Abstract
This paper explores the impact of corporate environmental responsibility (CER) motives on employees’ green behaviour within organizations. We conducted two studies to examine whether and how the underlying reasons for a company’s adoption of CER policies influence employees’ environmental actions at work. In the first study, we used an experimental design with 292 university students to investigate the effects of financial versus environmental motives on perceived CER and subsequent employee green behaviour. In the second study, we extended this analysis to a real-world context by surveying organizational employees. Our results reveal that CER motives significantly shape employees’ perceptions of CER and their environmental self-identity, which in turn affects their in-role (job-related tasks) and extra-role (voluntary actions) environmental behaviours at work. Specifically, we found that when CER is perceived to be adopted for environmental reasons, it enhanced employee green behaviour, whereas financial motives for CER adoption diminished this influence. This study contributes theoretically by integrating CER motives, perceived CER and environmental self-identity to explain both extra-role and in-role employee green behaviours. Practically, it highlights how organizations frame and communicate their motives, which is crucial for fostering sustainable workplace practices.
Highlights
Corporate motives and green behaviour: employees’ perceptions of corporate environmental responsibility (CER) and green behaviour in the workplace are influenced by whether CER is adopted for environmental or financial reasons.
Employees’ environmental self-identity explains the relationship between their perception of CER and their participation in green behaviours at work.
We tested our research questions using a controlled experimental design and a correlational study with actual employees to strengthen both internal and external validity.
Non-technical summary
Today, it is increasingly essential for companies to be environmentally responsible. For example, companies need to reduce pollution or use renewable energy. Companies can adopt these actions for environmental reasons; however, they can also improve a company’s profits and public image, leading some to adopt them for reasons other than environmental concerns. This study explores how these motives affect employees’ green behaviours at work.
In our research, we conducted two studies: one with university students and another with employees in various companies. We discovered that employees are more likely to participate in green behaviour, like recycling or saving energy, when they believe their company has adopted green actions for environmental reasons. However, if employees perceive these efforts as mainly profit-driven, they are less likely to engage in environmentally friendly behaviour.
Our findings highlight the significance of the motives companies have for environmental initiatives. Based on our results, companies can promote a more environmentally friendly workplace by committing to environmental objectives for environmental reasons, rather than solely focusing on financial gains. These actions can reduce environmental problems, since the collective behaviour of employees plays a critical role in a company’s overall environmental impact. Our research also contributes to a better understanding of how and why employees act sustainably at work, by demonstrating that both company motives and employees’ roles are essential. For organizations, this means that clearly communicating genuine environmental motives can help build a workplace where employees are more likely to engage in green behaviours.
Introduction and hypothesis
The importance of green behaviour in the workplace
Climate change is a pressing issue that poses serious environmental problems, and human behaviour significantly contributes to its exacerbation (Climate Change 2023, n.d.). Environmental footprint per capita can only be substantially reduced if people engage in a wide variety of pro-environmental behaviours in both private and public spheres (Masson-Delmotte et al., 2018; van de Ven et al., 2018). Pro-environmental behaviour of employees can contribute to reducing the environmental footprint of corporations since employees’ actions tend to have a substantial aggregate effect on the total environmental performance of organizations (de Resende Alt & Spitzeck, 2013), yet most studies conducted in the workplace have primarily relied on managerial considerations, overlooking the importance of individual actions on companies’ environmental performance (Ones et al., 2018).
Individual employees influence the environmental impact of companies through both extra-role and in-role green behaviour. Extra-role behaviours are voluntary, discretionary actions (e.g., recycling, sustainable commuting), while in-role behaviours are job-related tasks and decisions with environmental implications (e.g., eco-friendly product design, sustainable procurement) (Ciocirlan, 2017; Ostertag, 2023). However, research on employee green behaviour has often focused on factors influencing extra-role pro-environmental behaviour, while few studies have examined in-role pro-environmental behaviour (Gu & Liu, 2022; Saeed et al., 2019). To better understand these behaviours, it is essential to examine how employees interpret their organization’s environmental actions and how these interpretations shape their own environmental identity at work.
In this paper, we analyse whether corporate environmental responsibility (CER) and the motives behind such environmental efforts influence how employees perceive their company’s commitment to the environment (perceived CER). Perceived CER refers to how employees judge and evaluate their organization’s environmental commitment (Azim, 2016; de Vries et al., 2015).
We also examine whether these perceptions shape employees’ environmental self-identity, defined as the extent to which individuals see themselves as environmentally friendly persons (van der Werff et al., 2013, 2014b).
Finally, we examine how these processes impact both extra-role and in-role green behaviour at work.
Promoting these behaviours at work is not only relevant for corporate performance but also aligns with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). In particular, SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production) emphasizes the importance of reducing waste and ensuring sustainable resource use. At the same time, SDG 13 (Climate Action) highlights the need for collective efforts to mitigate climate change. By studying how corporate motives influence employees’ green behaviour, this research contributes to advancing these global objectives.
This study makes two main contributions. Theoretically, it advances research on corporate environmental responsibility by showing that not only the presence of CER but also the motives attributed to it shape employees’ perceptions and environmental self-identity, influencing both extra-role and in-role green behaviours. Prior research has primarily focused on CER, overlooking the role of motives and extra-role behaviours. By including in-role behaviours, we extend the scope of existing theory on employee pro-environmental behaviour. Practically, the findings offer guidance for managers and organizations, highlighting that the communication and framing of CER motives are crucial for fostering a workplace culture where employees are motivated to act sustainably.
Theoretical framework
This theoretical framework introduces and defines the four key constructs of the study — employee green behaviour (EGB), corporate environmental responsibility (CER) and perceived CER, CER motives and environmental self-identity (ESI) — explaining how they are expected to relate to one another.
Employee green behaviour (EGB)
Employee green behaviour (EGB) comprises both extra-role and in-role behaviours. Extra-role EGB is defined as voluntary activities or initiatives undertaken by employees within a corporate context that aim to reduce the organization’s environmental impact (Ostertag, 2023). For example, an employee may voluntarily carpool to work with a colleague, thereby reducing their environmental impact, or they may recycle their office waste. These actions are not mandated by their job roles but contribute to reducing the organization’s carbon footprint and waste. Extra-role behaviours are characterized by their absence of formalization in role descriptions, role expectations and job requirements, and are not recognized in the formal reward system. Extra-role behaviours are conceptually related to Organizational Citizenship Behaviour (OCB; Organ, 1988). However, while OCB is broader and may include dimensions such as altruism or civic virtue, extra-role green behaviour specifically focuses on voluntary environmental actions that contribute to sustainability (Boiral, 2009).
In-role EGB is a critical component of organizational environmental efforts, encompassing organizationally required tasks and procedures that form part of an employee’s formal job responsibilities aimed at reducing the organization’s environmental impact (Ciocirlan, 2017). The manifestation of in-role EGB can vary significantly across different job roles, reflecting the diverse ways employees contribute to environmental goals. For instance, a facility manager may be responsible for managing energy efficiency in the building infrastructure, a task that involves optimizing systems for energy conservation. Similarly, a procurement specialist’s role might include sustainable procurement practices, focusing on sourcing materials from environmentally responsible suppliers. In the realm of product development, a product designer or engineer’s in-role EGB involves designing eco-friendly products, emphasizing sustainability in material choice and product lifecycle. In-role behaviours generally have a substantial environmental impact, especially in the context of long-term decision-making (Yuriev et al., 2018). For instance, when a company switches its production processes to green energy rather than fossil fuels, this choice can substantially reduce the organization’s environmental impact.
Prior research has mainly emphasized extra-role behaviours (Gu & Liu, 2022; Saeed et al., 2019), yet in-role behaviours can have equally or greater long-term environmental consequences (Yuriev et al., 2018). In this study, we therefore include both types of behaviour to provide a more comprehensive understanding of how the organizational and psychological factors introduced below influence them.
Corporate environmental responsibility and perceived CER
Corporate environmental responsibility (CER) refers to the voluntary commitment of organizations to improve or mitigate their adverse impact on the environment beyond legal obligations (Gunningham, 2009). CER is often understood as part of the corporate social responsibility (CSR) concept, which includes environmental, social and economic dimensions (Dahlsrud, 2008). In our study, we focus specifically on CER, since it is more directly related to employee green behaviour (EGB).
Perceived CER refers to how employees judge and evaluate their organization’s environmental commitment (Azim, 2016). The stronger the perceived CER, the more employees think that the organization aims to reduce its environmental impact. Particularly, the perceived CER influences the pro-environmental behaviour of employees, more so than the actual CER (de Vries et al., 2015). Employees, being part of the organization, are more likely to adopt environmentally friendly behaviours when they believe their company aims to achieve carbon neutrality. Specifically, research has shown that a stronger perceived CER is related to more green investment decisions of employees (A. M. Ruepert et al., 2017), voluntary pro-environmental actions of employees, such as taking the stairs instead of elevators, properly disposing of electronic waste or reducing printing (Cheema et al., 2020; Sharpe et al., 2022; Tian & Robertson, 2019) and general green behaviours (De Roeck & Farooq, 2017; Su & Swanson, 2019). While perceived CER is an essential predictor of extra-role employee behaviour, it has hardly been studied whether it also influences in-role EGB. Furthermore, little is known about what shapes these perceptions in the first place. We argue that the motives of an organization to adopt CER influence the extent to which employees perceive their organization aims to reduce its environmental impact.
Environmental self-identity as a mediator
Environmental self-identity (ESI) is defined as the extent to which individuals see themselves as environmentally friendly persons (van der Werff et al., 2014a). One key psychological mechanism explaining why perceived corporate environmental responsibility leads to pro-environmental behaviour is ESI (van der Werff et al., 2021). In line with social identity theory (Tajfel et al., 1979), the more employees perceive their organization to be pro-environmental, the more likely they are to perceive themselves as pro-environmental individuals. Because employees are part of the organization, how they see the organization is expected to influence how they see themselves.
ESI is, in turn, a strong predictor of both workplace and private pro-environmental behaviour. For example, individuals with a strong ESI are more likely to reduce food waste, recycle food and packaging, avoid over-purchasing and plan food purchases carefully (Carfora et al., 2017). Similarly, in organizational contexts, stronger perceived CER can enhance employees’ ESI, which predicts a wide range of workplace environmental behaviours (van der Werff et al., 2021).
Accordingly, we expect ESI to function as a mediating mechanism between perceived CER and employee green behaviour at work.
CER motives and perceived commitment
Beyond the environmental benefits, CER can also support a variety of business outcomes. For instance, companies investing in energy-efficient technologies often witness a reduction in operating costs, bolstering their financial results (Adriana Galant, 2017; Guenster et al., 2011; Orlitzky et al., 2003). Moreover, engagement in community environmental initiatives can enhance a company’s image and reputation (Heikkurinen, 2010). Additionally, sustainable practices such as using eco-friendly packaging can positively shift consumer attitudes in favour of the company (Gatti et al., 2012; Lev et al., 2010; Rivera et al., 2016). This commitment to the environment can also solidify a brand’s identity, fostering customer loyalty and enhancing brand sustainability (Long & Lin, 2018). Additionally, early adaptation to environmental regulations can position companies for future market success, since they align with emerging consumer and legal trends (Miroshnychenko et al., 2017). This proactive approach towards environmental responsibility can therefore be a source of competitive advantage (Porter & Kramer, 2006) and drive innovation as businesses develop new sustainable products or processes (Lončar et al., 2019). These strategic advantages may, in turn, lead organizations to adopt CER for reasons other than environmental concern.
We define CER motives as the reasons employees attribute to their organization’s adoption of CER. In this paper, we distinguish environmental motives (e.g., reducing ecological impact) from non-environmental/financial motives (e.g., cost savings, brand image). Past studies have found that CER is frequently adopted as a response to conform to social and institutional pressures and strategic movements, such as government legislation, cost savings, marketing and reputation (Babiak & Trendafilova, 2011; Dummett, 2006; Hatmanu et al., 2019; He & Chen, 2009; Uecker-Mercado & Walker, 2012; Yang et al., 2020). However, we argue that if employees are aware of these non-environmental motives, it may weaken the extent to which employees perceive their company as being committed to CER and therefore weaken their environmental self-identity and reduce environmental behaviour at work.
Specifically, we argue that adopting CER for environmental reasons will strengthen employees’ perceived CER, which strengthens their environmental self-identity and subsequently increases the likelihood of EGB. On the contrary, we argue that adopting CER for non-environmental reasons will reduce the extent to which employees think their organization aims to reduce its environmental impact. Thus, we expect that non-environmental motives reduce employees’ perceived CER, which weakens environmental self-identity and reduces EGB intentions. After all, as soon as a pro-environmental action does not make a profit or benefit the image of the organization, the organization may no longer adopt the behaviour or policy. Several recent studies in various industries (Afsar et al., 2020; Sharpe et al., 2022) support our reasoning, concluding that those who think the organization adopted CSR for environmental and social reasons are more likely to engage in voluntary pro-environmental behaviour, compared to employees who feel the organization adopted CSR for non-environmental motives such as status or money. Thus, an organization may be genuinely committed to CER. However, if employees believe it was not adopted for environmental reasons, they may question whether the organization truly aims to reduce its environmental impact. As a result, employees may be less likely to see themselves as pro-environmental and to engage in sustainable actions at work. Non-environmental motives may therefore undermine the positive effects of CER on employee behaviour, given that perceived CER influences behaviour more than the actual level of CER (de Vries et al., 2015). However, previous research has focused on extra-role behaviour such as recycling or commuting. It is yet unclear whether this also extends to other non-voluntary behaviours at work, namely in-role behaviour. Therefore, in our study, we will include both in-role and extra-role behaviour to analyse whether motives to adopt CER, perceived CER and environmental self-identity influence both types of behaviour. By considering in-role behaviours alongside extra-role behaviours, organizations can develop comprehensive strategies to encourage pro-environmental actions among employees.
Research hypotheses
Thus, this study proposes:
H1: Employees perceive the company as more environmentally responsible when it adopts CER for environmental motives than when it adopts CER for financial motives or provides no stated motive.
H2: Higher perceived CER will be associated with stronger intentions to engage in both in-role and extra-role employee green behaviour (EGB).
H3: Environmental self-identity mediates the relationship between perceived CER and employee green behaviour.
To investigate our hypotheses, we conducted two complementary studies. Study 1 was an experiment with university students in which we manipulated the motives behind corporate environmental responsibility (CER) to examine their effects on perceived CER, environmental self-identity and green behaviour. Because it is not feasible to manipulate organizational motives in real business settings, a student sample was used to allow for experimental control. Study 2 extended the analysis to actual employees using a correlational design, thereby testing whether the findings generalized to a real-world organizational context. The theoretical model is presented in Figure 1.
Theoretical model of CER motives and employee green behaviour.
Study 1
Study 1 used an experimental design with university students to examine CER motives and employee green behaviour.
Method
Participants
Respondents were undergraduate students at a Dutch university who participated in exchange for course credits. A priori power analysis indicated a minimum of 265 participants was required for the final regression model. A total of 292 students participated in the study. Their ages ranged from 17 to 39 years (M = 20.21, SD = 2.37); 32.5% participants identified as male and 67.5% as female. All participants provided written informed consent prior to participation, in accordance with the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki (World Medical Association, 2013).
Procedure
Study 1 employed a between-subjects experimental design with three conditions: environmental motive, financial motive and control. We randomly assigned participants to one of the three conditions. We administered all instructions, manipulations and measures via an online questionnaire.
Step-by-step procedure
Role instruction. Participants were first asked to imagine that they were newly hired employees of a fictitious company called TechStrength.
Company background. They were then presented with an online brochure describing the organization’s corporate environmental responsibility (CER) practices. The brochure included approximately 30 environmental goals, plans and actions (e.g., reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, waste reduction and improvement of CO2 efficiency per unit of activity). This information was designed to immerse participants in an organizational context and simulate workplace decision-making relevant to environmental policy.
Motive manipulation. Participants were then exposed to the experimental manipulation. In the environmental and financial conditions, they read a short fictional conversation with their immediate manager that explained the company’s motives for adopting CER. The statements were based on factual managerial justifications reported in Uecker-Mercado and Walker (2012). In the environmental condition, the company’s motives were framed as protecting the environment (e.g., reducing ecological impact). In the financial condition, the motives were framed as financial or image-related (e.g., reducing costs, improving competitiveness). In the control condition, no conversation was presented. See Appendix 2 for the full text of the manipulations.
Measures. After the manipulation, participants completed the measures of perceived CER, environmental self-identity and extra-role employee green behaviour intentions.
Decision-making task (in-role behaviour). After the manipulation, participants completed a task designed to measure in-role employee green behaviour. They were assigned the role of leading the development of three new organizational products and for each product had to choose between two alternatives that differed in expected sales, production cost and environmental performance. The three scenarios varied in the degree of conflict (high, medium, low) between financial and environmental outcomes, with one option in each scenario being superior environmentally (see Appendix 2). Responses were recorded on a five-point scale (1 = ‘definitely choose product 1’, 5 = ‘definitely choose product 2’).
Demographics. Finally, they reported demographic information, including age, gender and prior work experience, and were debriefed.
Measures
Extra-role employee green behaviour item and scale means and standard deviations.
To test whether all items fit adequately under the EGB construct, exploratory factor analysis was performed using the principal components extraction method. Bartlett’s test was significant (χ2(66) = 1,113.79, p < .01), indicating that it was appropriate to use the factor analytic model on this set of data. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy suggested that the strength of the relationships among variables was high (KMO = .85). The extracted factor provided a high eigenvalue of 4.57, and it accounted for 38.06% of the variance in the data. All the items had saturations higher than .40. Furthermore, the scree plot of the parallel analysis clearly suggests that the single-factor structure is the most appropriate, since only the first observed eigenvalue exceeds the corresponding simulated values (Figure 2). Furthermore, the internal consistency of the 12 items was adequate (α = .84) (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). Since one factor appears to provide an adequate representation of all the items analysed, we obtained the factorial points and created a new variable, called the ‘ER-EGB’.
Scree plot and parallel analysis.
Employee ‘in-role’ green behaviour
To measure in-role EGB, we focused on employee decision-making regarding environmental and financial outcomes in new product development. Participants, assigned the role of leading the development of three new organizational products, were asked to choose between two alternatives for each product. The two alternatives differed in terms of expected sales, environmental performance and production costs. The alternatives presented varied in terms of conflict (high, medium, low) between financial and environmental performance, with one option in each scenario being superior environmentally. Participants were presented with three choices and could indicate on a scale from 1 (‘definitely product 1’) to 5 (‘definitely product 2’) which product they preferred (see Appendix 2). We coded the choice in such a way that a higher score reflects a more pro-environmental choice. For the analysis, a composite score from the three investment decisions was used (M = 4.23, SD = .72, α = .70). Internal consistency was acceptable for exploratory research (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). This measure was adapted from a decision-making paradigm developed by A. Ruepert and Steg (2018), in which participants made investment choices involving trade-offs between environmental benefits and financial or convenience-related costs. Our adaptation preserved this trade-off logic in a realistic product development context. By simulating role-relevant decisions that employees might encounter in balancing profitability and sustainability, this task offers an ecologically valid way to assess in-role green behaviour.
Data analysis
We tested our hypotheses using structural equation modelling (SEM) in AMOS 24 (Collier, 2020). To include the categorical independent variable Motives (three levels: control, environmental and financial) in the mediation model, we applied dummy coding with the control condition as the reference category.
Results
Two models (see Figures 3 and 4 for path diagrams) were estimated. Model 1 assessed the influence of motives, perceived corporate environmental responsibility (CER) and environmental self-identity (ESI) on extra-role employee green behaviour (extra-role EGB). Model 2 replicated this structure but used in-role employee green behaviour (in-role EGB) as the outcome variable.
Model 1: CER motives and extra-role EGB.
Model 2: CER motives and in-role EGB.
Model fit
Both models demonstrated strong global fit. For Model 1 (extra-role EGB): χ2(4, N = 292) = 3.34, p = .50, CFI = 1.00, TLI = 1.01, NFI = .98, RMSEA = .00. For Model 2 (in-role EGB): χ2(4, N = 292) = 3.24, p = .52, CFI = 1.00, TLI = 1.01, NFI = .98, RMSEA = .00. Standardized residual covariances were all <|2| (Tables 2 and 3). Because these are low-complexity models with few degrees of freedom (df = 4), global indices can overstate fit; accordingly, we interpreted the models with reference to parameter significance and magnitude, theoretical coherence and the residual diagnostics reported.
Standardized residual covariances Model 1.
Note: EM = Environmental motives; FM = Financial motives; CER = Perceived CER; ESI = Environmental self-identity
Standardized residual covariances Model 2.
Note: EM = Environmental motives; FM = Financial motives; CER = Perceived CER; ESI = Environmental self-identity
Hypothesis 1: CER motives and perceived CER influence
The analysis for both model 1 and model 2 revealed that financial motives negatively influenced employees’ perceptions of corporate environmental responsibility (CER). Models 1 and 2 showed a significant direct effect of financial motives on Perceived CER, with b = −.31 (95% CI [−.414, −.188]). That is, when the company adopted CER for financial reasons, it was perceived that CER was weaker compared to the control condition. Environmental motives did not significantly alter perceived CER compared to the control group in either test, b = −.05 (95% CI [−.172, .062]). We also tested a direct comparison between the environmental and financial conditions (b = .25, 95% CI [.120, .355]), indicating that perceived CER was significantly stronger in the environmental condition than in the financial condition. We did not find a direct effect of motives on extra-role or in-role EGB.
Hypothesis 2: Perceived CER and EGB intentions
We found a positive relationship between perceived CER and intentions for extra-role employee green behaviour (b = .21, 95% CI [.110, .317]). We found a similar positive relationship for in-role employee green behaviour (b = .23, 95% CI [.149, .368]). These results suggest that Perceived CER influences not only extra-role employee green behaviour but also in-role green behaviour. The more strongly employees perceived their company as committed to CER, the more likely they were to adopt extra-role pro-environmental behaviour and the stronger their consideration of environmental attributes when designing a new product.
Hypothesis 3: Environmental self-identity as the underlying process
Environmental self-identity mediated the relationship between financial motives and extra-role EGB, b = −.14 (95% CI [−.14, −.50]), and in-role EGB, b = −.08 (95% CI [−.143, −.045]), highlighting its consistent mediation in both extra- and in-role behaviours. The stronger the perceived CER, the more likely employees were to see themselves as pro-environmental, which in turn was related to more extra-role and in-role EGB. However, the indirect effect of environmental motives (when compared with the control group) via perceived CER and ESI was non-significant for both extra-role and in-role behaviours.
These findings provided initial experimental support for our theoretical model, particularly highlighting the negative impact of financial motives on perceived CER and subsequent green behaviour. Importantly, we not only found support for our model when studying extra-role behaviour but also when studying in-role behaviour. However, given that participants in Study 1 were students and the context was hypothetical, we conducted a second study with actual employees to examine whether similar relationships would emerge in a real-world context. Because motive manipulation is less feasible in real organizational settings, we used a correlational design to assess employees’ perceptions of their organization’s motives for CER.
Study 2
Study 2 employed a cross-sectional correlational design to test the proposed hypotheses in a more ecologically valid context, using a sample of employees across multiple companies. Unlike Study 1, no experimental manipulation was introduced; instead, all constructs were measured with validated scales.
Method
Participants
Responses were collected via the Prolific online survey platform. Participants were compensated for their time (2€ for approximately 10 minutes). Inclusion criteria required that employees had at least one year of experience in their current company to ensure sufficient exposure to their organization’s CER practices. A total of 160 valid responses were obtained. The mean age of participants was 33 years (SD = 9.51), and the sample was gender balanced (52% female, 48% male). Participants were employed in Spain and the Netherlands and included both full-time and part-time employees.
To ensure that participants were familiar with their organization’s environmental practices, we required at least one year of tenure in their current company. The sample was well balanced in terms of tenure: 28% had 1–2 years of experience, 27% had 3–5 years, 17% had 6–10 years and 24% had more than 10 years. In terms of organizational role, 48% reported working in mid-level or specialist positions, while the remainder were distributed across entry-level, supervisory, managerial and director-level roles. Role demographic information (e.g., industry, job function and influence on environmental decision-making) was available for 56% of participants and is presented in Appendix 1. We did not assess the objective level of CER of participants’ companies; instead, we focused on employees’ perceptions of CER.
Procedure
After providing informed consent, participants completed an online questionnaire in the following order: perceived motives for CER adoption; perceived CER; environmental self-identity (ESI); employee green behaviour (extra-role and in-role); demographic information (age, gender, education, years of professional experience, sector, employment type and tenure).
Additionally, participants were invited to provide information about the organizations where they were employed and their roles within them. Results are summarized in Appendix 1.
Measures
In replicating the first study, we used the same measures: perceived CER, environmental self-identity, in-role green behaviour and extra-role green behaviour (see Table 4 for Cronbach’s alpha, means and standard deviations). However, in this study, we measured CER motives instead of manipulating them. Participants were asked: ‘Please indicate your company’s motives to adopt corporate environmental responsibility (CER).’ Responses were recorded on a scale from 0 (‘CER driven solely by financial motives’) to 10 (‘CER driven solely by environmental motives’).
Descriptive statistics and EGB correlational dimensions.
Note: *p < .05, **p < .01
Data analysis
We tested the hypothesized serial mediation model using the PROCESS macro for SPSS (Hayes, 2022). Model 6 was specified, which estimates a sequential mediation process. In line with our theoretical framework (see Figure 5), we examined whether CER motives influenced employee green behaviour indirectly through perceived CER and subsequently through environmental self-identity (ESI).
Mediation analysis. Theoretical model 6.
Results
We used 10,000 bootstrapped samples to estimate indirect effects and generate bias-corrected confidence intervals. PROCESS was preferred over SEM in this study due to the relatively smaller sample size, since its ordinary least squares (OLS) regression framework provides greater statistical robustness in such contexts.
Hypothesis 1
In line with Hypothesis 1, we found that the CER motives are significantly related to perceived CER (see Table 4). Specifically, the more the organization adopts CER for environmental reasons, the stronger the perceived CER. In line with Hypothesis 2, we found that perceived CER is significantly related to both extra-role and in-role EGB (see Table 4). The stronger the perceived CER, the more likely employees were to engage in extra-role as well as in-role green behaviour at work.
Mediation analysis 1: motives — extra-role EGB
The results of the mediation analysis showed that there was an indirect effect of CER motives via perceived CER and ESI on in-role as well as extra-role EGB (see Table 5). The indirect effect was positive and significant for both dependent variables. This confirms that the more CER was adopted for environmental motives, the more employees perceived their company as committed to CER, which strengthened their ESI, leading to more extra-role and in-role green behaviour at work. CER motives were no longer significantly related to in-role employee green behaviour (EGB) when the other variables from the model were also included. CER motives were still significantly related to extra-role EGB when the other variables were also included in the model.
Direct and indirect effects of mediation models 1 and 2 with 95% confidence intervals.
Note: motives: CER motives; P.CER: perceived CER; ESI: environmental self-identity; EGB: employee green behaviour. Non-standardized coefficients.
Bootstrapping 10,000 samples
Discussion
This study aimed to examine whether the motives attributed to corporate environmental responsibility (CER) influence employees’ perceptions of their organization’s environmental commitment, their environmental self-identity and their green behaviour at work. We hypothesized that environmental motives, compared to financial or no stated motives, would strengthen perceived CER (H1), that perceived CER would be positively associated with both in-role and extra-role green behaviour (H2) and that environmental self-identity would mediate this relationship (H3).
We tested our reasoning in two studies: an experimental study with students and a correlational study with actual employees. The results from both studies confirmed our theoretical model.
H1 results
We found support for our first hypothesis, that motives influence perceived CER. Specifically, the results from our experimental study show that adopting CER for financial motives weakens perceived CER compared to adopting it for environmental reasons or providing no reasons at all. Our second study validated our findings among actual employees working in an organization, since it showed that the more employees think their organization adopted CER for environmental motives, rather than financial motives, the stronger employees perceive their company’s commitment to CER. This suggests that if a company adopts CER for financial reasons, employees might perceive its CER commitment as weaker, even if the organization is actively engaged in green initiatives. Previous research has shown that when a company has a strong financial or profit focus, employees are less likely to be intrinsically motivated and therefore less likely to engage in pro-environmental behaviour compared to a company that does not have a strong financial focus, even if the organization has a strong CER (Sharpe et al., 2022). However, that study did not explicitly test whether the motives for CER influence how employees perceive CER and whether that may influence pro-environmental behaviour at work. Our study contributes to existing literature underscoring the significance of a company’s motives for adopting CER.
In the first experimental study with students, we did not observe that environmental motives enhanced CER perception compared to not providing any motives. This suggests that participants may have assumed environmental motives in the absence of financial framing. While we did observe a significant difference in perceived CER between the environmental and financial conditions (suggesting the manipulation functioned as intended), a dedicated manipulation check was not included. Future research could test whether participants assume organizations adopt CER for environmental reasons when motives are not stated. Including a truly neutral or unrelated motive condition would help clarify this issue.
H2 results
Both studies provided support for our second hypothesis (H2), positing a positive relationship between perceived CER and employee green behaviour (EGB) intentions. Importantly, our hypothesis was confirmed for extra-role as well as in-role behaviour. Previous studies mainly focused on extra-role environmental behaviour (Gu & Liu, 2022; Saeed et al., 2019). We discovered that perceived CER could influence not only individual voluntary actions (extra-role EGB), such as recycling and turning off lights, but also managerial business decisions like green investments (in-role EGB). This is important because in-role decisions can have a substantial long-term impact on a company’s environmental performance.
H3 results
Our findings also validated the role of environmental self-identity (ESI) as the underlying mechanism through which perceived CER influences EGB (H3). Evidence from both studies confirmed this mediation, suggesting that the degree to which employees perceive their organization as committed to CER affects how they see themselves as environmentally friendly individuals, which in turn influences their likelihood of engaging in green actions at work. These findings are in line with research showing that ESI mediates the relationship between CER and pro-environmental behaviour (van der Werff et al., 2021).
Limitations and future research
A potential limitation relates to the measurement of perceived CER. While our scale focused on the company’s environmental goals and policies, it may implicitly suggest that genuine CER requires intrinsically motivated environmental action. If so, financial motives might be seen as misaligned with this definition, thereby reducing perceived CER scores — not simply because of the motive itself but because of a mismatch between the motive and the normative framing of the items. However, this is also consistent with our theoretical model: perceptions of a company’s sincerity are shaped by its motives, and these perceptions influence how employees identify with and respond to the organization’s environmental efforts. Future research could benefit from unpacking whether perceived CER reflects objective assessments of behaviour, attributions of intent or both.
Additionally, while external validity was strengthened by including actual employees in Study 2, we only assessed self-reported intentions and behaviours, which raises the possibility of social desirability bias. Further research should examine actual behaviour, for example, through observed or multi-source behavioural indicators. We also note that we did not control for participants’ prior employment history. Future studies could test whether experience in environmentally committed companies influences perceptions of CER, since such experiences may sensitize employees to organizational environmental practices.
Although Study 2 was gender balanced, the sample in Study 1 was predominantly female, which may limit generalizability since prior research has found gender differences in pro-environmental behaviour (Arsenijevic et al., 2022). Future studies could replicate experimental designs in more gender-balanced samples.
Beyond employee perspectives, it would be valuable to analyse whether CER motives influence other stakeholders such as clients or investors, thereby shaping external perceptions and market responses. Finally, future studies could investigate whether similar effects are observed for CSR more broadly, since financial motives may weaken the perceived importance of CSR and reduce responsible behaviour. Examining whether the framing (CSR vs. CER) moderates how employees interpret organizational motives would provide valuable insights.
Managerial implications
Our study highlights several key managerial implications for companies seeking to promote pro-environmental behaviour in the workplace. First, organizations need to recognize that the motives behind the adoption of corporate environmental responsibility (CER) programmes can significantly impact employees’ perceptions of authenticity. When employees attribute CER to financial reasons, they perceive weaker organizational commitment, which in turn can discourage green behaviours. Companies must therefore ensure that their motives and actions are aligned, since authenticity is critical to sustaining employee engagement. This finding is consistent with recent research indicating that employees’ perceptions of CSR authenticity play a crucial role in their prosocial and environmentally friendly actions (Kim & Lee, 2022).
To promote sustainable behaviour, companies should not only implement CER programmes but also clearly communicate that these programmes are environmentally motivated. Embedding CER in the organization’s mission, values and daily practices increases employees’ likelihood of internalizing these priorities. Explicitly highlighting environmental reasons in internal communications, training programmes and reports can reinforce employees’ perceptions of CER.
Importantly, managers should also recognize that employees often infer the company’s motives from indirect signals, such as the consistency of environmental actions, resource allocation or leadership messaging. In many organizations, motives are not explicitly communicated, which means employees construct their perceptions based on observed behaviour and organizational priorities. Ensuring that these signals consistently reflect genuine environmental commitment can help strengthen employees’ perceptions of CER sincerity. When words and actions are misaligned, employees may perceive hypocrisy, which undermines pro-social and green behaviours (Boğan et al., 2024). Ensuring that communication is backed by concrete initiatives and investments can therefore strengthen employees’ trust and willingness to engage.
Finally, the role of immediate managers is also crucial. Because they interact directly with employees, they can reinforce or weaken official communications from the company. Consistency between corporate discourse and managerial messaging is essential. Evidence shows that supervisory support is one of the strongest predictors of employee green behaviour (Katz et al., 2022). Managers who actively support, model and encourage sustainable practices contribute to a local climate that fosters green behaviours at work.
Conclusion
This study shows that the motives attributed to corporate environmental responsibility (CER) matter: when framed as financially driven, employees perceive weaker organizational commitment, which undermines their environmental self-identity and intentions to act sustainably. By combining experimental and employee survey evidence, we demonstrate that both in-role and extra-role behaviours are shaped not only by the presence of CER but also by its perceived sincerity. Although our data rely on self-reports, the findings highlight the importance of how organizations communicate their environmental motives and position environmental self-identity as a powerful lever for promoting workplace sustainability.