Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Considering the gravity of issues, the present study investigates the influence of corporate environmental strategy (CES) on the voluntary environmental behavior (VEB) of employees along with the potential moderating variables. The research questions and hypotheses are built based on the essence of an integrated theory of corporate environmental behavior and social identity theory. Data were collected from numerous organizations and analyzed following the deductive reasoning approach. Partial least square–based structural equation modeling was used to test the hypotheses. The result highlighted that CES influences psychological green climate (PGC), which leads to an effect on VEB. We also examined the moderating effects of employees’ age, firms’ size on the influence of CES on PGC, and the PGC on VEB. The result showed that the moderating effect of age affects the influence of CES on PGC and other’s influences are not found significant. Managerial implications were also discussed.

Keywords

corporate environmental strategy psychological green climate voluntary environmental behavior size of the firm

Introduction

The ecological concern about climate change is soaring worldwide as global warming imposes serious harmful effects on both human and nonhuman creatures and causes substantial environmental costs, and these effects and costs, in consequence, are threatening the economic sustainability of the countries around the world (Dean & McMullen, 2007; Kim et al., 2019; Robertson & Barling, 2013). The climate change significantly costs the globe approximately an amount of US$1,200 billion every year, thus eating away at about 1.60% per annum from the gross domestic product of all countries (Kura, 2016). Globally, Bangladesh ranked seventh among the countries that are severely affected by weather-related hazards and has suffered a financial loss of about $2.83 billion due to climate change in 2017 (Kreft et al., 2017).

Organizational and human actions are treated as driving forces that substantially play a crucial role in climate change and ecological degradation (Lu et al., 2017; Robertson & Barling, 2013). In response to the devastating hazard of acute environmental imbalances, including climate change, environmental pollution, biodiversity reduction, deforestation, and damage of ecosystems (Han et al., 2019), business organizations, on a global scale, have been prudently demonstrating commendable commitments by introducing corporate environmental strategy (CES) to enhance environmental performance and inspiring employees to make additional environmental contributions (Linnenluecke & Griffiths, 2010; Saleem et al., 2020).

CES is a corporate-level strategy that encompasses sustainable business and environmental issues on top while crafting the strategic planning process of an organization (Das et al., 2019). A prescient CES entails a congruous stream of eco-friendly organizational vision, missions, goals, action plans, and processes designated to minimize negative impact on the ecological environment (Zhao et al., 2020). CES intriguingly enhances the sustainable performance of an organization through effective use and reuse of resources, efficient cost advantage, reducing and recycling of waste, strong customer loyalty, and the creation of innovative capabilities by employees’ voluntarism (Wijethilake, 2017). Organizations are perseveringly instilling environmental behavior in employees mind, especially voluntary environmental behavior (VEB), a key way to promoting corporate greening (Lu et al., 2017), which yields a significant contribution in reducing environmental intensities (Ruepert et al., 2016).

Employees are the foremost stakeholder and execution agent in an enterprise so their effective engagement and active participation are critical for organizational “greening.” Thus, the formulation and implementation of an appropriate CES is a challenging and arduous undertaking for organizations and leads to greater environment-friendly operations, and to offer eco-friendly products and services (Han et al., 2019; Kitsios et al., 2020; Zientara & Zamojska, 2018). Therefore, it is essential for organizations to develop an environmentally profound civic sense to encourage VEB so that such behavior can be aligned with organizational environmental strategies to enrich its environmental performance (Dumont et al., 2017).

Although this research augments to the growing cognizance of the factors that influence employees’ VEB, research in this scope is still at the nascent stage (Robertson & Barling, 2017). Studies reported that the multifaceted predictors of environmentally responsible behavior have not been fully explored, which amplifies on the further requirement of careful investigation (Das et al., 2019; Han et al., 2019). As previous studies revealed the trivial volume of evidence in this area, this study attempted to clarify the influence of CES on VEB through the mediation effect of psychological green climate (PGC) and the moderation effect of the firms’ size and employees’ age. We crafted the following research questions:

Research Question 1: How does CES directly affect VEB?

Research Question 2: Are there moderating effects of the influences of CES on PGC, and PGC on VEB?

The present study contributes to advance prior understandings and research in numerous ways. First, we replicate the role of CES in stimulating VEB of employees based in empiric and theoretical findings. Second, we added two more variables such as the size of the firm and age of the respondents with previous studies as an intervening mechanism with a view to unearthing the moderating effects of those. Third, it will fill the notable scarcity of studies in the field of behavioral science on influencing VEB in multi-level perspectives. Finally, the present study used multi-theoretical lenses, such as social identity theory and integrated theory of corporate environmental behavior, to ground the overall theoretical model, which will add new evidence for fulfilling the requirement of multi-theoretical perspective for defining environmental behavior (Das et al., 2019; Priyankara et al., 2018).

The rest of the article is made up of the following structure. We first construe key ideas about environmental sustainability, especially important notions of CES, PGC, and VEB, along with proposing a conceptual model based on integrated theory of corporate environmental behavior and social identity theory. Later, we furnish a systematic review of concurrent and relevant empirical studies that facilitates hypothesis development. Next, we outline research methods including sample and participants, measurement tools, model evaluation as well as the discussion. Finally, we draw concluding remarks and sketch for the future research agenda.

Theoretical Background

A firm’s ecological surveillance is contingent on the magnitude of employees’ awareness and their willful identification with corporate environmental intervention. Employees’ disengagement with a corporate strategy toward environmental protection and preservation culminates in a firms’ failure in advancing eco-friendly initiatives (Das et al., 2019). Accordingly, the entire success of corporate strategy for the environment hinges on how well the former results in incremental and spontaneous entrepreneurial environmental intent by the ultimate agents (employees) (Kim et al., 2019; Rorie, 2015). Social identity theory is built on the premise of the psychological interface between corporate strategy and the behavior of employees in a wider environmental context. The theory hypothesizes that psychologically identified and engaged employees toward the organization exhibit their invincible linkage to contribute and facilitate corporate initiative (Das et al., 2019; Tajfel & Turner, 1986).

In line with the prevalent PGC literature, corporate environmental intervention promotes psychological greening, which in turn leads to VEB (Dumont et al., 2017). The whole theoretical model is gripped with the conceptualization of the integrated theory of corporate environmental behavior (Rorie, 2015). It unveils that employees with positive environmental intent along with the presence of strategy, policy, procedures, and practices on environmental sustainability in his organization display strong conviction to VEB than with no positive perception (Norton et al., 2017; Zhou et al., 2018). When an organization sets its corporate environmental milestone to be realized, psychologically attached employees with the organization are very likely to exhibit their affirmative enthusiasm to arrive at the desired landmark in line with the corporate sanction and scholarship (Das et al., 2019; Rorie, 2015).

CES

Dragomir (2020) advocates that CES is the strategic echelon of an organization that telltales its environmental mind-set about fostering ecological balances and response to environmental regulations. As the demand for sustainable environmental performance from business organizations across the globe is highly mounting, firms are increasingly introducing CES that integrates ecological aspects into the strategic planning process (Epstein & Roy, 2007). This integration of business and natural environmental factors can happen at any of the three strategic levels—corporate level, business level, and functional level (Banerjee, 2001). It may include procuring green equipment, eco-friendly supply chain management or eco-design of goods and business processes, and so on, which enables corporations to acquire a cutting-edge competitive advantage resulting from efficient cost management and green product development (Fraj et al., 2009).

PGC

Employee psychological climate acts as an imperative contributor to engendering the sustainable performance of an organization (Zhou et al., 2018). PGC, introduced by Norton et al. (2017) based on the ground of psychological climate at individual level and green climate at the organizational level, is defined as individual green perception and understanding an organization’s VEB, policies, and practices designed to achieve sustainable long-term objectives (Dumont et al., 2017; Norton et al., 2017). When employees pose similar perceptions about the CES, environmental targets, and green organizational climate, then employees’ regular behavior and actions will be driven toward achieving sustainable objectives of the firm (Zhou et al., 2018).

VEB

VEB, one of the significant environmentally significant individual behavioral forms (Stren, 2000), is relatively a new major focus of research in the business setting (Kim et al., 2017). It involves an unrewarded, unstructured, and discretionary form of organizational citizenship behavior beyond organizationally prescribed behavior that benefits corporate sustainability, for example, avoiding irrelevant documents to save papers, using stairs in place of lifts, practicing eco-helping behavior, and so on (Lülfs & Hahn, 2013; Norton et al., 2014; Ying et al., 2020). The culminating feature of stimulating VEB is that apart from positively influencing the ecological performance of an organization, it improves economic performance parallelly (Tian & Robertson, 2019).

Development of Hypothesis

CES and PGC

The CES shows both direct and indirect influence in predicting PGC because the presence of the former is perceived to be a manifestation of a positive signal and strong conviction from the top level of the organization (Das et al., 2019; Norton et al., 2014; Rorie, 2015). CES has an impact on the PGC of the employee, which also augments VEB of them (Das et al., 2019). Zhou et al. (2018) found that individual green values driven from CES are significant catalysts that shape the PGC of employees. Rorie (2015) postulated, in the integrated theory of corporate environmental behavior, that strong organizational conviction and values drive employees’ VEB. To conclude, in line with the previously mentioned statement, we hypothesized that CES has a positive influence on the PGC of employees.

Hypothesis 1 (H1): CES influences employees’ PGC.

PGC and VEB

The psychological climate is one of the prime determinants of human actions (Rousseau, 1985). Similarly, the PGC also strongly influences the in-role and extra-role/voluntary green behavior of employees (Dumont et al., 2017). Creating and nurturing a congenial PGC signals that VEB of employees is safe, sound, and motivated (Zhou et al., 2018). As the perceived presence of CES creates active stewardship for the environment by developing an ambiance of PGC, employees with a deeper sense of environmental conservation become naturally inclined to display meaningful VEB that exceeds their usual job description (Das et al., 2019; Raineri & Paillé, 2016). Thus, green-mined employees are likely to demonstrate considerable VEB at worksetting as they observe that organizational culture is heartily welcoming environmental behaviors (Saleem et al., 2020).

In the integrated theory of corporate environmental behavior, the author asserted that employees with their rational choice of being environmentally responsible demonstrated a strong passion for extra-role for environmental performance (Rorie, 2015). Additionally, social identity theory, which seems to be identical with the rational choice of the previous theory, depicts that self-image shaped by the society and self regulates one behavior (Hogg, 2016; Scheepers & Ellemers, 2019). Thus, an organization with both corporate and psychological supports for pro-environmental behavior stimulates employees to navigate their intent toward pro-environmental enthusiasm. Therefore, according to the above discussion, we introduce the second hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2 (H2): PGC influences VEB.

Moderating Effects of Organizational Size

Although numerous researchers examined the relationship of organizational size with job satisfaction, employee attitude, working conditions, innovation behavior, company support for employee voluntarism and innovative behavior, and so on, whether employees’ VEB is affected by the organizational size or not is yet to be explored. One study showed that the total number of employees has a direct chain effect on employees’ modes of interaction, employee attitudes, and employee behavior at work (Talacchi, 1960). It may shape its formal policies, programs, and procedures, and this formalization is conducive to the nature and extent of the organization’s support for employees’ volunteering and environmental deviant (citizenship) behavior (Basil et al., 2011). In addition, less temporal CES in a small or large enterprise might also instigate in building employees’ psychological safety belief for being green. Hence, employees of micro, small, and medium enterprise may display significantly higher VEB because of their less formalization (Banwo & Du, 2019). Based on the above discussion, it may be appropriate to draw our final hypothesis:

Hypothesis 3 (H3): The influence of CES on the PGC is moderated by organizational size.

Hypothesis 4 (H4): The relationship between PGC and VEB is moderated by the organizational size.

Moderating Effects of Age

Researchers on environmental sustainability argued that age displayed comparatively little but statistically significant associations with VEB, both task-related employee environmental behavior and VEB (O’Driscoll & Roche, 2017). Particularly, elderly individuals are highly concerned about the betterment of the environment, involve themselves in environmental conservation behavior, and exert greater initiatives to minimize environmentally unfriendly behavior and more inclined to promote environmental sustainability among other employees (Wiernik et al., 2016). In contrast, a study conducted on farmers in Taiwan with a particular concentration on VEB has revealed that young farmers have been patronizing more environment-friendly practices than other farmers (Fang et al., 2018). It is also worth mentioning that learning of environmental conservation lessons at younger ages is expected to be carried over throughout his or her life (Pillemer et al., 2011). It can be asserted that young adults are more concerned about VEB than old adults are. Thus, we noticed mixed findings of young and old regarding VEB. In this regard, the presence of CES might instigate both young and old adults’ PGC to involve in VEB. The following hypotheses are developed:

Hypothesis 5 (H5): Employees’ age moderates the impact of CES on PGC.

Hypothesis 6 (H6): Employees’ age moderates the impact of PGC on VEB.

Considering above literature and multi-theoretical perspective, the following research framework, Figure 1, is depicted.

Figure 1.

Research framework.

Research Methods

Participants

Following a convenience-based sampling technique, a self-administrated questionnaire containing 23 sets of questions was presented to 355 full-time employees at both operational and functional levels, who were serving seven distinctive sectors, namely, fertilizer, steel, shipping, garments, tobacco, cement, and consumer goods, in Chattogram, the commercial capital of Bangladesh; 280 positive-responses were received with a response rate of 79%. After removing incomplete responses through the cleansing/screening process, 252 answers were fixed as a sample size. Respondents were requested to answer voluntarily to a 5-point Likert-type scale where responses are categorized from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree), and they were rested assured in writing, to prompt responses, that information provided to the research team will be solely used for academic purpose and would be strictly kept private and confidential.

Sample Characteristics

Demographic profile—gender, age, work experience, organizational employee size, and educational qualification—of the study sample (N = 252) along with their corresponding frequency are demonstrated in Table 1. Among the 252 respondents, 222 (88%) were male while the rest were (12%) female. The age of the final respondents was largely varied between 22 and 58 years with a mean of 35.21 years (SD = 7.13) and was diverging with 30%, 53%, 14%, and 3% being above 20, 30, 40, and 50 years, respectively. Moreover, respondents’ average job experience is 9.79 years and 34, 36, 13, and 17 of them revealed they have more than 1, 5, 10, and 15 years of job experience, respectively. Furthermore, the respondents were well-educated as 74 (29%) and 138 (55%) of them accomplished bachelor’s and master’s degrees, respectively, while the rest 40 (16%) of them have other degrees—diploma degree. Finally, out of the 252 respondents, 102 (40%), 54 (22%), and 97 (39%) served companies with below 500 employees, 500 to 1,000 employees, and above 1,000 employees, respectively.

Table 1.

Demographic Profile of Respondents (N = 252).

Description	Frequencies	%
Gender
Male	222	88
Female	30	12
Age (average = 35.21)
Above 20	75	30
Above 30	133	53
Above 40	35	14
Above 50	9	3
Job experience (average = 9.79 years)
Above 1 year	85	34
Above 5 years	91	36
Above 10 years	33	13
Above 15 years	43	17
Education
Bachelor’s	74	29
Master’s	138	55
Others	40	16
Organizational size (average = 1,024 employees)
Below 500	101	40
500–1,000	54	22
Above 1,000	97	39

Measurement Tools

To measure CES, we used a 12-item scale developed by Ramus and Steger (2000). Sample items are “my company publishes an environmental policy,” “my company applies environmental considerations in purchasing decisions,” and “my company systematically reduces the use of toxic chemicals/fuel.” We deleted four items because of poor loadings. The PGC was measured using a construct developed by Norton et al. (2012). Sample items are “my company is worried about its impact on environment” and “my company believes that it is important to protect the environment.” One of the items was deleted due to low loading. To measure VEB, a three-item scale developed by Frese et al. (1997) was used. Sample items are “I take chance to get actively involved in environmental protection at work” and “I do more for the environment at work than I was expected to.”

Analysis and Findings

Model Evaluation

The study used partial least square (PLS)–based structural equation modeling. The distinctiveness of using this modeling technique lies in the integration of both the measurement model and the structural model altogether (Mahmood et al., 2019; Uddin et al., 2020). While the measurement model measures the items representing a variable through reliabilities, validities, and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), the structural model predicts the strength of the paths and overall predictability of the whole model through β-coefficient, t-value, and R² with their estimates (Fan et al., 2019; Uddin et al., 2019).

Measurement model evaluation

In scrutinizing the authenticity of the measurement model, we examined several criteria to strengthen the robustness of the measured results. As conventional yardsticks, reliabilities and validities were investigated for convergent validity testing (Alam & Uddin, 2019). Composite reliability and Cronbach’s alphas are general estimators for the reliability measurement (Das et al., 2019; Uddin et al., 2019; Yi et al., 2019). Table 2 showed that the minimum composite reliabilities and Cronbach’s alpha are .882 and .823, respectively, which are within the recommended value for better estimates (Hair et al., 2014; Hair, Hult, Ringle, Sarstedt, & Thiele, 2017). For convergent validity, we checked items’ loading and average variance extracted (AVE). It is observed that the average loading representing a variable is above 0.700 and the minimum AVE is 0.652, which are also above the cut-off value (Hair, Hult, Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2017; Sarstedt et al., 2014). Hence, the result attested convergent validity.

Table 2.

Estimates of the Measurement Model.

Measurement tool	Items	Loading	CR	α	AVE
Corporate environmental strategy	CES1	0.836	.939	.925	0.667
	CES2	0.851
	CES4	0.766
	CES5	0.826
	CES6	0.814
	CES7	0.811
	CES8	0.778
	CES12	0.798
Psychological green climate	PGC2	0.775	.882	.823	0.652
	PGC3	0.790
	PGC4	0.859
	PGC5	0.804
Voluntary environmental behavior	VEB1	0.833	.893	.840	0.737
	VEB2	0.909
	VEB3	0.831
Minimum threshold limit	—	>0.70	>.70	>.70	>0.50

Note. CR = composite reliability; α = Cronbach’s alpha; AVE = average variance extracted.

We further tested the discriminant validity to guarantee the distinctiveness of each construct. We conducted CFA (see Table 3) through the cross-loading table which showed that items representing a construct are highly loaded to them than other constructs (Chin, 1998). In addition, in line with understanding from Fornell and Larcker (1981), the present study investigated the correlation matrix and it is revealed (see Table 4) that the square root of any variable’s AVE is higher than its correlation with other variables (Alam & Uddin, 2019; Hair, Hult, Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2017). Thus, there is no concern about discriminant validity.

Table 3.

CFA Along With Other Estimates.

Items	CES	PGC	VEB	Skewness	Kurtosis	T-estimates
CES1	0.836	0.456	0.211	.984	.623	14.527
CES2	0.851	0.526	0.389	.883	1.376	15.418
CES4	0.766	0.401	0.179	.959	.619	10.001
CES5	0.826	0.516	0.280	.792	.593	14.786
CES6	0.814	0.551	0.325	.577	−.090	14.737
CES7	0.811	0.576	0.376	.464	−.231	17.033
CES8	0.778	0.472	0.266	.674	−.170	13.706
CES12	0.798	0.571	0.427	.315	−.222	13.019
PGC2	0.588	0.775	0.444	.265	−.031	14.731
PGC3	0.385	0.790	0.360	.512	−.377	14.618
PGC4	0.527	0.859	0.427	.440	.463	17.401
PGC5	0.515	0.804	0.377	.350	−.385	13.794
VEB1	0.301	0.385	0.833	.382	−.179	10.325
VEB2	0.367	0.496	0.909	.252	−.360	16.646
VEB3	0.327	0.402	0.831	−.110	−.848	11.950

Note. CFA = confirmatory factor analysis; CES = corporate environmental strategy; PGC = psychological green climate; VEB = voluntary environmental behavior.

Table 4.

Discriminant Validity Using Fornell–Larcker Criterion.

Variables	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
Control variables
1. Age	1
2. Tenure	.862**	1
3. Size of firm	−.324**	−.218**	1
4. Education	.252**	.192**	.111	1
5. Gender	−.135*	−.196**	−.101	.104	1
Latent variables
6. CES	−.035	−.053	−.020	−.035	−.073	0.810
7. PGC	−.080	−.089	.014	−.083	−.060	0.635	0.808
8. VEB	−.251**	−0.097	.164**	−0.101	−.053	0.389	0.503	0.858

Note. CES = corporate environmental strategy; PGC = psychological green climate; VEB = voluntary environmental behavior.

Correlation is significant at the .05 level (two-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the .01 level (two-tailed).

Structural model evaluation

The present study experimented with multiple criteria to ensure the robustness of the findings (Alam & Uddin, 2019; Chin, 1998; Mahmood et al., 2019). Hence, we examined the multi-collinearity, path estimates (β) along with their significance levels (p value), and coefficient of codetermination (R²). Despite there is no concern on the association between any two observed variables which is assured through the result of Fornell and Larcker (1981), the variance inflation factor is a valid estimate signifying the absence of multi-collinearity concern (Mahmood et al., 2019). Studies contended that the variance inflation factor above 3.00 might jeopardize the overall strength of the model’s predictability (Bock et al., 2005; Hussain & Endut, 2018). Current findings yielded that there is no issue with the multi-collinearity case as the variance inflation factor is less than 3.00 (CES: 1.601, PGC: 1.319, and VEB: 1.162). We further demonstrated the strength of the relationship (β) and the overall predictability of the overall model (R²). Both β and R² are modeled to exceed above .20 (Hair et al., 2014; Hair, Hult, Ringle, Sarstedt, & Thiele, 2017). However, Cohen (1988) underscores to have a minimum of .10, .25, and .36 for small, medium, and large effect sizes. Accordingly, it can advance with the following conclusion that both β_Minimum = .101 (size of the firm) and R²_Minimum = .308 (VEB) are acceptable.

Findings

To test the moderating effects of employees’ age and firms’ size on the significant relationship between CES and PGC, and between PGC and VEB, the researchers processed the collected data through the PLS model. It is hypothesized in H1 that the CES is significantly associated with employees’ PGC. Table 5 shows that the estimated result of H1 is significant (β = .635, t_statistics = 13.414, p = .000 [>.05]), thus leading to accept our proposed hypothesis, H1. In H2, we hypothesized that there is a significant association between PGC and VEB. The result displayed that PGC positively and significantly (β = .487, t_statistics = 9.541, p < .000) influences VEB. Thus, the result supports our H2, that is, H2 is also accepted.

Table 5.

Testing of Hypothesis.

Hypothesis	Path relations	β	SE	T statistics	p values	R ²	Decision
H1	CES → PGC	.635	0.047	13.414	.000	.403	Supported
H2	PGC → VEB	.487	0.051	9.541	.000	.308	Supported

Note. CES = corporate environmental strategy; PGC = psychological green climate; VEB = voluntary environmental behavior.

We applied multi-group analysis (MGA) to estimate the moderating effects of the age of the respondents and the size of the firm. From the ideation of Hair, Hult, Ringle, and Sarstedt (2017) and Sarstedt et al. (2011) along with the method suggested by Lowry and Gaskin (2014), we divided both age and firm size into two mutually exclusive groups. We divided respondents into two groups such as young adults (123, 48.81%; who are less than 35 years old) and old adults (who are more than 34 years old). Similarly, organizations with less than 1,000 employees are classified as small firms (122, 48.41%) and those with more than 1,000 employees are regarded as large firms. The results on moderating influences are demonstrated in Tables 6 and 7.

Table 6.

Moderating Effect of Organizational Size.

Hypotheses	Path relations	Large firm			Small firm			Difference in β	t value	p value
Hypotheses	Path relations	β	t value	p value	β	t value	p value	Difference in β	t value	p value
H3	CES → PGC	.649	10.308	.000	.620	10.091	.000	−.029	0.330	.742
H4	PGC → VEB	.337	3.354	.001	.495	6.289	.000	.158	1.234	.218

Note. CES = corporate environmental strategy; PGC = psychological green climate; VEB = voluntary environmental behavior.

Table 7.

Moderating Effect of Age.

Hypotheses	Path relations	Old adults			Young adults			Difference in β	t value	p value
Hypotheses	Path relations	β	t value	p value	β	t value	p value	Difference in β	t value	p value
H5	CES → PGC	.734	15.719	.000	.527	7.160	.000	.207	2.409	.017
H6	PGC → VEB	.317	2.452	.015	.449	6.145	.000	−.132	0.880	.380

Note. CES = corporate environmental strategy; PGC = psychological green climate; VEB = voluntary environmental behavior.

We tested the moderating variables’ influence of firms’ size on the relationship between CES and PGC, and PGC on VEB (Table 6). Regarding the size of the firm, we noticed that larger firms exhibited slightly higher influence (β = .649, p = .000) than smaller firms (β = .620, p = .000). However, the difference between the larger firm and the smaller firm is not statistically significant (β = –.029, p = .742). Therefore, H3 is not supported. We also investigated the moderating effects of the size of the firm on the influence of PGC on VEB. It is noted that the influence of the PGC on VEB is higher in the case of small firms (β = .495, p = .000) than larger firms (β = .337, p = .001). Interestingly, the difference between these two paths is not found significant. Thus, the result does not support H4.

In terms of age in Table 7, old adults (β = .734, p = .000) demonstrated a stronger influence of CES on PGC than young adults (β = .527, p = .000). The difference between the two values is found significant (β = .207, p = .017). Hence, H5 supports the hypothesized influence. Similarly, while investing the moderating effect of employees’ age on the influence of PGC on VEB, we observed that old adults’ PGC has less influence (β = .317, p = .015) on VEB than young adults (β = .449, p = .000). We found that the difference between these two variables is not statistically significant (β = –.132, p = .380). Therefore, H6 is not supported.

Discussion and Conclusion

Discussion

Research focus on CES and green behavior is becoming a cornerstone of environmental and management scholars (Han et al., 2019). The results of present research demonstrate that CES significantly contributes to shaping employees’ VEB through the indirect effect of PGC, age of the employee, and organizational size. Based on the aforementioned result, we found that H1 is supported. Thus, the result implies that CES does have significantly positive influences (β = .635, t_statistics = 13.414, p < .000) in forming PGC of employees’ for the environment, which is consistent with the previous research findings (Das et al., 2019; Dumont et al., 2017; Norton et al., 2017; Zhou et al., 2018). It leads to conclude that when organizations with environmental conscientiousness formulate strategic choices by keeping in mind the environmental issues, it helps employees psychologically conceptualize it as a strong and positive indication toward encouraging and demonstrating environment-friendly behaviors and eco-initiatives such as saving paper and conserving energy, and thus results in actively creating a high degree of PGC.

PGC has a significant effect on engaging employees toward VEB (β = .487, t_statistics = 9.541, p < .000) in the organization, thus leading to accept H2, which is congruent with earlier research studies (Dumont et al., 2017; Raineri & Paillé, 2016; Zhou et al., 2018). This conclusion proves that employees’ PGC is significantly associated with VEB. Having received positive and congenial signal from top management, employees build a deep understanding about the value of ecological conservation and thus the strong PGC formed in employees enriches the sense of well-being and belongingness for environmental stewardship (Zhou et al., 2018), which in turn inspires employees to display VEB to ensure environmental sustainability.

Similar to the abovementioned result, organizational size, whether it is a large or small firm, also does have a significant moderating effect on the relationship between CES and PGC, and that of PGC and VEB. Neither we observed no significant difference of small firm and large firm on the impact of CES on PGC (β = –.029, t_statistics = 0.330, p = .742) nor the influence of PGC on VEB (β = .158 t_statistics = 1.234, p = .218). It leads to rejecting H3 and H4. This result is consistent with the earlier findings (Basil et al., 2011; Popescu et al., 2015).

The result of the present study also conveyed that there is a strong moderation effect of employees age (young adults and old adults) on the relationship between CES and PGC. The result shows that there is a significant difference between young and old adults regarding the influence of CES on PGC (β = .207, t_statistics = 2.409, p = .017). Hence, H5 is supported. It demonstrates that old adults behave more environmentally than a young adult if there is a presence of CES. We also examined the moderating effect of employees’ age on the influence of PGC on VEB. The result revealed that there is no significant difference between young adults and old adults regarding the influence of PGC on VEB (β = –.132, t_statistics = 0.88, p = .38). Hence, H6 is not supported. It reflects that employees’ age does not matter in turning PGC on VEB.

Conclusion

Our study makes an impression on the growing body of understanding the influence of CES on the VEB while perceiving PGC, firms’ size, and age of the employees as the predictive moderating factors. PGC unlike organizational age and age of employees is likely to be considered a significant factor that shapes employees’ VEB such as demonstrating energy and resource-saving behavior, waste minimization behavior, and recycling behavior. Altogether, these findings further upgrade our understanding of the circumstances under which firms can play its catalytic role toward the achievement of sustainable development goals from a developing country perspective.

Managerial Implications

The empirical findings of this current study elucidate crucial recommendations for top management of organizations in dealing with environmental sustainability problems. The summary of this study outlines that CES has been proved to have a direct impact on creating a green mind-set of the employees. Hence, it fosters the demonstration of a greater level of the VEB of the employees. Besides, the moderating effect of organizational size and employees’ age, especially older adults, on the relationship between CES and PGC revealed that corporate culture of the organizations with a higher percentage of aged employees should formulate and implement the environment-friendly CES.

Consequently, effective communication of environmental regulations, green management practices and procedures, and sustainability performance must be ensured. This conclusion suggests that at the organizational level, the firm itself and its manager must simultaneously frame and nurture PGC through entrenching environmental awareness, organizational values, beliefs, and norms for protecting and conserving the natural environment thus smoothing wider exposition of VEB. In addition, it is also recommended that providing environmental conservation lessons and training and encouraging environment-friendly initiatives of young employees at the early stages of their professional career are expected to be reflected via their VEB throughout his or her entire life. The CES should be tied with the organization’s green human resource management (HRM) policies for ensuring employees’ VEB. Moreover, giving opportunities to take part in green suggestion schemes and joint consultations for environmental issues problem solving can heighten VEB among employees.

Future Research Directions

This study elucidates the inner crux of VEB, but nonetheless, a bunch of drawbacks remains unmasked that may initiate avenues for future research line up with a way forward. First, the research impedes the findings to be applicable in all countries’ perspectives as it judges its worth only in a developing country like Bangladesh. Therefore, for broader generalization of the outcomes, a multi-country study on cross-cultural capacity can be conducted extensively. Second, the focus of the present study centers on VEB. Therefore, the study would be more engaging if it comes across with in role environmental behavior and citizenship behavior of the employees. Third, the present study documented organizational size and employees’ age as moderating variables to inspect the influences of CES on PGC and PGC on VEB, respectively. Thus, the future study may investigate such effects of an individual-level construct such as environmental values, organizational-level constructs such as carbon reduction strategy and environmental regulations, and group-level variables such as eco-centric leadership and green shared vision on our conceptual model. Finally, more and larger samples may be warranted to confirm the generalizability and representativeness of the study findings. Hence, future research can consider the wide-ranging size of respondents at different organizational levels.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

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

ORCID iDs

Mouri Dey

Md. Aftab Uddin

References

Alam

M. S.

Uddin

M. A.

(2019). Adoption and implementation of Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP): An empirical study. Journal of Management and Research, 6(1), 84–116.

Banerjee

S. B.

(2001). Corporate environmental strategies and actions. Management Decision, 39(1), 36–44. https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000005405

Banwo

A. O.

(2019). Workplace pro-environmental behaviors in small and medium-sized enterprises: An employee level analysis. Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research, 9(1), Article 34. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40497-019-0156-4

Basil

Runte

Basil

Usher

(2011). Company support for employee volunteerism: Does size matter? Journal of Business Research, 64(1), 61–66.

Bock

G.-W.

Zmud

R. W.

Kim

Y.-G.

Lee

J.-N.

(2005). Behavioral intention formation in knowledge sharing: Examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-psychological forces, and organizational climate. MIS Quarterly, 29, 87–111.

Chin

W. W.

(1998). Commentary: Issues and opinion on structural equation modeling. MIS Quarterly, 22(1), vii–xvi.

Cohen

(1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum.

Das

A. K.

Biswas

S. R.

Jilani

M. M. A. K.

Uddin

M. A.

(2019). Corporate environmental strategy and voluntary environmental behavior—Mediating effect of psychological green climate. Sustainability, 11(11), 3123–3139. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su11113123

Dean

T. J.

McMullen

J. S.

(2007). Toward a theory of sustainable entrepreneurship: Reducing environmental degradation through entrepreneurial action. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(1), 50–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2005.09.003

10.

Dragomir

V. D.

(2020). Theoretical aspects of environmental strategy. Corporate Environmental Strategy (pp. 1–31). Springer.

11.

Dumont

Shen

Deng

(2017). Effects of green HRM practices on employee workplace green behavior: The role of psychological green climate and employee green values. Human Resource Management, 56(4), 613–627. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21792

12.

Epstein

M. J.

Roy

M. J.

(2007). Implementing a corporate environmental strategy: Establishing coordination and control within multinational companies. Business Strategy and the Environment, 16(6), 389–403.

13.

Fan

Mahmood

Uddin

M. A.

(2019). Supportive Chinese supervisor, innovative international students: A social exchange theory perspective. Asia Pacific Education Review, 20(1), 101–115. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12564-018-9572-3

14.

Fang

W.-T.

Zhan

Y.-S.

(2018). Determinants of pro-environmental behavior among young and older farmers in Taiwan. Sustainability, 10(7), 2186.

15.

Fornell

Larcker

D. F.

(1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104

16.

Fraj-Andrés

Martínez-Salinas

Matute-Vallejo

(2009). Factors affecting corporate environmental strategy in Spanish industrial firms. Business Strategy and the Environment, 18(8), 500–514.

17.

Frese

Fay

Hilburger

Leng

Tag

(1997). The concept of personal initiative: Operationalization, reliability and validity in two German samples. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 70(2), 139–161.

18.

Hair

J. F.

Jr. Hult

G. T. M.

Ringle

C. M.

Sarstedt

(2014). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage.

19.

Hair

J. F.

Jr. Hult

G. T. M.

Ringle

C. M.

Sarstedt

(2017). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (2nd ed.). Sage.

20.

Hair

J. F.

Jr. Hult

G. T. M.

Ringle

C. M.

Sarstedt

Thiele

K. O.

(2017). Mirror, mirror on the wall: A comparative evaluation of composite-based structural equation modeling methods. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45(5), 616–632. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-017-0517-x

21.

Han

Wang

Yan

(2019). How responsible leadership motivates employees to engage in organizational citizenship behavior for the environment: A double-mediation model. Sustainability, 11(3), 605.

22.

Hogg

M. A.

(2016). Social identity theory. In McKeown

Haji

Ferguson

(Eds.), Understanding peace and conflict through social identity theory: Contemporary global perspectives (pp. 3–17). Springer International Publishing.

23.

Hussain

A. H. M. B.

Endut

(2018). Do decent working conditions contribute to work–life balance: A study of small enterprises in Bangladesh. Asia Pacific Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 12(1), 90–104. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1108/APJIE-04-2018-045

24.

Kim

Han

Jackson

S. E.

Ployhart

R. E.

(2017). Multilevel influences on voluntary workplace green behavior: Individual differences, leader behavior, and coworker advocacy. Journal of Management, 43(5), 1335–1358.

25.

Kim

Y. J.

Kim

W. G.

Choi

H.-M.

Phetvaroon

(2019). The effect of green human resource management on hotel employees’ eco-friendly behavior and environmental performance. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 76, 83–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.04.007

26.

Kitsios

Kamariotou

Talias

M. A.

(2020). Corporate sustainability strategies and decision support methods: A bibliometric analysis. Sustainability, 12(2), 521.

27.

Kreft

Eckstein

Melchior

(2017). Who suffers most from extreme weather events? Weather-related loss events in 2015 and 1996 to 2015, Global Climate Risk Index 2017, Germanwatch. Retrieved January 5, 2020 from https://germanwatch.org/sites/default/files/publication/16411.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2eLXKtGX8o5Gl3GK-BR0lZZGW1bdkQ8i86gDD6drm-7hqPo56Eqe749mw

28.

Kura

K. M.

(2016). Linking environmentally specific transformational leadership and environmental concern to green behaviour at work. Global Business Review, 17(3 Suppl.), 1S–14S. https://doi.org/10.1177/0972150916631069

29.

Linnenluecke

M. K.

Griffiths

(2010). Corporate sustainability and organizational culture. Journal of World Business, 45(4), 357–366.

30.

Lowry

P. B.

Gaskin

(2014). Partial Least Squares (PLS) Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) for building and testing behavioral causal theory: When to choose it and how to use it. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 57(2), 123–146. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2014.2312452

31.

Liu

Chen

Long

Yue

(2017). Who contributed to “corporation green” in China? A view of public- and private-sphere pro-environmental behavior among employees. Resources, Conservation & Recycling, 120, 166–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.12.008

32.

Lülfs

Hahn

(2013). Corporate greening beyond formal programs, initiatives, and systems: A conceptual model for voluntary pro-environmental behavior of employees. European Management Review, 10(2), 83–98.

33.

Mahmood

Uddin

M. A.

Luo

(2019). Influence of transformational leadership on employees’ creative process engagement: A multi-level analysis. Management Decision, 57(3), 741–764. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/MD-07-2017-0707

34.

Norton

T. A.

Zacher

Ashkanasy

N. M.

(2012). On the importance of pro-environmental organizational climate for employee green behavior. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 5(4), 497–500.

35.

Norton

T. A.

Zacher

Ashkanasy

N. M.

(2014). Organisational sustainability policies and employee green behaviour: The mediating role of work climate perceptions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 38, 49–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.12.008

36.

Norton

T. A.

Zacher

Parker

S. L.

Ashkanasy

N. M.

(2017). Bridging the gap between green behavioral intentions and employee green behavior: The role of green psychological climate. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(7), 996–1015. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2178

37.

O’Driscoll

M. P.

Roche

(2017). Age, organizational citizenship behaviors, and counterproductive work behaviors. Encyclopedia of Geropsychology, 113–122.

38.

Pillemer

Wells

N. M.

Wagenet

L. P.

Meador

R. H.

Parise

J. T.

(2011). Environmental sustainability in an aging society: A research agenda. Journal of Aging and Health, 23(3), 433–453.

39.

Popescu

A. M.

Deaconu

Popescu

(2015). Organization’s age and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), performance criteria at SMEs level. Case study—Bucharest–Ilfov development region. Procedia Economics and Finance, 22, 645–654.

40.

Priyankara

Luo

Saeed

Nubuor

Jayasuriya

(2018). How does leader’s support for environment promote organizational citizenship behaviour for environment? A multi-theory perspective. Sustainability, 10(1), 271.

41.

Raineri

Paillé

(2016). Linking corporate policy and supervisory support with environmental citizenship behaviors: The role of employee environmental beliefs and commitment. Journal of Business Ethics, 137(1), 129–148. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2548-x

42.

Ramus

C. A.

Steger

(2000). The roles of supervisory support behaviors and environmental policy in employee “Ecoinitiatives” at leading-edge European companies. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 605–626.

43.

Robertson

J. L.

Barling

(2013). Greening organizations through leaders’ influence on employees’ pro-environmental behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(2), 176–194.

44.

Robertson

J. L.

Barling

(2017). Toward a new measure of organizational environmental citizenship behavior. Journal of Business Research, 75, 57–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.02.007

45.

Rorie

(2015). An integrated theory of corporate environmental compliance and overcompliance. Crime, Law and Social Change, 64(2), 65–101. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-015-9571-9

46.

Rousseau

D. M.

(1985). Issues of level in organizational research: Multi-level and cross-level perspectives. Research in Organizational Behavior, 7(1), 1–37.

47.

Ruepert

Keizer

Steg

Maricchiolo

Carrus

Dumitru

… Moza

(2016). Environmental considerations in the organizational context: A pathway to pro-environmental behaviour at work. Energy Research & Social Science, 17, 59–70.

48.

Saleem

Qadeer

Mahmood

Ariza-Montes

Han

(2020). Ethical leadership and employee green behavior: A multilevel moderated mediation analysis. Sustainability, 12(8), Article 3314.

49.

Sarstedt

Henseler

Ringle

C. M.

(2011). Multigroup analysis in partial least squares (PLS) path modeling: Alternative methods and empirical results. In M. Sarstedt, M. Schwaiger, & C. R. Taylor (Eds.), Measurement and research methods in international marketing (Vol. 22, pp. 195–218). Emerald Group Publishing.

50.

Sarstedt

Ringle

C. M.

Smith

Reams

Hair

J. F.

(2014). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): A useful tool for family business researchers. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 5(1), 105–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfbs.2014.01.002

51.

Scheepers

Ellemers

(2019). Social identity theory. In Sassenberg

Vliek

M. L. W.

(Eds.), Social psychology in action: Evidence-based interventions from theory to practice (pp. 129–143). Springer International Publishing.

52.

Stren

(2000). Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behaviour. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 407–424.

53.

Tajfel

Turner

(Eds.). (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior (Vol. 2). Nelson-Hall.

54.

Talacchi

(1960). Organization size, individual attitudes and behavior: An empirical study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 5(3), 398–420.

55.

Tian

Robertson

J. L.

(2019). How and when does perceived CSR affect employees’ engagement in voluntary pro-environmental behavior? Journal of Business Ethics, 155(2), 399–412. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3497-3

56.

Uddin

M. A.

Mahmood

Fan

(2019). Why individual employee engagement matters for team performance? Mediating effects of employee commitment and organizational citizenship behaviour. Team Performance Management: An International Journal, 25(1/2), 47–68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/TPM-12-2017-0078

57.

Uddin

M. A.

Priyankara

H. P. R.

Mahmood

(2020). Does a creative identity encourage innovative behaviour? Evidence from knowledge-intensive IT service firms. European Journal of Innovation Management, 23(5), 877–894. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-06-2019-0168

58.

Wiernik

B. M.

Dilchert

Ones

D. S.

(2016). Age and employee green behaviors: A meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, Article 194. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00194

59.

Wijethilake

(2017). Proactive sustainability strategy and corporate sustainability performance: The mediating effect of sustainability control systems. Journal of Environmental Management, 196, 569–582. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.03.057

60.

Uddin

M. A.

Das

A. K.

Mahmood

Sohel

S. M.

(2019). Do transformational leaders engage employees in sustainable innovative work behaviour? Perspective from a developing country. Sustainability, 11(9), 2485–2502. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11092485

61.

Ying

Faraz

N. A.

Ahmed

Raza

(2020). How does servant leadership foster employees’ voluntary green behavior? A sequential mediation model. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(5), Article 1792.

62.

Zhao

Liu

Sun

(2020). How proactive environmental strategy facilitates environmental reputation: Roles of green human resource management and discretionary slack. Sustainability, 12(3), Article 763.

63.

Zhou

Zhang

Lyu

Zhang

(2018). Does seeing “mind acts upon mind” affect green psychological climate and green product development performance? The role of matching between green transformational leadership and individual green values. Sustainability, 10(9), 3206.

64.

Zientara

Zamojska

(2018). Green organizational climates and employee pro-environmental behaviour in the hotel industry. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 26(7), 1142–1159. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2016.1206554

How Does Corporate Environmental Strategy Contribute to Voluntary Environmental Behavior? Influence of Psychological Green Climate,Firms’ Size,and Employees’ Age

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Theoretical Background

CES

PGC

VEB

Development of Hypothesis

CES and PGC

PGC and VEB

Moderating Effects of Organizational Size

Moderating Effects of Age

Research Methods

Participants

Sample Characteristics

Measurement Tools

Analysis and Findings

Model Evaluation

Measurement model evaluation

Structural model evaluation

Findings

Discussion and Conclusion

Discussion

Conclusion

Managerial Implications

Future Research Directions

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iDs

References