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