The Impact of Socially Responsible Human Resource Management on Employees’ Environmental Citizenship Behavior: The Role of Psychological Safety and Contingent Reward Leadership

Abstract

Employees are the executors of corporate tourism environmental governance in the practice of green tourism, and their activities had a direct influence on the ecological environment. Despite encouraging low-carbon tourism and sustainable development, corporations’ human resource policies lacked morality and responsibility. This causes bad environmental performance in organizations. Attachment theory provides the theoretical framework for our investigation into the impact of socially responsible human resource management (SRHRM) on organizational citizenship behaviors for the environment (OCBE). Our analysis of 455 data obtained from China revealed that SRHRM had a positive effect on OCBE (eco-initiatives; eco-civic engagement; eco-helping); psychological safety mediated the relationship between SRHRM and OCBE. Additionally, contingent reward leadership (CRL) moderates the impact of SRHRM on employees’ OCBE via psychological safety. Our research presents a novel theoretical framework for explaining socially responsible human resource management and employees’ environmentally friendly behavior. We anticipate that the findings of our research will provide both theoretical direction and management insight for organizations seeking to apply SRHRM.

Plain Language Summary

A study of socially responsible human resource management and employees’ environmental organizational citizenship behavior

Employees are the executors of corporate tourism environmental governance in the practice of green tourism, and their activities had a direct influence on the ecological environment. Despite encouraging low-carbon tourism and sustainable development, corporations’ human resource policies lacked morality and responsibility. This causes bad environmental performance in organizations. Attachment theory provides the theoretical framework for our investigation into the impact of socially responsible human resource management (SRHRM) on environmental organization citizenship behavior (EOCB). Our analysis of 455 data obtained from China revealed that SRHRM had a positive effect on EOCB (eco-initiatives; eco-civic engagement; eco-helping); psychological safety mediated the relationship between SRHRM and EOCB. Additionally, contingent reward leadership (CRL) moderates the impact of SRHRM on employees’ EOCB via psychological safety. Our research presents a novel theoretical framework for explaining socially responsible human resource management and employees’ environmentally friendly behavior. We anticipate that the findings of our research will provide both theoretical direction and management insight for organizations seeking to apply SRHRM.

Keywords

socially responsible human resource management environmental organizational citizenship behavior psychological safety contingent reward leadership attachment theory

Introduction

The deterioration of the planet’s environment and the emergence of environmental protection awareness prompted the government and society to establish new requirements for the management mode of tourism enterprises: low-carbon tourism and a sustainable tourism development strategy (Afsar et al., 2018). Enterprises in the tourism industry should fulfill their environmental duties, engage in green tourism, pursue environmental sustainability alongside tourists, and ultimately achieve sustainable and healthy growth (Luu, 2018). Employees were the implementers of environmental governance of enterprise tourism in the process of practicing green tourism; their actions have a greater direct impact on the ecological environment. Numerous studies demonstrate that the influence of an enterprise’s green policy implementation is contingent on the pro-environment conduct of employees (Boiral & Paillé, 2012; Luu, 2019b). However, firms’ strategy decisions on sustainable growth emphasized external interest groups and sought rapid economic benefits (Shen & Benson, 2016). These initiatives for sustainable growth were incapable of conveying the spirit of social responsibility to front-line personnel. Despite promoting low-carbon tourism and sustainable development, the human resource management practices of firms were not integrated with morality and responsibility (Shen & Zhu, 2011). As a result, many studies have begun to focus on the green actions (behaviors) of individuals (Ahmad et al., 2021; Ahmed et al., 2022).

Socially responsible human resource management (SRHRM) incorporates corporate social responsibility into human resource management (HRM) processes, with a greater emphasis on the training and assessment of internal employees’ social responsibility and the improvement of employees’ moral perspective of the firm (Shen & Benson, 2016). Previously, studies have confirmed the positive effects of green human resource management, and corporate social responsibility, respectively, on the citizenship behavior of environmental organizations (Malik et al., 2021).However, there is a lack of exploration of the relationship between socially responsible human resource management in corporations and environmental organizational citizenship behavior. As an employee-centered HRM strategy, SRHRM stresses the interests of employees and cultivates their social responsibility awareness, so building an environment that encourages employees to make ethical choices is crucial (Shen & Zhu, 2011). Thus, the majority of SRHRM research has concentrated on its favorable benefits for employees. For instance, SRHRM reduces employees’ intent to leave (Zhao et al., 2021). In addition, several studies have demonstrated that SRHRM encourages employees to go above and beyond their normal duties and to be extremely devoted to the organization (Chanda & Goyal, 2020). Environmental organizational citizenship behavior (EOCB) refers to environmentally beneficial employee actions that were not rewarded nor mandated by official rules (Boiral & Paillé, 2012). Studies have proved the importance of EOCB to the effective implementation of environmental initiatives and the improvement of organizational performance (Boiral et al., 2015; Zhao et al., 2021). Zhao et al.’s (2021) study proved the favorable influence of SRHRM on EOCB from the standpoint of person-job matching. Nonetheless, the research focuses on how SRHRM affects employees who are matched with this HRM strategy, as opposed to all employees. Therefore, we believe it is vital to enhance the theoretical explanatory framework and the internal mechanisms of the impact of SRHRM on EOCB.

Numerous investigations on the internal mechanism of the association between SRHRM and positive employee behavior have been undertaken in the past. These studies primarily considered organizational identification (Shen & Benson, 2016), person-organization fit (Zhao et al., 2021), organizational corporate social responsibility (CSR) climate (Luu, 2019a), and moral reflectiveness (Zhao & Zhou, 2021) as the internal mechanism of SRHRM’s influence on employees’ positive behaviors. While these studies describe the effect of SRHRM on employee behavior, they do not analyze how human resource management affects and motivates employees to proactively engage in environmentally beneficial behaviors based on the distinctive characteristics of SRHRM (emphasis on CSR). Psychological safety refers to the ability of employees to demonstrate themselves without fear of adverse effects on their self-image, status, or job (Kahn, 1990). This study proposes a scenario in which socially responsible human resource management can motivate employees to increase their environmental citizenship behaviors by increasing their psychological safety. And this assumption is based on two main ideas in attachment theory: one is that an individual’s primary ver as an infant is their attachment figure, and that attachment figures can provide a secure base for infants to explore the outside world with confidence. Second, the organization is an object of attachment for employees, and organizational support can provide a secure base for employees to explore the outside world. Therefore, this study employs psychological safety as a mediator between SRHRM and EOCB based on attachment theory, since we believe SRHRM can provide a safe atmosphere for employees to engage in environmentally beneficial activities.

In addition, prior research on SRHRM and the boundary conditions of positive employee behavior has concentrated on the perceived role of ethics and social responsibility (Zhao et al., 2021), environmentally specific servant leadership (Luu, 2019a), and CSR directed toward employees (Shen & Zhang, 2019). However, leadership behavior directly affects the cognitive process of the HRM model. As the organization’s spokesman, the leader’s behavior influences the effectiveness of organizational systems in driving positive employee behavior; hence, leadership is frequently viewed as a boundary condition for HRM strategies that influence employees’ behavior. Contingent reward leadership (CRL) is when leaders form a strong connection between employees’ success through material or psychological rewards and positively and uniquely influence employees’ attitudes and behaviors (Robinson & Boies, 2016). This study expands the previous research on SRHRM by employing contingent reward leadership as a moderating variable for SRHRM influence on EOCB via psychological safety.

As a corporate HRM approach that integrates CSR and HRM, SRHRM’s primary function is to improve an organization’s environmental performance and credibility by fostering social responsibility awareness among its employees (Boiral & Paillé, 2012; Boiral et al., 2018). This is significant for tourism businesses since the work of their employees is tied to the environmental conservation of the locations in which they operate. Therefore, analyzing the impact of SRHRM on employees’ EOCB in tourism firms and the internal mechanisms involved was advantageous for tourism company managers seeking to comprehend the implementation path of SRHRM on employees’ proactive environmental behavior in tourism companies. The primary purpose of this study is to assess the impact of SRHRM on the environmental organizational citizenship behavior of employees. Second, based on attachment theory, explore the mediation mechanism of psychological safety in the correlation between SRHRM and EOCB. Third, to investigate the moderating effect of contingent reward leadership on the SRHRM-EOCB pathway mediated by psychological safety. This research contains three major theoretical contributions. First, the study verify the effect of SRHRM on the environmental citizenship behavior of employees, which reveals the positive influence of SRHRM. Second, the examination of the internal mechanisms in the interaction between SRHRM and EOCB from the perspective of attachment theory enriches the theoretical framework for explaining how SRHRM influences employee behavior. This study used leadership behavior (contingent reward leadership) as a moderating variable in the relationship between SRHRM and EOCB, which broadens the boundary conditions of SRHRM’s impact on employee behavior. The study anticipate that this research will provide firms with theoretical references and practical recommendations for encouraging positive employee behavior through SRHRM.

Literature Review and Hypotheses

Socially Responsible Human Resource Management and Employees’ Environmental Organizational Citizenship Behavior

Socially responsible human resource management (SRHRM) incorporates corporate social responsibility (CSR) to satisfy internal and external stakeholders and enhance value appreciation (Orlitzky & Swanson, 2006). The specifics of SRHRM included, first and foremost, taking into account the ethics, personality traits, and diversity of prospective employees. Second, through training, employee communication and engagement skills were improved. Third, indicators of compensation include economic and social factors to prevent pay inequality. Fourth, Employee performance evaluations emphasize financial and social goals. Shen and Zhu (2011) proposed on this basis that SRHRM should evaluate and reward employees’ CSR contributions and that employees’ promotions, pay, and evaluations should be tied to their social contributions (Shen & Benson, 2016). Not only has SRHRM increased company performance and reputation, but it has also had a substantial impact on the decisions and behaviors of executives. Furthermore, SRHRM’s impact on employees cannot be overlooked, as it emphasizes social responsibility in HRM procedures. However, there was a paucity of studies on SRHRM, particularly on the cognitive, emotional, attitudinal, and behavioral aspects of employees.

Environmental organizational citizenship behavior (EOCB) is an organization’s environmental practices. Formal institutions do not reward or require these behaviors. EOCB focused on employee-initiated environmental behavior in corporate enterprises, and it was an excellent supplement to society-wide environmental preservation and corporate green development plans (Daily et al., 2009). The “initiated environmental behaviors” include initiatives such as sharing knowledge to prevent pollution in the workplace, proposing solutions to reduce waste, representing the organization at environmental conferences, and collaborating with the environmental sector to implement green technologies (Boiral et al., 2015, 2018). Boiral and Paillé (2012) divide EOCB into three sub-dimensions, eco-initiatives is discretionary behaviors or proposals not recognized by the formal incentive system that help improve the organization’s environmental practices or performance; Eco-civic engagement is unpaid, volunteer participation in environmental actions that improve an organization’s image or operations. Eco-helping is voluntary, unrewarded effort that helps coworkers integrate environmental concerns.

Attachment theory implies that parental support facilitates children’s exploration of novel and unfamiliar situations (Bowlby, 1969, 1988). The hypothesis was then applied to adult relationships and adult work behavior (e.g., Harms, 2011; Yip et al., 2018). The theory suggests that caregivers provide an ability that enables individuals to explore and interact with new environments. Many scholars have also proposed that safety base support from the company or leader will increase employees’ proactivity since the organization or leader can serve as a safe base for employees (Vowels et al., 2022; Wu & Parker, 2017). The study argue that the implementation of a corporate emphasis on social responsibility encourages employees to be more at ease and proactive in EOCB. In the absence of an organization that encourages environmental citizenship activity, employees who engage in this behavior may be suspected by the organization of not performing their duties; hence, they are likely to refrain from engaging in environmental citizenship behavior. To improve employees’ moral perspective of the organization, SRHRM focuses a greater emphasis on training and evaluation of social responsibility than other human resource management models (Zhao & Zhou, 2021). SRHRM provides employees with a secure foundation from which they may confidently engage in environmental organizational citizenship behaviors. Therefore, The study hypothesized the following:

H1: SRHRM has a positive effect on employees’ EOCB (a. eco-initiatives; b. eco-civic engagement; c. eco-helping).

The Mediating Role of Psychological Safety

Psychological safety was characterized as “the capacity to exhibit oneself without fear of unfavorable consequences to one’s self-image, position, or job” (Kahn, 1990). Individuals feel “safe” when they believe that expressing their true selves at work will not endanger them. A fundamental assumption of attachment theory was that throughout the child’s exploration years, caregivers provided a safe foundation that allowed the infant to explore, learn, and become capable of engaging with a new world (Bowlby, 1988). Feeney and Thrush (2010) define three sources of support that, when combined, establish a “safety base” and promote exploration: availability, development encouragement, and lack of interference. Individuals will have the confidence and intrinsic motivation to take control of their environment if they can receive assistance and guidance from their attachment figure in overcoming potential obstacles and coping with the bad outcomes of any investigation (Wu & Parker, 2017). More emphasis is placed on the extent to which attachment figures encourage individuals to achieve their objectives and grow. Non-interference is the degree to which the attachment figure does not interfere unnecessarily with the individual’s decisions and actions, such as by taking over an activity. Although attachment theory has typically highlighted the primary caregiver’s role in providing solid foundational support, it also acknowledges that individuals can have diverse attachments with different purposes in different contexts. Thus, some scholars have proposed that organizations can provide a secure environment for employees, who may build organizational attachment (Feeney et al., 2020; Stainback & Irvin, 2012). SRHRM was a blend of social responsibility and human resource management methods that differed from conventional HRM practices in that it focused on specific CSR and helps to encourage its adoption and enforcement. SRHRM fosters employee interests and social responsibility, encouraging ethical decision-making (Shen & Zhu, 2011). Kahn (1990) exhaustively identified organizational rules as psychological safety’s precursors. Based on attachment theory, The study assumed that SRHRM would offer employees a psychologically secure foundation.

Eco-initiatives, eco-civic engagement, and eco-helping were initially recognized as the three primary categories of EOCB by Boiral and Paillé (2012). Eco-initiatives are employee-driven and include proactive ecologically beneficial workplace behaviors. According to attachment theory, the psychological safety ground provided by firms to their employees enables them to explore the unknown and actively engage in extra-role behaviors with confidence. Eco-civic engagement refers primarily to employees’ commitment to the organization’s environmental initiatives, including voluntary participation in the organization’s environmental events, promotion of the organization’s green image, and voluntary participation in the organization’s environmental activities. According to attachment theory, psychologically stable employees will actively participate in business-sponsored events and activities designed to benefit the corporation. Eco-helping entails assisting coworkers in recognizing environmental concerns that require attention, expressing their opinions and offering suggestions on environmental matters, and acting more responsibly for the environment. Not only do employees who feel psychologically safe believe they should give back to the organization, but they also assist others in loving the organization and implementing its ideals. A meta-analysis conducted by Frazier et al. (2017) confirmed that organizational citizenship behavior and information sharing were psychological safety outcome variables. Chen et al. (2019) verified the association between psychological safety and proactive behavior. Consequently, the following is the hypothesis:

H2: The correlation between SRHRM and EOCB (a. eco-initiatives; b. eco-civic engagement; c. eco-helping) is mediated by psychological safety.

The Moderating Role of Contingent Reward Leadership

Contingent reward leadership (CRL) is a leadership technique that enabled the formation of a tight connection between material or psychological rewards and follower success, positively and distinctively influencing the attitudes and behaviors of subordinates (Robinson & Boies, 2016). Previous research has confirmed that leadership behavior positively influences organizational citizenship behavior in the environment (Islam, Hussain, et al., 2021; Islam, Khan, et al., 2021; Islam et al., 2023). Bass et al. (2003) discovered that the establishment of reciprocal relationships was fundamental to power-reward leadership behavior. In the process of power-change rewards, specifically, leaders pay their subordinates with recognition, praise, or resources in exchange for successful performance. CRL, in contrast to monetary incentives, established the presence of both instrumental and emotional requirements through a weighted approach. This compensates for the absence of a single monetary or emotional incentive, promotes the fulfillment of a relational psychological contract, and strengthens employees’ emotional commitment to the organization. Through two controlled experimental studies, Robinson and Boies (2016) discovered that participants in the weighted reward leadership condition developed more ideas and were more motivated to exert extra effort than those who received intellectual stimulus. Gaudet et al. (2014) discovered a negative relationship between CRL and emotional exhaustion and absenteeism among subordinates, and a positive relationship between CRL and OCB.

According to the social exchange hypothesis, leaders provide monetary or non-material support to their employees, while employees strive to match their leaders’ expectations and demands (Marcus et al., 2017). CRL stresses leaders and subordinates agreeing on praise and awards for future efforts. Four antecedents of psychological safety were identified by Kahn (1990): interpersonal interactions, group dynamics, leadership, and organizational norms. During the implementation of SRHRM, CRL helps people actively adapt to this HRM practice and focuses on building a work pattern that matches SRHRM, consequently reducing employees’ uncertainty avoidance and boosting their psychological stability. On the contrary, CRL gives additional resources to employees who require them to fulfill their responsibilities, and this strategy will also boost employees’ psychological safety. In addition, leaders offer subordinates praise, appreciation, recognition, awards, or resources in exchange for commendable effort or satisfactory performance (Bass et al., 2003). In exchange for leadership support, subordinates will not only perform well at work but also increase their positive behaviors outside of their roles. Anand et al. (2018) argued that leadership consideration for employees is a source of interpersonal justice, and as a result, employees will act in the leader’s favor. Consequently, the study offer the following hypothesis (This study’s research model is shown in Figure 1.):

H3: The mechanism by which SRHRM affects EOCB (a. eco-initiative; b. eco-citizen engagement; c. eco-help) through psychological safety will be enhanced with high values effect of contingent reward leadership.

Based on the attachment theory’s safe base perspective, the authors argue that the implementation of SRHRM in tourism companies sends a signal to encourage employees to engage in environmental organizational citizenship behavior and provides a “safe base” for employees to engage in environmental organizational citizenship behavior. In turn, employees derive psychological safety from the SRHRM practiced by the company and therefore proactively engage in environmental organizational citizenship behavior. The contingent reward leadership reinforces the psychological safety of employees through the SRHRM practiced by the company through material or moral rewards, which in turn encourages employees to work harder to engage in environmental organizational citizenship behavior. This study attempts to use attachment theory to explain the impact of human resource management practices on employee behavior . This provides a new explanatory framework for inducing positive employee behavior while expanding the explanatory scope of attachment theory in the direction of organizational behavior and human resource management. Along this line, the research model of the study is proposed (This study’s research model is shown in Figure 1).

Figure 1.

The research model of this study.

Materials and Methods

Sample and Procedure

A questionnaire was utilized to collect data for this study, and the sample consisted primarily of employees from 20 tourism enterprises in Fujian Province, China. To reduce the bias caused by language issues in the measurement items, two things were done in this study: first, scholars in the field of human resource management who had studied abroad in countries where English is the native language were invited to translate-back the measurement items. Second, this study conducted a pre-survey prior to the formal distribution of the questionnaire and made linguistic changes to the questionnaire based on the feedback. After consulting with and gaining consent from the head of the enterprise’s HR department, online and offline questionnaires were used to gather and analyze data. Before the distribution of the questionnaire, pre-distribution contact with respondents was made. To eliminate common technique bias, the survey was gathered at two distinct times. In the questionnaire’s introduction, the study notified participants that, first and foremost, the questionnaire is anonymous and the data collected will only be utilized for scientific research. Participants can choose whether or not to participate and can stop answering questions at any time. There were neither correct nor improper responses to the questions. At the start of the surveys, participants were requested for the last four digits of their mobile phone numbers for data-matching reasons. In addition, the author asked participants to supply the last four digits of their cell phone number at the beginning of the survey for data matching purposes.

Specifically, the first period (Time-1) was 04-2022, during which participants were asked to complete questionnaires for SRHRM, CRL, and control variables, and the second period (Time-2) was 06-2022, during which participants were required to assess their psychological safety and EOCB. Since there is a lag between HR practices and employee behavior, the respondents in this survey are employees with more than 1 year of experience. 800 questionnaires were distributed at Time-1, and 613 were returned for a return rate of 76.63%. 613 of Time-1’s participants will received Time-2 questions after 2 months. After Time 2, the sample data were reviewed for completeness, quality, and matching of mobile phone numbers, and 455 questionnaires with a valid recovery rate of 74.23% were obtained.

Among the participants, 287 (63%) were male. 7 (1.5%) of them were under 20 years old, 174 (38.2%) were between 20 and 30 years old. 183 individuals (40.2%) were between the ages of 31 and 40, 85 individuals (18.6%) were between the ages of 41 and 50, and 6 individuals (1.3%) were older than 50. 13 (2.8%) of these participants had a junior high school diploma or less; 50 (10.9%) had a high school/secondary school diploma; 88 (19.3%) had an associate degree; 174 (38.2%) had a bachelor’s degree, and 130 (28.5%) had a master’s degree or higher. 112 (24.6%) have worked 1 to 2 years, 103 (22.6%) 3 to 4 years, 56 (12.3%) 5 to 6 years, 84 (18.4%) 7 to 8 years, and 100 (21.9%) more than 9 years. 52 (9.2%) of them were managers. 122 (26.8%) of their firms had 10 or fewer employees, 110 (24.1%) had 11 to 50 employees, 97 (21.3%) had 51 to 250 employees, 98 (21.5%) had 251 to 500 employees, and 28 (6.1%) had above 500 employees.

Measures

Both widely used scale and a translation-back translation approach were utilized to confirm the reliability and validity of the scale procedurally (Brislin, 1979). Each item is piloted with normal workers to ensure it fit the study setting. All items are scored on a Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). A six-item scale developed by Orlitzky and Swanson (2006) is used to test SRHRM. This measure included questions such as “My organization offers sufficient CSR training to promote CSR as a key organizational value.” and “My company factors social performance into promotion decisions.” The Cronbach’s α in this study is .751. May et al.’s (2004) five-item measure was used to evaluate psychological safety.. Sampling items like “At work, I am not frightened to be myself” and “I fear expressing my thoughts at work.. (r).” The Cronbach’s α is .89. A four-item scale developed by Buengeler et al. (2016) is used to measure CRL. Sampling items are “My leader often commends me when I do a better than average job” and “My leader often gives me special recognition when my work is very good.” The Cronbach’s α is .889. EOCB is measured using the scale adopted by Boiral and Paillé (2012). The scale consists of three sub-dimensions, including eco-initiatives (three items), eco-civic engagement (four items), and eco-helping (three items). The representative question of eco-initiatives is “In my work, I weigh the consequences of my actions before doing something that could affect the environment.” The Cronbach’s α in this research is .873. The representative question of eco-civic engagement is “I actively participate in environmental events organized in and/or by my company.” The Cronbach’s α in this research is .744. The representative question of eco-helping is “I spontaneously give my time to help my colleagues take the environment into account in everything they do at work.” The Cronbach’s α in this research is .768. Numerous studies have determined that the EOCB scale is applicable to numerous companies and industries (Boiral et al., 2018).

As recommended by Bernerth and Aguinis (2016), the study used gender, age, education, tenure, job level, and organization size as control variables. These factors are potentially associated with EOCB. The contents of Table 1 show the control variables and codes for this study.

Table 1.

Control Variables and Codes for This Study.

Control variables	Code
1. Gender	1 = female, 2 = male
2. Age	1 = under 20 years of age, 2 = 20–30 years of age, 3 = 31–40 years of age, 4 = 41–50 years of age, and 5 = over 50 years of age
3. Education	1 = Under junior high school, 2 = High school diploma or equivalent, 3 = Associate’s degree, 4 = Bachelor’s degree, 5 = Master’s degree or above
4. Organization size	1 = fewer than 10 employees, 2 = 11–50 employees, 3 = 51–250 employees, 4 = 251–500 employees, 5 = more than 500 employees
5. Tenure	1 = 1–2 years, 2 = 3–4 years, 3 = 5–6 years, 4 = 7–8 years, and 5 = over 9 years
6. Job level	1 = General staff, 2 = manager

Results

Common Method Biases and Confirmatory Factor Analyses

Even though this study’s data were obtained during two distinct time periods, they came from the same participants and certain items were translated. Following the recommendation of Podsakoff et al. (2003), the study conducted a Harmon one-factor test to determine if a single technique factor could explain the majority of the variation. The first factor explained 25.937%<40% of the variance, while the remaining four variables were representative. In other words, the results are not affected by common method biases.

The study evaluated the discriminant validity of the study variables using confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs). Chi-Square (χ²), df, χ²/df, RMSEA, GFI, CFI, and TLI are used to test the model fit. The CFA results presented in Table 2 indicate that the four-factor model (SRHRM, psychological safety, CRL, and EOCB) better fits the baseline model compared to other alternative models (χ² = 325.301, df = 270, χ²/df = 1.205, CFI = 0.989, GFI = 0.948, TLI = 0.988, RMSEA = 0.021). The results of the CFA analysis demonstrate that the study variables are distinguishable.

Table 2.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results for the Measurement Models (N = 455).

Models	χ²	df	χ²/df	CFI	GFI	TLI	RMSEA
Four-factor model (SRHRM, psychological safety, EOCB, CRL)	325.301	270	1.205	0.989	0.948	0.988	0.021
Three-factor model (SRHRM and CRL were merged into a single variable)	680.171	272	2.501	0.919	0.863	0.911	0.057
Two-factor model (SRHRM, CRL, and psychological safety have been merged into a single variable)	950.465	274	3.469	0.866	0.807	0.854	0.074
One-factor model (Each variable was merged into a single variable)	2,072.943	275	7.538	0.645	0.643	0.613	0.120

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations

Table 3 provides a summary of the variables used in this study, including their means, standard deviations, and correlations. As the study comprised dichotomous variables (e.g., gender), the study utilized Spearman’s coefficient to assess the correlations. The results show that there is a positive correlation between SRHRM and psychological safety (r = .167, p < .01) and between SRHRM and eco-initiatives (r = .163, p < .01), SRHRM and eco-civic engagement (r = .171, p < .01), and SRHRM and eco-helping (r = .164, p < .01). Psychological safety is positively related to eco-initiatives (r = .217, p < .01), eco-civic engagement (r = .234, p < .01), and eco-helping (r = .22, p < .01). The aforementioned results reveal a strong association between these factors and give preliminary data support for further testing of hypotheses.

Table 3.

Variables’ Standard Deviations, and Correlations in the Study.

Variables	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12
1. Gender	—
2. Age	−.244**	—
3. Education	.094*	−.042	—
4. Organization size	−.244**	.527**	−.084	—
5. Tenure	−.132**	.389**	−.199**	.341**	—
6. Job level	−.071	−.015	−.093*	−.011	.036	—
7. SRHRM	.046	−.036	.033	.008	−.015	−.041	(.751)
8. Psychological safety	.081	.006	.059	−.011	−.075	−.031	.167**	(.89)
9. Eco-initiatives	−.041	−.005	.099*	.073	−.111*	−.190**	.163**	.217**	(.873)
10. Eco-civic engagement	−.013	−.004	.109*	.119*	−.138**	−.193**	.171**	.234**	.812**	(.744)
11. Eco-helping	−.044	−.015	.135**	.081	−.158**	−.168**	.164**	.220**	.809**	.782**	(.768)
CRL	−.041	−.001	.040	−.088	−.024	−.012	−.363**	.131**	.145**	.081	.068	(.889)
SD	0.483	0.803	1.064	1.259	1.507	0.290	1.275	1.261	1.548	1.363	1.483	1.447

Note. n = 455. The diagonal brackets represent Cronbach’s α. SD = standard deviations.

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

Direct Hypotheses Testing

The hypotheses were tested with SPSS PROCESS 3.1. The results (Table 4) showed that SRHRM had a positive influence on ecological initiatives (β = .15, p < .01) and similarly, SRHRM had a positive influence on both ecological civic engagement (β = .133, p < .01) and ecological helping (β = .132, p < .05), which supported H1a, H1b, and H1c. In addition, SRHRM positively influenced psychological safety (β = .138, p < .01). Psychological safety positively influenced ecological initiatives (β = .222, p < .01), ecological civic engagement (β = .214 p < .01), and ecological helping (β = .224, p < .05).

Table 4.

Results of Path Analyses.

Path	Coefficient	Standard error	t-Value	p-Value
SRHRM → Eco-initiatives	0.150**	0.055	2.748	<.01
SRHRM → Eco-civic engagement	0.133**	0.047	2.810	<.01
SRHRM → Eco-helping	0.132*	0.052	2.562	<.05
SRHRM → Psychological safety	0.138**	0.046	3.000	<.01
Psychological safety → Eco-initiatives	0.222**	0.055	4.014	<.01
Psychological safety → Eco-civic engagement	0.214**	0.048	4.469	<.01
Psychological safety → Eco-helping	0.224**	0.052	4.272	<.01

Note. n = 455. SRHRM = socially responsible human resource management.

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

Mediating Effect Testing

Fritz and MacKinnon (2007) claimed that bootstrap can overcome the inadequacies of the Sobel test and ordinal regression for investigating the mediating path (Baron & Kenny, 1986). This study used SPSS PROCESS 3.1 to validate the mediating and moderating effects. Using bootstrap estimates and confidence intervals with 95% deviation adjustment, the study analyzed the effect of SRHRM on EOCB through psychological safety. The non-zero confidence interval demonstrates indirect effects. Table 5 lists the study’s direct and indirect impacts. Psychological safety mediates the positive relationship between SRHRM and eco-initiatives (effect = 0.031, SE = 0.014, 95% CI [0.008, 0.064]), eco-civic engagement (effect = 0.029, SE = 0.012, 95% CI [0.008, 0.058]), and eco-helping (effect = 0.031, SE = 0.014, 95% CI [0.008, 0.061]). H2a, H2b, and H2c are thus supported.

Table 5.

Complete Standardization of the Main Path Coefficients of the Mediating Model’s Results.

Path	Effect	Boot SE	LLCI	ULCI
Direct effect
SRHRM → Eco-initiatives	0.15	0.055	0.043	0.257
SRHRM → Eco-civic engagement	0.133	0.047	0.040	0.225
SRHRM → Eco-helping	0.132	0.052	0.031	0.234
Indirect effects
SRHRM → Psychological safety → Eco-initiatives	0.031	0.014	0.008	0.064
SRHRM → Psychological safety → Eco-civic engagement	0.029	0.012	0.008	0.058
SRHRM → Psychological safety → Eco-helping	0.031	0.014	0.008	0.061

Note. n = 455.

Moderating Effect Testing and Moderated Mediation Testing

The study proposed in hypothesis H3 that CRL would moderate the indirect relationship of SRHRM affecting EOCB through psychological safety. SRHRM and CRL were centralized and product terms were constructed to reduce the covariance problem. The results showed that the interaction term of SRHRM and CRL significantly and positively affected psychological safety (β = .011, p < .01). As suggested by Aiken and West (1991), the study conducted a simple slope test and created interaction graphs with statistical significance to better explain the moderating influence of CRL. As seen in Figure 2, when the CRL is large, the importance of SRHRM in providing psychological safety increases. These results confirm that CRL plays a moderating role in the effect of SRHRM on psychological safety.

Figure 2.

Interaction of SRHRM and CRL on psychological safety.

The study used bootstrap methods to estimate the indirect effect of SRHRM on EOCB at two levels of CRL (−1 standard deviation and +1 standard deviation) (Table 6). In the instance of high CRL, the indirect effect of SRHRM on eco-initiatives via psychological safety is positive and statistically significant (effect = 0.079, 95% CI [0.033, 0.139]), whereas indirect effects are not significant in the case of low CRL (effect = 0.079, 95% CI [0.033, 0.139]), while in the case of low CRL, indirect effects are not significant (effect = 0.013, 95% CI [−0.15, 0.050]). Similarly, the indirect effect of SRHRM via psychological safety on eco-civic engagement is significant at high levels of CRL (effect = 0.076, 95% CI [0.036, 0.128]), but not significant at low levels of CRL (effect = 0.012, 95% CI [−0.015, 0.048]). And the indirect effect of SRHRM via psychological safety on eco-helping is significant at high levels of CRL (effect = 0.080, 95% CI [0.037, 0.133]), but not significant at low levels of CRL (effect = 0.013, 95% CI [−0.015, 0.049]). Thus, H3a, H3b, and H3c are supported.

Table 6.

The Moderated Mediation Effect Results.

Path	Moderating variable	Effect	SE	[LLCI, ULCI]	Result
SRHRM → Psychological safety → Eco-initiatives	High CRL (+1 SD)	0.079	0.027	[0.033, 0.139]	Supported
SRHRM → Psychological safety → Eco-initiatives	Low CRL (−1 SD)	0.013	0.016	[−0.015, 0.050]	Supported
SRHRM → Psychological safety → Eco-civic engagement	High CRL (+1 SD)	0.076	0.023	[0.036, 0.128]	Supported
SRHRM → Psychological safety → Eco-civic engagement	Low CRL (−1 SD)	0.012	0.015	[−0.015, 0.048]	Supported
SRHRM → Psychological safety → Eco-helping	High CRL (+1 SD)	0.080	0.025	[0.037, 0.133]	Supported
SRHRM → Psychological safety → Eco-helping	Low CRL (−1 SD)	0.013	0.016	[−0.015, 0.049]	Supported

Note. n = 455. SE = standard error; LLCI = lower level of confidence interval; ULCI = upper level of confidence interval.

Discussion

The study examined the linking mechanisms between SRHRM and EOCB in 455 Chinese employees in tourism enterprises. The study determined through a time-lagged research design that SRHRM has a positive effect on EOCB’s three sub-dimensions (eco-initiatives, eco-civic participation, and eco-helping). This result concurred with those of Zhao et al. (2021) and Cheema et al. (2020). Based on attachment theory, the study claim that the implementation of SRHRM provides a psychologically safe “safe base” for employees to engage in EOCB. The greater psychological safety of employees resulting from the deployment of SRHRM enables them to engage in proactive extra-role protective environmental activities without fear of repercussions from the organization. The study analyzed EOCB’s three sub-dimensions (eco-initiatives, eco-civic participation, eco-helping). The findings support the hypothesis that psychological safety mediates the effect of SRHRM on three EOCB sub-dimensions. In addition, the study claims that CRL, as a leadership practice that fosters reciprocity with followers, influences the link between SRHRM and EOCB by improving the psychological safety of employees. The findings demonstrate that the pathway of SRHRM influences EOCB via psychological safety is strengthened in high as opposed to low CRL.

Theoretical Contributions

First, from the perspective of attachment theory, the study investigated the mechanism of the influence of SRHRM implementation on employees’ EOCB in tourism enterprises, thereby widening the research framework of SRHRM affecting employees’ environmental protection behavior. Previous studies have explored the relationship between SRHRM and EOCB from theoretical perspectives such as person-organization fit (Zhao et al., 2021) and social identity (Cheema et al., 2020), which provide sufficient support to explain the mechanism of their relationship. While these studies illustrate the effect of SRHRM on employee behavior, they do not assess how this HRM affects and motivates employees to proactively engage in environmentally beneficial actions based on the distinguishing features of SRHRM (emphasis on CSR). The study propose, on the basis of attachment theory, that SRHRM provides a “safe base” for employees to investigate EOCB behaviors. Under SRHRM, employees are permitted to engage in EOCB without fear of being accused of not doing their duties. The research presents a novel theoretical framework for understanding SRHRM and green employee behavior.

Second, the study enriched the study of the intrinsic mechanisms of SRHRM and EOCB. In contrast to previous studies that examined the mechanisms of SRHRM from organizational identity and environmental orientation fit (Cheema et al., 2020) and person-organization fit (Zhao et al., 2021), On the basis of attachment theory, the study selected psychological safety to explain the association between SRHRM and EOCB and verified the mediating function of psychological safety. The research contributes to the understanding of the mechanisms underlying the association between SRHRM and EOCB.

Finally, the boundary conditions of SRHRM were expanded by using CRL as a moderating variable. The boundary condition variables of SRHRM in the existing literature are mainly responsible leadership (Zhao & Zhou, 2021) and ethics and social responsibility (Zhao et al., 2019). This sort of study is less likely to investigate the effect of leadership reward behavior on the perception, psychology, and behavior of workers in firms that use SRHRM based on social exchange theory. The research studied the function of reciprocity-centered CRL in SRHRM to improve psychological safety. In addition, the study investigated the processes of SRHRM-psychological safety-EOCB alterations at different CRL levels by incorporating a moderated mediation effect, thereby widening the research of the correlation between SRHRM and EOCB.

Management Implications

First, it is essential to consider the impact of SRHRM on the green behavior of employees. When businesses pursue greening and sustainable development, they cannot ignore the engagement and efforts of employees as a group. Employees participated in the creation of policies, carried out the implementation of policies, and supervised the policy implementation process. Previous research has shown that green HR practices are required for businesses to integrate green strategies into organizational green performance. Transforming the tactics into the green behaviors of employees, who are at the core and function as agents for the successful implementation of green strategies (Dumont et al., 2017). The relevance of HR practices in translating organizational strategies into employee behaviors that contribute to organizational performance has been underlined by additional research (Barrena-Martinez et al., 2019). By applying SRHRM, companies will attain green sustainability from their employees, particularly tourism companies. The study recommend that companies organize environmental activities or organize their staff to participate in environmental activities.

Second, the study identified the impact of psychological safety on the EOCB behavior of employees. The study recommend that organizations using SRHRM highlight their support for employees who engage in environmentally positive actions. These supports provide a “secure foundation” for employees to engage in environmentally friendly behavior. The study advocate that companies provide verbal or tangible awards to employees who actively engage in environmental activities, as this improves their psychological safety. In addition, the study revealed that leadership behavior has a significant role in the association between SRHRM and EOCB, as it promotes the psychological safety of SRHRM for employees. The study recommend that firms boost the success of SRHRM implementation and the psychological safety of their employees by targeting rewards with weighted awards for leadership behavior. In addition, this study recommends that governments promote environmental organizational citizenship behaviors by encouraging firms to adopt socially responsible human resource management.

Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research

The limitations of this study allow further investigation. Firstly, the research data for this study were collected utilizing a two-step approach. Although the one-factor test exhibited no common method bias, the questionnaire results were gathered through employee self-reports; thus, the author recommends that future studies adopt an objective alternative to self-reports. Secondly, the cross-sectional data employed in this study may not provide robust inferences of causative links between variables. Future research may include longitudinal data, such as psychological safety and EOCB for daily employee assessments, or experimental approaches for further causal inference. Finally, this study examines the mechanism behind the link between SRHRM and EOCB from the viewpoint of attachment theory in order to provide a novel viewpoint to future studies. But there may be alternative angles from which to do research, such as the passions and personalities of workers.

Conclusion

This study focuses on the impact of socially responsible human resource management in tourism companies on employees’ environmental organizational citizenship behavior. Based on attachment theory, this study proposes that socially responsible human resource management in tourism companies influences employees’ environmental organizational citizenship behavior by providing them with psychological safety and that contingent reward leadership to play a moderating role in their relationships. The hypotheses of this study were verified through SPSS analysis of 455 questionnaires from Chinese corporate employees. Socially responsible human resource management has a positive impact on employees’ environmental organizational citizenship behavior, which is achieved by providing psychological safety to employees, and high power variance contingent reward leadership to increase the impact of socially responsible human resource management on environmental organizational citizenship behavior via psychological safety. The results of this study are expected to provide theoretical direction and management insights for organizations seeking to apply responsible human resource management.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to give their sincere thanks to the editors and anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments.

Correction (Aug 2024):

Article updated to correct the Weijiao Ye affiliation as “Fujian Business University, Fuzhou, China”

Author Contributions

Weijiao Ye wrote the first draft. Ziqiang Li collected data. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

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) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was supported by the project “Beijing Social Science Fund Key Project” (Project ID: 18GLA003).

ORCID iD

Ziqiang Li

Data Availability Statement

Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.

References

Afsar

Cheema

Javed

(2018). Activating employee’s pro-environmental behaviors: The role of CSR, organizational identification, and environmentally specific servant leadership. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 25(5), 904–911. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1506

Ahmed

Islam

Umar

(2022). Bridging organisational and individual green actions through green knowledge sharing & individual values. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 21(6), 1071–1083. https://doi.org/10.1080/14778238.2022.2139774

Ahmad

Islam

Sadiq

Kaleem

(2021). Promoting green behavior through ethical leadership: A model of green human resource management and environmental knowledge. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 42(4), 531–547.

Aiken

L. S.

West

S. G.

(1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Sage Publications.

Anand

Vidyarthi

Rolnicki

(2018). Leader-member exchange and organizational citizenship behaviors: Contextual effects of leader power distance and group task interdependence. The Leadership Quarterly, 29(4), 489–500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.11.002

Barrena-Martinez

López-Fernández

Romero-Fernández

P. M.

(2019). The link between socially responsible human resource management and intellectual capital. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 26(1), 71–81. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1658

Baron

R. M.

Kenny

D. A.

(1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173.

Bass

B. M.

Avolio

B. J.

Jung

D. I.

Berson

(2003). Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 207–218. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.2.207

Bernerth

J. B.

Aguinis

(2016). A critical review and best-practice recommendations for control variable usage. Personnel psychology, Personnel Psychology, 69(1), 229–283.

10.

Boiral

Paillé

(2012). Organizational citizenship behaviour for the environment: Measurement and validation. Journal of Business Ethics, 109(4), 431–445. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-1138-9

11.

Boiral

Raineri

Talbot

(2018). Managers’ citizenship behaviors for the environment: A developmental perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 149(2), 395–409. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3098-6

12.

Boiral

Talbot

Paillé

(2015). Leading by example: A model of organizational citizenship behavior for the environment. Business Strategy and the Environment, 24(6), 532–550. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1835

13.

Bowlby

(1969). Attachment and loss: Attachment. Basic Books.

14.

Bowlby

(1988). A secure base. Basic Books.

15.

Brislin

R. W.

(1979). Studies in cross-cultural psychology. Cross Cult.

16.

Buengeler

Homan

A. C.

Voelpel

S. C.

(2016). The challenge of being a young manager: The effects of contingent reward and participative leadership on team-level turnover depend on leader age. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37(8), 1224–1245. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2101

17.

Chanda

Goyal

(2020). A Bayesian network model on the inter linkage between socially responsible HRM, employee satisfaction, employee commitment and organizational performance. Journal of Management Analytics, 7(1), 105–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/23270012.2019.1650670

18.

Cheema

Afsar

Javed

(2020). Employees’ corporate social responsibility perceptions and organizational citizenship behaviors for the environment: The mediating roles of organizational identification and environmental orientation fit. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(1), 9–21. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1769

19.

Chen

Jiang

Zhang

Chu

(2019). Spiritual leadership on proactive workplace behavior: The role of organizational identification and psychological safety. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1206. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01206

20.

Daily

B. F.

Bishop

J. W.

Govindarajulu

(2009). A conceptual model for organizational citizenship behavior directed toward the environment. Business and Society, 48(2), 243–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650308315439

21.

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

22.

Feeney

B. C.

Thrush

R. L.

(2010). Relationship influences on exploration in adulthood: The characteristics and function of a secure base. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 57–76. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016961

23.

Feeney

J. R.

Gellatly

I. R.

Goffin

R. D.

Inness

(2020). Organizational attachment: Conceptualization, measurement, and incremental prediction of work attitudes and outcomes. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 19(3), 113–124. https://doi.org/10.1027/1866-5888/a000252

24.

Frazier

M. L.

Fainshmidt

Klinger

R. L.

Pezeshkan

Vracheva

(2017). Psychological safety: A meta-analytic review and extension. Personnel Psychology, 70(1), 113–165. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12183

25.

Fritz

M. S.

MacKinnon

D. P.

(2007). Required sample size to detect the mediated effect. Psychological Science, 18(3), 233–239. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01882.x

26.

Gaudet

M. C.

Tremblay

Doucet

(2014). Exploring the black box of the contingent reward leadership–performance relationship: The role of perceived justice and emotional exhaustion. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 23(6), 897–914. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2013.817056

27.

Harms

P. D.

(2011). Adult attachment styles in the workplace. Human Resource Management Review, 21, 285–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2010.10.006

28.

Islam

Ahmad

Ahmed

(2023). Linking environment specific servant leadership with organizational environmental citizenship behavior: The roles of CSR and attachment anxiety. Review of Managerial Science, 17, 855–879. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-022-00547-3

29.

Islam

Hussain

Ahmed

Sadiq

(2021). Ethical leadership and environment specific discretionary behaviour: The mediating role of green human resource management and moderating role of individual green values. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences/Revue Canadienne Des Sciences de L’Administration, 38(4), 442–459.

30.

Islam

Khan

M. M.

Ahmed

Mahmood

(2021). Promoting in-role and extra-role green behavior through ethical leadership: Mediating role of green HRM and moderating role of individual green values. International Journal of Manpower, 42(6), 1102–1123.

31.

Kahn

W. A.

(1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692–724. https://doi.org/10.2307/256287

32.

Luu

T. T.

(2018). Activating tourists’ citizenship behavior for the environment: The roles of CSR and frontline employees’ citizenship behavior for the environment. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 26(7), 1178–1203. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2017.1330337

33.

Luu

T. T.

(2019a). Building employees’ organizational citizenship behavior for the environment: The role of environmentally-specific servant leadership and a moderated mediation mechanism. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 31(1), 406–426. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-07-2017-0425

34.

Luu

T. T.

(2019b). Green human resource practices and organizational citizenship behavior for the environment: The roles of collective green crafting and environmentally specific servant leadership. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 27(8), 1167–1196. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2019.1601731

35.

Malik

S. Y.

Hayat Mughal

Azam

Cao

Wan

Zhu

Thurasamy

(2021). Corporate social responsibility, green human resources management, and sustainable performance: Is organizational citizenship behavior towards environment the missing link?. Sustainability, 13(3), 1044. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13031044

36.

Marcus

Weigelt

Hergert

Gurt

Gelléri

(2017). The use of snowball sampling for multi source organizational research: Some cause for concern. Personnel Psychology, 70(3), 635–673. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12169

37.

May

D. R.

Gilson

R. L.

Harter

L. M.

(2004). The psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77, 11–37. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317904322915892

38.

Orlitzky

Swanson

D. L.

(2006). Socially responsible human resource management. In Deckop

J. R.

(Ed.), Human resource management ethics (pp. 3–25). Information Age.

39.

Podsakoff

P. M.

Mackenzie

S. B.

Lee

J. Y.

Podsakoff

N. P.

(2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

40.

Robinson

M. A.

Boies

(2016). Different ways to get the job done: Comparing the effects of intellectual stimulation and contingent reward leadership on task-related outcomes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 46(6), 336–353. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12367

41.

Shen

Benson

(2016). When CSR is a social norm: How socially responsible human resource management affects employee work behavior. Journal of management, 42(6), 1723–1746.

42.

Shen

Zhang

(2019). Socially responsible human resource management and employee support for external CSR: Roles of organizational CSR climate and perceived CSR directed toward employees. Journal of Business Ethics, 156(3), 875–888. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3544-0

43.

Shen

Zhu

C. J.

(2011). Effects of socially responsible human resource management on employee organizational commitment. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22(15), 3020–3035. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2011.599951

44.

Stainback

Irvin

(2012). Workplace racial composition, perceived discrimination, and organizational attachment. Social Science Research, 41(3), 657–670. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2011.11.016

45.

Vowels

L. M.

Carnelley

K. B.

Stanton

S. C. E.

(2022). Attachment anxiety predicts worse mental health outcomes during COVID-19: Evidence from two studies. Personality and Individual Differences, 185, 111256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.111256

46.

C. H.

Parker

S. K.

(2017). The role of leader support in facilitating proactive work behavior: A perspective from attachment theory. Journal of Management, 43(4), 1025–1049. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314544745

47.

Yip

Ehrhardt

Black

Walker

D. O.

(2018). Attachment theory at work: A review and directions for future research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39, 185–198. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2204

48.

Zhao

Meng

(2019). The influence of corporate social responsibility on competitive advantage with multiple mediations from social capital and dynamic capabilities. Sustainability, 11(1), 218.

49.

Zhao

Zhou

(2021). Socially responsible human resource management and hotel employee organizational citizenship behavior for the environment: A social cognitive perspective. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 95, 102749. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102749

50.

Zhao

Zhou

Jiang

(2021). How and when does socially responsible HRM affect employees’ organizational citizenship behaviors toward the environment? Journal of Business Ethics, 169(2), 371–385. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04285-7