Skip to main content
Log in

The Impact of Individual Attitudinal and Organisational Variables on Workplace Environmentally Friendly Behaviours

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Although research on corporate social responsibility (CSR) has grown steadily, little research has focused on CSR at the individual level. In addition, research on the role of environmental friendly organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) within CSR initiatives is scarce. In response to this gap and recent calls for further research on both individual and organizational variables of employees’ environmentally friendly, or green, behaviors, this article sheds light on the influence of these variables on three types of green employee behaviors simultaneously: recycling, energy savings, and printing reduction. An initial theoretical model identifies both individual (employees’ general environmentally friendly attitudes and the importance of an organization’s environmentally friendly reputation to the employee) and organizational (perceived environmental behavior of an organization and perceived incentives and support from an organization) variables that affect different types of green behaviors as a stepping stone for further research. The results reveal managerial implications and future research directions on the design of effective social marketing interventions that motivate different types of OCBs in the workplace. In particular, the results suggest that creating separate interventions for each type of environmental behavior, as well as for each organization, sector, and type of organization (public vs. private), is necessary. In addition, this research illustrates patterns of attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors by exploring individual and organizational variables and behaviors across seven different organizations belonging to different sectors.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We use the words “environmentally friendly behavior,” “green behavior,” and “pro-environmental behavior” interchangeably in this article. Extant literature has also coined these terms to describe an individual’s behavior.

  2. Given that no demographic information was collected, the authors cannot provide the age, gender or specific job title of the employees who provided these comments.

References

  • Aguinis, H. (2011). Organizational responsibility: Doing good and doing well. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 855–879). Washington: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aguinis, H., & Glavas, A. (2012). What we know and don’t know about corporate social responsibility: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 38, 932–968.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63(1), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ambrose, M. L., Arnaud, A., & Schminke, M. (2008). Individual moral development and ethical climate: The influence of person-organization fit on job attitudes. Journal of Business Ethics, 77, 323–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andersson, L., Shivarajan, S., & Blau, G. (2005). Enacting ecological sustainability in the MNC: A test of an adapted value-belief-norm framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 59, 295–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergkvist, L., & Rossiter, J. R. (2007). The predictive validity of multiple-item versus single-item measures of the same constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(2), 175–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhattacharya, C. B., Sen, S., & Korschun, D. (2008, Winter). Responsibility to win the war for talent. MIT Sloan Management Review.

  • Bissing-Olson, M. J., Iyer, A., Fielding, K. S., & Zacher, H. (2012). Relationships between daily affect and pro-environmental behavior at work: The moderating role of pro-environmental attitude. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(2), 156–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradburn, N. M., Sudman, S., & Wansink, B. (2004). Asking questions: The definitive guide to questionnaire design—for market research, political polls, and social and health questionnaires (Rev. ed). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

  • Brothers, K. J., Ktamtz, P. J., & McClannahan, L. E. (1994). Office paper recycling: A function of container proximity. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 153–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brucks, M. (1985). The effects of product class knowledge on information search behavior. Journal Of Consumer Research, 12, 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cable, D., & DeRue, D. S. (2002). The convergent and discriminant validity of subjective fit perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 875(5), 875–884.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carrico, A. R., & Riemer, M. (2011). Motivating energy conservation in the workplace: An evaluation of the use of group-level feedback and peer education. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 31, 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chun, J. S., Shin, Y., Choi, J. N., & Kim, M. S. (2013). How does corporate ethics contribute to firm financial performance?: The mediating role of collective organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Management, 39, 853–877.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cluley, H. (2010). The impact of work on pro-environmental behaviors. In ASAC (Administrative Sciences Association of Canada) Conference, May 22–25, University of Regina, Saskatchewan.

  • Coldwell, D. A., Billsberry, J., van Meurs, N., & Marsh, P. J. G. (2008). The effects of person-organization ethical fit on employee attraction and retention: Towards a testable explanatory model. Journal of Business Ethics, 78, 611–622.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawkins, J., & Lewis, S. (2003). CSR in stakeholder expectations: And their implication for company strategy. Journal of Business Ethics, 44(2/3), 185–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deshpandé, R., Farley, J. U., & Webster, F. E. (1993). Corporate culture, customer orientation, and innovativeness in Japanese firms: A quadrad analysis. Journal of Marketing, 57, 23–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dijkstra, A., Buist, G., & Dassen, T. (1998). A criterion-related validity study of the nursing care dependency. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 35, 163–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finegan, J. (1994). The impact of personal values on judgments of ethical behavior in the workplace. Journal of Business Ethics, 13, 747–755.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fornell, C., & Larcker, F. D. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, C., & Diamantopoulos, A. (2009). Using single-item measures for construct measurement in management research. Die Betriebswirtschaft, 69(2), 195–210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilinsky, S. A. (1955). The effect of attitude upon the perception of size. The American Journal of Psychology, 68, 173–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood, P. E., & Nikulin, M. S. (1996). A guide to Chi squared testing. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grensing-Pophal, L. (1993). Reduce, reuse and recycle: Office conservation programs. Office Systems, 10(9), 56–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, S. D., & Dunford, B. B., Boss, A. D., Boss, R. W., & Angermeier, I. (2011). Corporate social responsibility and the benefits of employee trust: A cross-disciplinary perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 102, 29–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoeppner, B. B., Kelly, J. F., Urbanoski, K. A., & Slaymaker, V. (2011). Comparative utility of a single-item versus multiple-item measure of self-efficacy in predicting relapse among young adults. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 41(3), 305–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hudson, S., & Bryson, D. (2009). The relationship between individuals’ assessment of corporate social performance and person-organization fit, job satisfaction and turnover intentions: An empirical study. 22nd European Business Ethics Conference, 10–12 September, Athens, Greece.

  • Humphrey, C. R., Bord, R. J., Hammond, M. M., & Mann, S. H. (1977). Attitudes and conditions for cooperation in a paper recycling program. Environmental and Behavior, 9, 107–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiménez-Buedo, M., & Miller, L. M. (2010). Why a trade-off? The relationship between the external and internal validity of experiments. Theoria. Revista de Teoría, Historia y Fundamentos de la. Ciencia, 25(3), 301–321.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, D. A. (2010). Does serving the community also serve the company? Using organizational identification and social exchange theories to understand employee responses to a volunteerism programme. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83, 857–878.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kearney, A. R., & De Young, R. (1996). Changing commuter travel behavior: Employer-initiated strategies. Journal of Environmental Systems, 24(4), 373–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, H.-R., Lee, M., Lee, H.-T., & Kim, N.-M. (2010). Corporate social responsibility and employee-company identification. Journal of Business Ethics, 95, 557–569.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kollmus, A., & Agyeman, A. (2002). Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research, 8(3), 239–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, Y. J., De Young, R., & Marans, R. W. (1995). Factors influencing individual recycling behavior in office settings: A study of office workers in Taiwan. Environment and Behavior, 27, 380–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levitt, S. D., & List, J. A. (2007). What do laboratory experiments measuring social preferences reveal about the real world? The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 21(2), 153–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, C., Lyau, N., Tsai, Y., Chen, W., & Chiu, C. (2010). Modeling corporate citizenship and its relationship with organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Business Ethics, 95, 357–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindenberg, S., & Steg, L. (2007). Normative, gain and hedonic goal frames guiding environmental behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 63(1), 117–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindgreen, A., & Swaen, V. (2010). Corporate social responsibility. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), 1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lo, S. H., Peters, G. J. Y., & Kok, G. (2012a). A review of determinants of and interventions for proenvironmental behaviors in organizations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42(12), 2933–2967.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lo, S. H., Peters, G. J. Y., & Kok, G. (2012b). Energy-related behaviors in office buildings: A qualitative study on individual and organizational determinants. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 62(2), 227–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ludwig, T. D., Gray, T. W., & Rowell, A. (1998). Increasing recycling in academic buildings: A systematic review. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 31, 683–686.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marans, R. W., & Lee, Y.-J. (1993). Linking recycling behavior to waste management planning: A case study of office workers in Taiwan. Landscape and Urban Planning, 26, 203–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, S. (2011). Green behavior: Differences in recycling behavior between home and workplace. In D. Bartlett (Ed.), Going green: The psychology of sustainability in the workplace (pp. 1–5). Leicester: The British Psychological Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKenzie-Mohr, D., Nemiroff, L. S., Beers, L., & Desmarias, S. (1995). Determinants of responsible environmental behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 139–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melewar, T. C., & Karaosmanoglu, E. (2006). Seven dimensions of corporate identity: A categorisation from the practitioners’ perspectives. European Journal of Marketing, 40(7/8), 846–869.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mende, M., Bolton, R. N., & Bitner, M. J. (2013). Decoding customer-firm relationships: How attachment styles help explain customers’ preferences for closeness, repurchase intentions, and changes in relationship breadth. Journal of Marketing Research, 50(1), 125–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Organ, D. W., & Konovsky, M. A. (1989). Cognitive versus affective determinants of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 157–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, S. J., Choi, S., & Kim, E. J. (2013). The relationships between socio-demographic variables and concerns about environmental sustainability. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 19(6), 343–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pérez-Lombard, L., Ortiz, J., & Pout, C. (2008). A review on buildings energy consumption information. Energy and Buildings, 40, 394–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and they effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1(2), 107–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, N. P., Whiting, S. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & Blume, B. D. (2009). Individual- and organizational-level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 122–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Posner, B. Z. (1992). Person-organization values congruence: No support for individual differences as a moderating influence. Human Relations, 45(4), 351–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramus, C. A., & 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(4), 605–626.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reams, M. A., Geaghan, J. P., & Gendron, R. C. (1996). The link between recycling and litter: A field study. Environment and Behavior, 28, 92–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ren, T. (2013). Sectoral differences in value congruence and job attitudes: The case of nursing home employees. Journal of Business Ethics, 112, 213–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richman, W. L., Kiesler, S., Weisband, S., & Drasgow, F. (1999). A meta-analytic study of social desirability distortion in computer administered questionnaires, traditional questionnaires, and interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(5), 754–775.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robertson, J. L., & Barling, J. (2013). Greening organization through leaders’ influence on employees’ pro-environmental behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(2), 176–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodrigo, P., & Arenas, D. (2008). Do employees care about CSR programs? A typology of employees according to their attitudes. Journal of Business Ethics, 83, 265–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rupp, D. E., Ganapathi, J., Aguilera, R. V., & Williams, C. A. (2006). Employee reactions to corporate social responsibility: An organizational justice framework. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 537–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sauro, J. (2013). A single-item measure of website usability: Comments on Christophersen and Konradt (2011). Interacting with Computers, 25(4), 325–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scherbaum, C., Popovich, P. M., & Finlinson, S. (2008). Exploring individual-level factors related to employee energy-conservation behaviors at work. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36(3), 818–835.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schram, A. (2005). Artificiality: The tension between internal and external validity in economic experiments. Journal of Economic Methodology, 12(2), 225–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shippee, G., & Gregory, W. L. (1982). Public commitment and energy conservation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 10(1), 81–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siero, F. W., Bakker, A. R., Dekker, G. B., & van den Burg, M. T. C. (1996). Changing organizational energy consumption behavior through comparative feedback. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16, 235–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siero, S., Boon, M., Kok, G., & Siero, F. (1989). Modification of driving behavior in a large transport organization: A field experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(3), 417–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, A. M., & O’Sullivan, T. (2012). Environmentally responsible behavior in the workplace: An internal social marketing approach. Journal of Marketing Management, 28(3–4), 469–493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stern, P. C. (1999). Information, incentives and proenvironemntal consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Policy, 22, 461–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stern, P. C. (2000). Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 407–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Straughan, R. D., & Roberts, J. A. (1999). Environmental segmentation alternatives: A look at green consumer behaviour in the new millennium. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 16(6), 558–575.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thogersen, J. (1999). Spillover processes in the development of a sustainable consumption pattern. Journal of Economic Psychology, 20, 53–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tudor, T. L., Barr, A. W., & Gilg, A. W. (2007). Linking intended behavior and actions: A case study of healthcare waste management in the Cornwall NHS. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 51, 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tudor, T. L., Barr, S. W., & Gilg, A. W. (2008). A novel conceptual framework for examining environmental behavior in large organizations: A case study of the Cornwall National Health Service (NHS) in the United Kingdom. Environment and Behavior, 40(3), 426–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turker, D. (2009). How corporate social responsibility influences organizational commitment. Journal of Business Ethics, 89, 189–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vinning, J., & Ebreo, A. (2002). Emerging theoretical and methodological perspectives on conservation behavior. In R. B. Bechtel & A. Churchman (Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology (pp. 541–558). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vlachos, P. A., Theotokis, A., & Panagopoulos, N. G. (2010). Sales force reactions to corporate social responsibility: Attributions, outcomes, and the mediating role of organizational trust. Industrial Marketing Management, 39, 1207–1218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wehrmeyer, W., & McNeil, M. (2000). Activists, pragmatists, technophiles and tree-huggers? Gender differences in employees’ environmental attitudes. Journal of Business Ethics, 28(3), 211–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Witte, K. (1992). Putting the fear back into fear appeals: The extended parallel process model. Communication Monographs, 59, 329–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Danae Manika.

Appendix: Structural Equation Model Results of Indirect Effects

Appendix: Structural Equation Model Results of Indirect Effects

Although the proposed theoretical model did not hypothesize any mediating relationships, due to the lack of prior literature in this area, the structural equation modeling technique used to analyze the hypothesized (direct) relationships also allowed for the exploration of the mediating roles of perceived incentives and support from an organization, the importance of an organization’s environmentally friendly reputation, and the perceived environmental behavior of an organization. The results of the indirect effects appear in Table 10, which also summarizes the type of mediating relationships identified.

Table 10 Structural equation model results of indirect effects

In short, perceived incentives from an organization partially mediate the relationships between (1) general environmentally friendly attitudes and perceived organizational support, (2) general environmentally friendly attitudes and energy saving behaviors, (3) general environmentally friendly attitudes and printing reduction behaviors, and (4) general environmentally friendly attitudes and importance of an organization’s environmentally friendly reputation. They also act as an inconsistent mediator for general environmentally friendly attitudes and perceived environmental behavior of the organization.

Perceived support from an organization also partially mediates the relationships between (1) general environmentally friendly attitudes and energy saving behaviors, (2) general environmentally friendly attitudes and importance of an organization’s environmentally friendly reputation, (3) perceived incentives from the organization and energy saving behaviors, (4) perceived incentives from the organization and importance of an organization’s environmentally friendly reputation, (5) perceived incentives from the organization and perceived environmental behavior of the organization, and (6) perceived incentives from the organization and printing reduction behaviors. It also acts as an inconsistent mediator for (7) general environmentally friendly attitudes and perceived environmental behavior of the organization.

The importance of an organization’s environmentally friendly reputation partially mediates the relationship between (1) perceived organizational support and perceived environmental behavior of the organization; however, it acts as an inconsistent mediator between (2) general environmentally friendly attitudes and perceived environmental behavior of the organization.

Last, perceived environmental behavior of the organization fully mediates the relationship between (1) perceived organizational support and recycling behavior, partially mediates the relationship between (2) perceived incentives from the organization and recycling behavior, and acts as an inconsistent mediator between (3) general environmentally friendly attitudes and recycling behavior.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Manika, D., Wells, V.K., Gregory-Smith, D. et al. The Impact of Individual Attitudinal and Organisational Variables on Workplace Environmentally Friendly Behaviours. J Bus Ethics 126, 663–684 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1978-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1978-6

Keywords

Navigation