicted in Hypothesis 4b. We did not find significant results for the interaction of organizational identification and either perceived organizational eco-centric (β = .03, p = .53) or organization-centric rationales (β = −.05, p = .32). Thus, Hypotheses 5a and 5b were not supported. The results are shown in Table 3 and the shape of the significant interaction found for Hypothesis 4b is illustrated in Figure 4. The simple slope gradient was significant (gradient = .22, p < .001). As in Hypotheses 3a and 3b, it appears that for employees who strongly identified with their employing organizations, the relationship between personal organization-centric motives for sustainability and OCB-Es was attenuated.¹

Table 3.

Multiple Regression Results for Hypotheses 4 and 5.

	Standardized β
	Organizational citizenship behavior toward the environment (OCB-E)
	Hypothesis 4a	Hypothesis 4b	Hypothesis 5a	Hypothesis 5b
Control variables (Step 1)
Gender	0.08	0.09*	0.09*	0.11*
Age	0.05	0.08	0.06	0.09
Organizational tenure	0.05	0.02	−0.01	0.01
Organization size	−0.14**	−0.128**	−0.14**	−0.17***
Managerial level	0.01*	0.03	0.03	0.02
Independent variables (Step 1)
Personal rationale for organizational sustainability
Eco-centric	0.23***
Organization-centric		0.22***
Perceived organizational rationale for sustainability
Eco-centric			0.21***
Organization-centric				0.19***
Organizational Identification (OID)	0.17***	0.12**	0.11*	0.12*
Interactions (Step 2)
OID * Personal rationale—Eco-centric	−0.07
OID * Personal rationale—Organization-centric		−0.137**
OID * Perceived organizational rationale—Eco-centric			0.03
OID * Perceived organizational rationale—Organization-centric				−0.05
Model F statistic	9.81***	9.98***	12.60***	7.31***
Model adjusted R²	.13	.13	.16	.10
Change in adjusted R² (Step 2-1)	.01	.02**	.01	.00
f² (Change in R²/(1 − Model R²)	.01	.02**	.01	.00

Note. Standard errors ranged from .00 to .06.

***

p < .001. **p < .01. *p < .05.

Figure 4.

Illustration of moderation results for Hypothesis 4b: Organization-centric rationale.

Assessment of Common Method Variance

Given that we collected our independent and dependent variables at the same time and from the same source, we ran an additional analysis to assess whether common method variance was present. We performed Harman’s one-factor test, where we loaded all study items into a single exploratory factor analysis and examined the unrotated factor solution (Podsakoff et al., 2003). If common method variance was present, the items would load on a single factor. Counter to this assumption, we found that our items loaded on their respective factors with no cross-loadings (χ² = 510.35, df = 317, p < .001). This model represented a significantly better fit than a confirmatory factor analysis where all items loaded on a single factor (χ² = 2968.24, df = 527, p < .001; Δχ² = 2457.89, Δdf = 210, p < .001). Thus, it appears that common method variance did not pose a significant problem in our data.

Discussion

This article explored employees’ rationales for why it is important for their organizations to act sustainably. In a sample of 489 employees working across organizations and occupations, we differentiated between two rationales—eco-centric and organization-centric—and also between two sources of these rationales as representing the perspective of employees themselves or their perceptions of their employers. We considered both direct and moderated effects of these rationales on employees’ voluntary behaviors meant to improve organizational sustainability.

The article’s findings advance theory on organizational sustainability in several ways. First, we specifically contribute to research looking at individual employee pro-environmental behaviors (Boiral, 2009; Boiral & Paillé, 2012; Boiral et al., 2013; Daily et al., 2009; Lamm et al., 2013; Lamm et al., 2015; Paillé & Mejía-Morelos, 2014; Paillé & Raineri, 2015; Raineri & Paillé, 2016; Temminck et al., 2015) by examining two justifications for why employees might believe organizations should take sustainable action. We found that both eco-centric and organization-centric rationales increased employee OCB-Es. While this finding might indicate that the specific rationale does not matter, we would caution against such a conclusion. It is possible that eco-centric and organization-centric rationales matter differently, especially for employees working in different types of companies. This study targeted full-time employees of for-profit companies, because we believed these employees best represented an organizational context in which both eco-centric and organization-centric concerns would be present. Future research should examine how rationales differ for employees working in, for example, non-profit, family-run, or public-sector organizations. It is also probable that eco-centric and organization-centric motives will have a differential impact on employees’ attitudes and behaviors, because their outlooks are prosocial and self-serving, respectively. As such, organization-centric motives might lead to short-term focused OCB-Es, such as isolated behaviors that seem helpful to the company, while eco-centric motives might lead to both short and long-term behaviors, such as recruiting others to join in the effort. Future research should examine these and other situations in which eco-centric and organization-centric motives yield distinct patterns of results.

Second, we added a needed multilevel consideration to our current understanding of sustainability beliefs by distinguishing between the sources of sustainability rationales. This approach helps to address the paucity of multilevel research in this area (Starik & Rands, 1995). That is, we separately considered employees’ own rationales for organizational sustainability as well as their perceptions of their employers’ rationales. Importantly, while we found that both personal and perceived organizational rationales for sustainability mattered for OCB-Es, in the interaction, perceived organizational rationales mattered more. When employees believed their organizations did not value sustainability, their personal rationales increased OCB-Es. However, when employees believed their organizations did value organizational sustainability, they performed OCB-Es regardless of the strength of their personal rationales. This pattern of results was robust, supported for both eco-centric and organization-centric rationales. This is a really significant finding as it indicates that perceptions of organizational rationales have the potential to trump personal rationales. We hypothesized a value congruence explanation, whereby the OCB-Es of employees who hold strong personal rationales would be enhanced by perceived organizational rationales. However, our findings indicated that organizational rationales did enhance OCB-Es but only for employees who did not already hold strong personal rationales. The explanation for these findings appears to be less about adherence to personal values than strategic behavior within an organization. This set of findings extends research demonstrating the importance of employee perceptions of organizational sustainability beliefs (e.g., Glavas & Godwin, 2013) by showing that these perceptions drive behavior. These findings open a novel avenue of research on perceived organizational versus individual perspectives on organizational sustainability. Accordingly, we call for future inquiry into the precise mechanisms underlying these relationships and their boundary conditions, as well as other dependent variables that may show a similar relationship to that found with OCB-Es. In addition, as personal rationales and perceived organizational rationales were positively correlated (rs range .21-.34, all ps < .001), it is possible that there is a direct relationship where employees with strong personal sustainability rationales will perceive that their organizations value sustainability for the same reasons.

Third, we advance our understanding of how a non-sustainability-specific job attitude, organizational identification, moderated the relationship between organizational sustainability rationales and OCB-Es. Previous studies have considered the direct relationship between sustainability efforts and organizational identification (Glavas & Godwin, 2013; Lamm et al., 2015) but not the ways in which organizational identification moderates the relationship between employees’ beliefs and their pro-sustainability behaviors. On one of the dimensions we investigated, organizational identification worked to override employees’ personal sustainability rationales in much the same way as perceived organizational sustainability rationales did. These findings indicated that employees who strongly identified with their organizations performed OCB-Es regardless of the strength of their personal organization-centric rationales for sustainability. However, these findings were not consistent across rationales or sources. That is, we did not find the expected moderating effect of organizational identification on the relationship between the personal eco-centric rationales and OCB-Es. One possible explanation for this finding is that employees who believe acting sustainably is a moral imperative will perform OCB-Es regardless of how strongly they identify with their employers. We also did not find a moderating effect of organizational identification on the relationship between perceived organizational sustainability rationales and OCB-Es. One interpretation of this finding is that employees engage in OCB-Es if they either strongly identify with their organization or perceive that their organization values sustainability, such that these two relationships are not contingent upon one another. Understanding the factors that moderate the relationship between OCB-Es and their antecedents has been identified as one of the factors most lacking in this area of research (Norton, Parker, Zacher, & Ashkanasy, 2015). Future research should therefore continue to investigate the moderating role of organizational identification, and other important job attitudes, such as job satisfaction, on the relationship between employees’ rationales and OCB-Es.

Fourth, we advanced research on OCB-Es by updating the scale measure of the construct. OCB-Es have previously been assessed in terms of the “lower-order” everyday actions employees can take to promote sustainability, such as turning off unused lights and equipment, recycling or reusing paper, or using reusable cups, bottles, and utensils instead of disposable items (Kim, Kim, Han, Jackson, & Ployhart, 2015; Lamm et al., 2013; Lamm et al., 2015). In the measure of OCB-Es used in this study, we combined these relatively low-engagement actions with “higher-order” actions, like collaborating with other employees and making suggestions to supervisors to improve sustainability. This approach has the advantage of being more comprehensive, and we believe it is a more conservative test of the theory, since it takes more effort for employees to engage in these behaviors. In a post-hoc analysis, we examined the hypothesized relationships using only the 7 “lower-order” OCB-E items, and found the same results reported here. Future studies should investigate the potential differences between “lower-order” and “higher-order” activities (e.g., Boiral & Paillé, 2012), and consider additional behaviors employees might undertake to promote sustainability in their organizations.

This article also contributes to organizational practice. In a comprehensive review, Norton et al. (2015, p. 117) report that encouraging pro-environmental behaviors among employees who do not already value sustainability “represents a key challenge for practitioners.” Our findings directly addressed this challenge by suggesting that managers seeking to increase voluntary sustainability-oriented behaviors should convey to employees that the company values organizational sustainability. Our results also suggested that employees who identified strongly with their organizations were more likely to perform OCB-Es regardless of their personal feelings. A common theme uniting our findings was that if employees perceived that the organization cares about organizational sustainability, regardless of the rationale, they were more likely to take voluntary sustainable actions at work. This is good news for organizational leaders. Rather than worrying about screening for and recruiting employees who hold deep values regarding sustainability, companies can focus on conveying sustainability as a core value. Companies can achieve this goal in myriad ways, from official corporate value statements to innovative practices, policies, and procedures intended to reduce resource use. Successful examples are Wal-Mart, who created the “Personal Sustainability Project” encouraging employees to each set their own sustainability goals, and Burt’s Bees, which had employees sort through 2 weeks’ worth of the company’s trash to identify missed recycling opportunities.

Limitations

This study had several limitations that can be addressed by future research. First, given the exploratory nature of our study, we employed a convenience snowball sample to test our hypotheses. While this sampling approach had the benefit of gaining responses from adults employed in a variety of organizations, snowball sampling can yield overly homogeneous results if students’ networks were very similar. However, given that our results indicated the importance of perceived organizational rationales for sustainability in relation to OCB-Es, future studies should specifically sample organizations where employees are particularly likely or unlikely to perceive eco-centric and/or organization-centric sustainability rationales.

Second, we used same-source cross-sectional data, which might indicate results affected by common method bias (e.g., Podsakoff et al., 2003). This remains a significant issue despite recent research calling into question the assumption that these types of data produce biased results as well as the superiority of data collected from multiple sources (Conway & Lance, 2010). Consistent with research, we believed that employees’ perceptions of organizational beliefs would be a bigger driver of their behavior than an objective ranking of how sustainably the organizations act (Glavas & Godwin, 2013). Therefore, using self-reported measures of study variables seemed most appropriate. In addition, we examined our variables both statistically and conceptually to make sure they were not redundant. As Podsakoff et al. (2003) have explained, Harman’s one-factor test does not completely rule out the presence of common method variance in the data, particularly when a large number of variables are involved, as was the case in this study. However, common method bias is unlikely to explain interaction effects, such as those found in our study (Siemsen, Roth, & Oliveira, 2010). We also utilized several of the methodological procedures recommended to alleviate common method bias (Conway & Lance, 2010; Podsakoff et al., 2003). First, we randomized the presentation of scale items to counterbalance ordering of independent and dependent variables and to mitigate rote response patterns. Second, we separated the survey onto different screens to create a mental separation between previous answers. However, future research should collect independent and dependent variables from different sources, to avoid these concerns. Another limitation of cross-sectional data is that it does not allow the study of causal relationships between variables. It would be valuable to design field experiments to better understand what factors are antecedents and consequences of OCB-Es. In addition, given the value in understanding how time affects the hypothesized relationships, future research should employ a longitudinal research design to better understand the short-term and long-term effects on employee behavior.

Third, using self-reports of discretionary organizational sustainability behaviors raises the questions of respondents providing a response that is biased by social desirability concerns. We followed the lead of Lamm et al. (2013) who specifically addressed this issue in developing and validating their measure of OCB-Es and found that social desirability was not a concern, as our research employed the same methodologies and measure. Future research may want to revisit this issue especially if conducting research using different methodology. We recommend that future research specifically measure and assess social desirability bias, and also employ external reports of OCB-Es from coworkers or managers. In addition, employee reports of OCB-Es should be examined for their breadth, depth, frequency, and impact to ensure that these reports are substantive and not just surface-level.

Fourth, relying on perceptions means that we captured how much employees believed their organizations valued organizational sustainability. While employees’ perceptions likely drive their behaviors, these perceptions may not reflect the reality of how much importance top leadership at the company places on organizational sustainability. There is the potential for what Glavas and Godwin (2013) termed “misalignment,” where employees perceive their organizations to be more or less socially responsible than they are. Future studies should examine multisource data, including interviews with top executives and content analysis of company documents, to understand whether employee perceptions match organizational efforts.

Finally, while our conceptual model represents an initial exploration of the relationship between sustainability rationales, organizational identification, and OCB-Es, there are likely additional variables that are relevant to an understanding of how sustainability importance relates to workplace attitudes and behaviors. For example, there might be a downside to engaging in OCB-Es if it distracts employees from their job duties (e.g., Bergeron, Shipp, Rosen, & Furst, 2013). As our consideration of OCB-Es moves from relatively low time-intensive activities like recycling to more involved activities like working with others to promote sustainability, the potential for decreased in-role performance grows. In addition, there may be additional organizational attitudes, such as job satisfaction or employee engagement, that moderate the relationship between sustainability importance and OCB-Es, in a manner similar to organizational identification (e.g., Saks, 2006; Williams & Anderson, 1991). Furthermore, there may be additional dependent variables that relate to personal and perceived organizational rationales for sustainability, such as work-life integration, turnover intention, or work absence.

Conclusion

Scholars are beginning to understand the full range of employee attitudes regarding sustainability as well as the drivers of sustainability-oriented behavior at work. This study offers a novel lens on employees valuing organizational sustainability for eco-centric versus organization-centric reasons, from the employees’ own perspective and from their perceptions of their companies’ perspective. In doing so, we reveal that employees will perform OCB-Es if they believe their organization values sustainability or they strongly identify with their organizations even if they personally do not believe it is important to act sustainably at work. Our results further the call that organizations that value sustainability should make their position and values clear to employees so that employees will engage in greater extra-role behaviors.

Footnotes

Appendix

Scale Item Text and Descriptive Statistics.

Survey Item (all items were rated on a 5-point scale from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree)	M	SD
Personal rationale for sustainability—Eco-centric
1. It is very important for businesses to learn how to make products or provide services in ways that don’t harm the environment.	4.40	0.73
2. Reducing a company’s environmental impact is the right thing to do, even if it costs more.	4.03	0.90
3. Companies have a responsibility to reduce pollution and conserve natural resources to the greatest extent they possibly can.	4.25	0.78
Personal rationale for sustainability—Organization-centric
1. People prefer to buy products or services from companies with reputations for good environmental practices.	3.97	0.77
2. I believe that good environmental practices can save companies money.	3.73	1.01
3. I believe that a good reputation for responsible environmental practices will appeal to most companies’ customers/clients.	4.19	0.72
4. Good environmental practices will contribute to a company’s success in the long run.	4.06	0.84
5. I believe that a good reputation for responsible environmental practices helps companies attract and retain good employees.	4.01	0.82
Perceived organizational rationale for sustainability—Eco-centric
1. My company only seems to try to reduce its environmental impact if it saves money or increases sales. (reverse-scored)	2.95	1.10
2. My company believes that it has a responsibility to reduce pollution and conserve natural resources to the greatest extent it possibly can.	3.62	1.01
3. My company believes that the best thing it can do for society is to make as much money as possible. (reverse-scored)	3.31	1.14
4. My company believes that reducing its environmental impact is the right thing to do, even if it costs more.	3.32	1.11
5. My company only seems to adopt responsible environmental practices when forced to by customers or community pressure. (reverse-scored)	3.32	1.12
Perceived organizational rationale for sustainability—Organization-centric
1. My company believes that good environmental practices can save it money.	3.65	1.00
2. My organization believes that a good reputation for environmental sustainability will appeal to our customers and clients.	4.03	0.95
3. My company believes that good environmental practices will contribute to its success in the long run.	3.89	0.94
4. My company believes that a good reputation for responsible environmental practices helps attract and retain good employees.	3.83	1.02
Organizational identification
1. When someone criticizes my organization, it feels like a personal insult.	3.29	1.05
2. I am very interested in what people think about my organization.	3.69	0.95
3. When I talk about my organization, I usually say “we” rather than “they.”	3.84	0.93
4. My organization’s successes are my successes.	3.72	0.95
5. When someone praises my organization it feels like a personal compliment.	3.65	0.97
6. If a story in the media criticized my organization, I would feel embarrassed.	3.49	1.00
Organizational citizenship behavior toward the environment
1. I am a person who recycles my bottles, cans, and other containers at work.	4.39	0.89
2. I am a person who uses scrap paper instead of fresh paper for notes or printing at work.	3.86	1.17
3. I am a person who turns off lights in vacant rooms or when leaving my office at work.	4.34	0.86
4. I am a person who recycles used paper at work.	4.25	0.98
5. I am a person who turns off all electronic devices at the end of the workday.	3.81	1.21
6. I am a person who doesn’t buy water in plastic bottles to drink at work.	3.56	1.36
7. I am a person who drinks from reusable cups or glasses instead of paper cups at work.	3.90	1.16
8. I am a person who collaborates with other employees on ways to improve our organization’s environmental sustainability.	2.99	1.15
9. I am a person who suggests to my supervisor ways to improve our organization’s environmental practices.	2.84	1.11
10. I am a person who tried to help others learn about ways to improve our organization’s environmental sustainability.	3.05	1.14

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Author Biographies

Jennifer Tosti-Kharas is an assistant professor of Organizational Beahvior at Babson College. Her research interests include the consequences of employees feeling that their work is deeply meaningful, whether through aligning with their personal values or believing that the work makes a difference.

Eric Lamm is an associate professor at the San Francisco State Unversity College of Business. His research focuses on job attitudes, teams, and organizational change.

Tom E. Thomas is an associate professor and Chair of the Management Department at the San Francisco State University College of Business. His current research focuses on corporate environmental management, sustainable business strategies, and how companies manage conflicts of interest.

References

Aiken

L. S.

West

S. G.

(1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Andersson

L. M.

Bateman

T. S.

(2000). Individual environmental initiative: Championing natural environmental issues in U.S. business organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 548-570.

Andersson

L. M.

Shivarajan

Blau

(2005). Enacting ecological sustainability in the MNC: A test of an adapted value-belief-norm framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 59, 295-305.

Ashforth

B. E.

Harrison

S. H.

Corley

K. G.

(2008). Identification in organizations: An examination of four fundamental questions. Journal of Management, 34, 325-374.

Ashforth

B. E.

Mael

(1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14, 20-39.

Babiak

Trendafilova

(2011). CSR and environmental responsibility: Motives and pressures to adopt green management practices. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 18, 11-24.

Baltes

Zhdanova

Clark

(2011). Examining the relationships between personality, coping strategies, and work-family conflict. Journal of Business & Psychology, 26, 517-530.

Bansal

Roth

(2000). Why companies go green: A model of ecological responsiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 717-736.

Bergeron

D. M.

Shipp

A. J.

Rosen

Furst

S. A.

(2013). Organizational citizenship behavior and career outcomes: The cost of being a good citizen. Journal of Management, 39, 958-984.

10.

Boiral

(2009). Greening the corporation through organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Business Ethics, 87, 221-236.

11.

Boiral

Paillé

(2012). Organizational citizenship behaviour for the environment: Measurement and validation. Journal of Business Ethics, 109, 431-445.

12.

Boiral

Talbot

Paillé

(2013). Leading by example: A model of organizational citizenship behavior for the environment. Business Strategy and the Environment, 24, 532-550.

13.

Brønn

P. S.

Vidaver-Cohen

(2009). Corporate motives for social initiative: Legitimacy, sustainability, or the bottom line? Journal of Business Ethics, 87, 91-109.

14.

Ciocirlan

C. E.

(2017). Environmental workplace behaviors: Definition matters. Organization & Environment 30, 51–70. doi:10.1177/1086026615628036

15.

Conway

J. M.

Lance

C. E.

(2010). What reviewers should expect from authors regarding common method bias in organizational research. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25, 325-334.

16.

Cordano

Frieze

I. H.

(2000). Pollution reduction preferences of U.S. environmental managers: Applying Ajzen’s theory of planned behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 627-641.

17.

Daily

B. F.

Bishop

J. W.

Govindarajulu

(2009). A conceptual model for organizational citizenship behavior directed toward the environment. Business & Society, 48, 243-256.

18.

Davis

(1973). The case for and against business assumption of social responsibilities. Academy of Management Journal, 16, 312-322.

19.

Dawson

J. F.

(2014). Moderation in management research: What, why, when, and how. Journal of Business and Psychology, 29(1), 1-19.

20.

De Groot

J. I.

Steg

(2008). Value orientations to explain beliefs related to environmental significant behavior. How to measure egoistic, altruistic, and biospheric value orientations. Environment and Behavior, 40, 330-354.

21.

Dutton

J. E.

Dukerich

J. M.

Harquail

C. V.

(1994). Organizational images and member identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 239-263.

22.

Gadermann

A. M.

Guhn

Zumbo

B. D.

(2012). Estimating ordinal reliability for Likert-type and ordinal item response data: A conceptual, empirical, and practical guide. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 17(3), 1-13.

23.

Glavas

Godwin

L. N.

(2013). Is the perception of “goodness” good enough? Exploring the relationship between perceived corporate social responsibility and employee organizational identification. Journal of Business Ethics, 114, 15-27.

24.

González-Benito

(2006). Review of determinant factors of environmental proactivity. Business Strategy and the Environment, 15, 87-102.

25.

(2011). CSR and service brand: The mediating effect of brand identification and moderating effect of service quality. Journal of Business Ethics, 100, 673-688.

26.

Hoffman

B. J.

Woehr

D. J.

(2006). A quantitative review of the relationship between person-organization fit and behavioral outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 389-399.

27.

Holgado-Tello

F. P.

Chacón-Moscoso

Barbero-García

Vila-Abad

(2010). Polychoric versus Pearson correlations in exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis of ordinal variables. Quality & Quantity, 44, 153-166.

28.

Huang

Curran

P. G.

Keeney

Poposki

E. M.

DeShon

R. P.

(2012). Detecting and deterring insufficient effort responding to surveys. Journal of Business Psychology, 27, 99-114.

29.

Kim

Han

Jackson

S. E.

Ployhart

R. E.

(2015). Multilevel influences on voluntary workplace green behavior: Individual differences, leader behavior, and coworker advocacy. Journal of Management, 28, 103-125.

30.

Kristof

A. L.

(1996). Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations, measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49, 1-49.

31.

Kristof-Brown

A. L.

Zimmerman

R. D.

Johnson

E. C.

(2005). Consequences of individuals’ fit at work: A meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-group, and person-supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58, 281-342.

32.

Lamm

Tosti-Kharas

King

C. E.

(2015). Empowering employee sustainability: Perceived organizational support toward the environment. Journal of Business Ethics, 128, 207-220.

33.

Lamm

Tosti-Kharas

Williams

(2013). Read this article but don’t print it: Organizational Citizenship Behavior toward the Environment. Group & Organization Management, 38, 163-197.

34.

S. H.

Peters

G.-J. Y.

Kok

(2012). A review of determinants of and interventions for proenvironmental behaviors in organizations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42, 2933-2967.

35.

Lülfs

Hahn

(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.

36.

Mael

Ashforth

B. E.

(1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 103-123.

37.

Miller

V. D.

Allen

Casey

M. K.

Johnson

J. R.

(2000). Reconsidering the organizational identification questionnaire. Management Communication Quarterly, 13, 626-658.

38.

Norton

T. A.

Parker

S. L.

Zacher

Ashkanasy

N. M.

(2015). Employee green behavior: A theoretical framework, multilevel review, and future research agenda. Organization & Environment, 28, 103-125.

39.

Ones

D. S.

Dilchert

Viswesvaran

Judge

T. A.

(2007). In support of personality assessment in organizational settings. Personnel Psychology, 60, 995-1027.

40.

Organ

D. W.

(1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: D.C. Health.

41.

Paillé

Boiral

(2013). Pro-environmental behavior at work: Construct validity and determinants. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 36, 118-128.

42.

Paillé

Mejía-Morelos

J. H.

(2014). Antecedents of pro-environmental behaviours at work: The moderating influence of psychological contract breach. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 38, 124-131.

43.

Paillé

Mejía-Morelos

J. H.

Marché-Paillé

Chen

C. C.

Chen

(2016). Corporate greening, exchange process among co-workers, and ethics of care: An empirical study on the determinants of pro-environmental behaviors at coworkers-level. Journal of Business Ethics, 136, 655-673.

44.

Paillé

Raineri

(2015). Linking perceived corporate environmental policies and employees eco-initiatives: The influence of perceived organizational support and psychological contract breach. Journal of Business Research, 68, 2404-2411.

45.

Podsakoff

P. M.

Mackenzie

S. B.

Lee

J.-Y.

Podsakoff

N. P.

(2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903.

46.

Porter

van der Linde

(1995). Green and competitive: Ending the stalemate. Harvard Business Review, 73, 120-129.

47.

Raineri

Paillé

(2016). Linking corporate policy and supervisory support with environmental citizenship behaviors: The role of employee environmental beliefs and commitment. Journal of Business Ethics, 137, 129-148.

48.

Ramus

C. A.

(2001). Organizational support for employees: Encouraging creative ideas for environmental sustainability. California Management Review, 43, 85-105.

49.

Ramus

C. A.

Steger

(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.

50.

Riketta

(2005). Organizational identification: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 358-384.

51.

Ruiz-Palomino

Martínez-Cañas

(2014). Ethical culture, ethical intent, and organizational citizenship behavior: The moderating and mediating role of person-organization fit. Journal of Business Ethics, 120, 95-108.

52.

Saks

A. M.

(2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21, 600-619.

53.

Salzmann

Ionescu-Somers

Steger

(2005). The business case for corporate sustainability: Literature review and research options. European Management Journal, 23(1), 27-36.

54.

Sharma

(2000). Managerial interpretations and organizational context as predictors of corporate choice of environmental strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 681-697.

55.

Siemsen

Roth

Oliveira

(2010). Common method bias in regression models with linear, quadratic, and interaction effects. Organizational Research Methods, 13, 456-476.

56.

Starik

Rands

G. P.

(1995). Weaving an integrated web: Multilevel and multisystem perspectives of ecologically sustainable organizations. Academy of Management Review, 20, 908-935.

57.

Steg

Bolderdijk

J. W.

Keizer

Perlaviciute

(2014). An integrated framework for encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: The role of values, situational factors and goals. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 38, 104-115.

58.

Steg

Vlek

(2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, 309-317.

59.

Stern

P. C.

(2000). Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 407-424.

60.

Stern

P. C.

Dietz

(1994). The value basis of environmental concern. Journal of Social Issues, 50, 65-84.

61.

Temminck

Mearns

Fruhen

(2015). Motivating employees towards sustainable behaviour. Business Strategy and the Environment, 24, 402-412.

62.

Thomas

T. E.

(2007). Educating for sustainability: A double-edged sword? International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development, 2, 453-465.

63.

Thomas

T. E.

Lamm

(2012). Legitimacy and organizational sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics, 110, 191-203.

64.

Thompson

S. C. G.

Barton

M. A.

(1994). Ecocentric and anthrocentric attitudes toward the environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 14, 149-157.

65.

Williams

L. J.

Anderson

S. E.

(1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17, 601-617.

66.

Williamson

Lynch-Wood

Ramsay

(2006). Drivers of environmental behaviour in manufacturing SMEs and the implications for CSR Journal of Business Ethics, 67, 317-330.

67.

Wood

D. J.

(1991). Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management Review, 16, 691-718.