Empowering Employee Sustainability: Perceived OrganizationalSupport Toward the Environment

Eric Lamm • Jennifer Tosti-Kharas •

Cynthia E. King

Received: 5 June 2013 / Accepted: 4 February 2014

� Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Abstract This paper contributes to the ongoing discus-

sion of sustainability behaviors by introducing the con-

struct of perceived organizational support toward the

environment (POS-E). We propose and empirically test an

integrated model whereby we test the association of POS-E

with employees’ organizational citizenship behaviors

toward the environment (OCB-E) as well as to job atti-

tudes. Results indicated that POS-E was positively related

to OCB-E, job satisfaction, organizational identification,

and psychological empowerment, and negatively related to

turnover intentions. We also found that psychological

empowerment partially mediated the relationship between

POS-E and the dependent variables. We discuss the theo-

retical implications as well as practical implications for

managers seeking to encourage sustainability in their

organizations.

Keywords Corporate social responsibility �Environment � Extra-role behaviors � Organizational

citizenship behavior � Perceived organizational support �Psychological empowerment � Sustainability

Introduction

Although organizational leaders are increasingly adopting

policies recognizing sustainability, understood as ‘‘the

successful market-oriented realization and integration of

ecological, social, and economic challenges to a company’’

(Schaltegger et al. 2013, p. 220), the role of individual

employees in implementing those policies is not well

understood (e.g., Boiral and Paille 2012; Daily et al. 2009;

Ramus and Killmer 2007). Consumers and the public

increasingly expect businesses to take action to lessen their

environmental impact (Lacy et al. 2010). In response, many

prominent companies, such as Ford (Miel 2012, May 23),

Ikea (Morales 2012, October 22), Wal-Mart (Jung 2012),

Proctor and Gamble (Scott 2012, April 11), and Unilever

(Baker 2012, April 10) have adopted high-level sustain-

ability initiatives designed to reduce their environmental

impact. These initiatives may include implementing sus-

tainability policies and performance targets, employing

specialist staff, and investing in new operational and

training systems (Smith and O’Sullivan 2012). Indeed,

many scholars argue that, in order to be effective, sus-

tainability needs to be embedded across the organization

(Haugh and Talwar 2010) and integrated into a compre-

hensive sustainability strategy (Galpin and Whittington

2012).

Yet, despite the importance of these top-down strategic

initiatives, the role of the individual employees in imple-

menting environmental sustainability is equally important.

Employees may develop and champion sustainability ini-

tiatives at work (Ramus and Steger 2000). Further, strate-

gic initiatives cannot be implemented without the active

support and participation of individual employees (Jenkin

et al. 2011). However, employee participation is compli-

cated; for the majority of employees, sustainability

E. Lamm (&) � J. Tosti-Kharas � C. E. King

College of Business, San Francisco State University, 1600

Holloway Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94132, USA

e-mail: ericlamm@sfsu.edu

J. Tosti-Kharas

e-mail: jtosti@sfsu.edu

C. E. King

e-mail: cynthiak@sfsu.edu

123

J Bus Ethics

DOI 10.1007/s10551-014-2093-z

behaviors are not required tasks, but rather are voluntary

(Ramus and Killmer 2007). As a result, the cumulative

environmental impact of a company is in part affected by

discretionary decisions made by individual employees

every day. While the impact of one individual’s decisions

might be small, in the aggregate, the impact is significant

(Stern 2000). Therefore, it is important to understand fac-

tors associated with individual employees choosing to

engage in sustainability behaviors and to understand the

implications for organizations, and by extension for the

environment.

This paper explores factors associated with organiza-

tional citizenship behaviors toward the environment (OCB-

E), which are defined as ‘‘voluntary behaviors not specified

in official job descriptions that, through the combined

efforts of individual employees, help to make the organi-

zation and/or society more sustainable’’ (Lamm et al. 2013,

p. 165). Examples of such behaviors include turning off the

lights when not in use, using double-sided paper to print,

and drinking from reusable beverage containers. OCB-Es

are gaining research attention; however, empirical research

on the factors that are associated with these behaviors

remain scant.

This paper makes a number of contributions. First, we

explore how a contextual characteristic, which we term

perceived organizational support toward the environment

(POS-E), can be associated with OCB-Es, and also with job

attitudes in general, including job satisfaction, organiza-

tional identification, turnover intentions, and psychological

empowerment. Second, we identify psychological empow-

erment as a key mechanism that mediates the relationship

between the contextual antecedent, POS-E, with OCB-E and

job attitudes. Third, we contribute to the extensive literature

on psychological empowerment (see in particular Seibert

et al. 2011) by proposing POS-E and OCB-E as previously

unexplored contextual antecedent and behavioral conse-

quences, respectively. Finally, we offer guidance to man-

agers interested in encouraging employee sustainability

behaviors, improving psychological empowerment, job

satisfaction and organizational identification, and/or reduc-

ing turnover within their organizations.

The paper will proceed as follows. First, we review the

literature on sustainability and corporate social responsi-

bility, and highlight the need for individual-level research

in this area. We then introduce the concept of POS-E as our

independent variable and propose its associations with job

attitudes and behaviors. Next, we propose a theoretical

model whereby psychological empowerment acts as the

central mediator between POS-E and job attitudes and

behaviors. We then empirically test our hypothesized

relationships. Finally, we present our conclusions, impli-

cations for theory and practice, limitations, and directions

for future research.

Literature Review and Hypotheses

The public increasingly assumes that corporations have an

obligation to limit their environmental impact and to help

address global sustainability challenges (Senge et al. 2008).

While the precise nature of this responsibility continues to

be debated, global business leaders have, by an over-

whelming majority, accepted that business has a significant

role to play in achieving sustainability (Lacy et al. 2010).

Sustainability is considered as a multi-level construct,

comprising individual, organizational, political-economic,

social-cultural, and ecological levels (Starik and Rands

1995). Nevertheless, both academic research and the pop-

ular press tend to focus on sustainability initiatives by

organizations rather than by individuals. This is true for

both sustainability as well as the related corporate social

responsibility (CSR) literature. CSR refers to the view that

corporations are responsible to society and the environ-

ment, in addition to shareholders. In a recent review of

CSR, researchers found that 90 % of the articles reviewed

focused on either the organizational or institutional level,

while five percent concerned multiple levels, and only four

percent focused on the individual-level (Aguinis and Gla-

vas 2012). As a result, the role of individual employees in

implementing CSR programs, including sustainability ini-

tiatives, is not well understood. Notable exceptions include

the role of specific individual actors, including environ-

mental champions (e.g., Andersson and Bateman 2000) and

leaders influencing organizational adoption of sustainabil-

ity goals (e.g., Egri and Herman 2000). In order to advance

the fields of CSR and sustainability, a multi-level integra-

tion of research and theory is needed (Aguinis and Glavas

2012). Additional research is especially warranted to

understand what factors influence individual engagement

with CSR and sustainability activities, and the underlying

psychological mechanisms that lead to CSR outcomes

(Aguinis and Glavas 2012).

Perceived Organizational Support Toward

the Environment (POS-E)

There is some empirical evidence regarding antecedents to

individual-level sustainability behaviors. The field of

environmental psychology has several theories that explain

pro-environmental behavior, such as the norm-activation

model, the theory of planned behavior, and the values-

beliefs-norms theory (e.g., Bamberg and Moser 2007; Stern

2000). However, these pro-environmental behavior theo-

ries have been predominantly applied to the study of con-

sumers in domestic contexts, rather than to employees in

the workplace (Smith and O’Sullivan 2012; Stern 2000).

In the workplace context, several related theories can be

helpful in explaining individual-level engagement in CSR

E. Lamm et al.

123

and sustainability behaviors. Evidence indicates that

supervisor commitment to CSR (Ramus and Steger 2000),

employee values (Mudrack 2007), and employee concern

with issues (Bansal 2003) are reliable predictors of

employee-level CSR engagement. Further, organizational

justice theory posits that employee psychological needs for

control, belongingness, and meaningful existence drive

CSR engagement (Aguilera et al. 2007). Finally, social

identity theory has been used to demonstrate how inter-

group perceptions and group norms can influence sustain-

able agricultural practices (Fielding et al. 2008).

The underlying theme behind many of these related

literatures is that there are characteristics of the socio-

political environment that condone, encourage, or motivate

individuals to act in sustainable ways. Socio-political

support refers to elements of the work context ‘‘including

the supportiveness of the climate of the organization, the

employee’s perception that the organization values and

cares about him, and the level of trust the organization has

in the employee’’ (Seibert et al. 2011, p. 983). One of the

most prominent socio-political support variables in the

literature is the construct of perceived organizational sup-

port (POS). POS represents generalized beliefs made by

employees concerning how much the organization values

their contributions and cares about their well-being (Rho-

ades et al. 2001, p. 825). As POS represents generalized

beliefs, a more nuanced construct is needed to represent

socio-political support for sustainability. Building from the

POS definition, we define POS-E as follows: the specific

beliefs held by employees concerning how much the

organization values their contributions toward sustain-

ability. While POS-E represents a much narrower and more

specific view of perceptions of the organization than its

counterpart POS, it shares some characteristics including

beliefs that the organization is providing opportunities,

beliefs that the organization is allowing autonomy over

some decisions and beliefs that the organization values

their contributions. However, we see the two constructs as

unique, as POS refers to support for non-specific contri-

butions while POS-E directly specifies organizational

support for sustainable actions. We therefore believe that

POS and POS-E will be positively related, yet conceptually

distinct constructs.

Hypothesis 1a POS-E will positively relate to POS.

Hypothesis 1b POS-E and POS will be distinct

constructs.

Thus, as POS-E represents employee perceptions of how

much the organization values efforts directed toward sus-

tainability and sets the stage for how conducive an orga-

nization is to employees’ sustainability behaviors, it will

serve as the central independent variable in our integrated

model. We now explore the relationship between POS-E

and job attitudes and behaviors for employees who value

environmental sustainability. We focus our hypotheses on

employees who value environmental sustainability, as they

are the ones for whom POS-E is most likely relevant. By

contrast, employees who do not value sustainability are

unlikely to attend to cues that the organization values their

contributions in this area.

Organizational Citizenship Behavior Toward

the Environment (OCB-E)

The popular construct of organizational citizenship

behavior (OCB) offers a useful theoretical foundation for

studying voluntary employee behaviors directed toward the

environment. OCB is defined as ‘‘individual behavior that

is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the

formal reward system, and in the aggregate promotes the

efficient and effective functioning of the organization’’

(Organ et al. 2006, p. 3). OCBs have been widely studied

over the past 30 years, in part because they are positively

related to organizational effectiveness (Podsakoff et al.

2009) and also likely due to the fact that several studies

have found them to be negatively related to employee

turnover intentions (Chen 2005; Chen et al. 1998; Moss-

holder et al. 2005).

Borrowing from this well-established stream of the lit-

erature, scholars (Boiral 2009; Boiral and Paille 2012;

Daily et al. 2009; Lamm et al. 2013) have begun focusing

their attention on OCBs directed toward the environment

(OCB-Es). The two concepts are conceptually similar as

they both focus on voluntary behavior outside the param-

eters of an individual’s job functions. The distinct differ-

ence is that OCBs are directed at helping the organization

(OCB-O) or individuals within the organization (OCB-I),

while OCB-Es are directed toward the environment.

However, only a few studies have tested OCB-Es

empirically. Boiral and Paille (2012) developed and tested

an OCB-E measurement scale, based on a typology pre-

viously proposed by Boiral (2009). Lamm et al. (2013)

established and validated a measure of OCB-Es, and found

POS, affective commitment, and beliefs about the impor-

tance of sustainability were positively related to OCB-Es.

Further, these authors found that OCB-Es were positively

related to, yet distinct from, OCBs in general.

Some scholars have theorized (Daily et al. 2009) that

environmental concern will be translated to the organiza-

tion in the form of OCB-Es. However, environmental

intent and environmental action are very different for

various reasons and ‘‘the role of environmentalist predis-

positions can vary greatly with the behavior, the actor, and

the context’’ (Stern 2000, p. 415). While some actions,

Empowering Employee Sustainability

123

such as printing double-sided, may be considered unques-

tionable as it takes no additional effort on the part of the

employee, other actions in the workplace could be con-

sidered inefficient such as powering down one’s console

when not in use or properly disposing of electronic waste.

Thus, an individual would look to the organization for the

recommended processes or procedures as it may take away

time from the employee’s core job responsibilities. If

employees fear looking like they are wasting company

time, a good performance evaluation may trump environ-

mental values. Cognitive dissonance theorists might argue

that the employees would minimize the dissonance by

justifying in their minds that it is more important to keep

their jobs to support the action they take in their private

lives. Therefore, OCB-Es may be contingent on percep-

tions of the degree to which the organization supports such

sustainability behaviors.

Indeed, managers can promote a context, climate, and

conditions favorable to the emergence of voluntary

and discretionary environmental initiatives not

directly or explicitly rewarded by the organization. A

context favorable to environmental OCBs can be

encouraged in different ways, particularly through

green leadership by managers, the development of a

pro-environmental culture, the establishment of vol-

untary programs and structures, and adapted training,

information, and recruitment policies (Boiral 2009,

p. 230).

Given the confines of a structured organizational environ-

ment, individuals may feel limited in their capacity to make

discretionary sustainability decisions either in the absence

of a sense of whether the behaviors are appreciated by the

organization or if those decisions are potentially disadvan-

tageous to the organization. Thus, they use their percep-

tions of the organization’s support for the behaviors as

guidance to make their sustainability decisions. Accord-

ingly, we expect that the more employees believe their

organization supports their contributions toward sustain-

ability, the more likely they will be to perform OCB-Es.

Hypothesis 2 POS-E will positively relate to OCB-E for

employees who value environmental sustainability.

Job Attitudes

As mentioned earlier, POS-E represents a more specific

version of POS that is focused on environmental sustain-

ability. Consequently, POS-E is expected to have similar

effects as POS on attitudinal consequences. In this paper,

we focus on three of the main job attitudes considered by

organizational researchers: job satisfaction, organizational

identification, and turnover intention.

Job Satisfaction

Individuals spend the majority of their lives in the work-

place and many seek greater fulfillment than a simple

paycheck. For individuals who perform actions in their

private lives that support sustainability, perceiving that the

organization supports sustainability efforts in the organi-

zation as well, would increase their perception of value

congruence. Value congruence is the notion that individ-

uals seek compatibility between their values and various

aspects of the organization (Caldwell et al. 2004). One

specific area of value congruence is person-job fit, which is

the match between the individual and the tasks performed

at work, and this type of fit is most strongly associated with

job satisfaction (Kristof-Brown et al. 2005, p. 284).

In a similar vein, support can also be found from the

literature on cognitive dissonance reduction (Festinger

1957) as individuals will want to remove any discomfort

that may exist between aspects of their private and pro-

fessional lives. For example, for individuals who incorpo-

rate sustainability into their everyday lives at home,

knowing that it is accepted and encouraged at work, may

be directly related to how satisfied they are with their jobs.

It is a similar argument as has been made in the literature

on ethical climate where dissonance will arise if there is a

mismatch in one’s ethical values and the perceived ethical

norms of the organization, and higher levels of ethics are

associated with positive job attitudes (Koh and Boo 2001).

Drawing from the literature on POS, Rhoades and Ei-

senberger (2002, p. 701) hypothesized that POS should

affect job satisfaction ‘‘by meeting socio-emotional needs,

increasing performance-reward expectancies, and signaling

the availability of aid when needed’’. Accordingly, in their

meta-analysis they found that POS had a strong effect on

job satisfaction. Due to the theoretical similarity between

POS and POS-E, the same effect is expected. We therefore

predict that POS-E will positively relate to job satisfaction.

Hypothesis 3 POS-E will positively relate to job satis-

faction for employees who value environmental

sustainability.

Organizational Identification

POS-E may also increase employees’ sense of organiza-

tional identification, which has been defined as an indi-

vidual’s perception of oneness with or belongingness to an

organization (Ashforth and Mael 1989). Scholars have

proposed that when employees’ needs are fulfilled, they

will incorporate organizational membership into their

social identity (e.g., Eisenberger et al. 1986; Rhoades and

Eisenberger 2002). Likewise, employees who perceive that

their goals align with those of the organization and who

E. Lamm et al.

123

feel a sense of person-job fit will identify more strongly

with the organization (Kristof-Brown et al. 2005; Rupp

et al. 2010). For pro-environmentally-minded individuals,

POS-E may signal that the organization shares, or at least

tacitly acknowledges, the employee’s environmental values

and goals.

A recent study found a positive relationship between

employee participation in CSR activities and organiza-

tional identification (Kim et al. 2010). Logically, the pre-

ceding step to participation is perceptions of an opportunity

to participate. Accordingly, we predict that POS-E will

positively relate to organizational identification.

Hypothesis 4 POS-E will positively relate to organiza-

tional identification for employees who value environ-

mental sustainability.

Turnover Intention

We also expect that employees who have a strong sense of

POS-E will have lower turnover intentions. Extant research

provides support for the negative relationship between

turnover intentions and job satisfaction (Jaramillo et al.

2006; Mulki et al. 2006, 2008). Paralleling our arguments

supporting job satisfaction, for individuals who value

environmental sustainability, perceiving their organization

as having similar values will influence them to remain with

the organization. As person-organization fit negatively

relates to turnover (Kristof-Brown et al. 2005) we expect

employees who feel value congruence, that is a perceived

mutual support for environmental sustainability, will be

less likely to quit their jobs because they want to maintain

these psychological benefits.

The related literature on ethical culture can be helpful

as well. Many scholars (e.g., Mulki et al. 2008; Ruiz-

Palomino et al. 2013) have investigated and have found

support for the negative relationship between perceived

ethical culture and turnover intentions as individuals did

not want to remain in an organization whose values

conflict with their own. Similarly, if individuals believe in

taking action in support of environmental sustainability,

they may feel conflicted if they are only capable of acting

sustainably in their private lives and not also in their place

of work.

Finally, drawing again from the POS literature, there is

empirical support that a high degree of POS is associated

with lower rates of turnover intention (Liu 2008; Wayne

et al. 1997). Therefore, we hypothesize that POS-E will be

negatively related to turnover intention.

Hypothesis 5 POS-E will negatively relate to turnover

intention for employees who value environmental

sustainability.

Psychological Empowerment

In addition to the attitudinal consequences discussed above,

we hypothesize that employees who perceive organiza-

tional support toward the environment will also experience

psychological empowerment. Two distinct conceptualiza-

tions of empowerment: structural and psychological have

developed since the 1970s. Structural empowerment is

focused on the organizational conditions that contribute to

a sharing of power, decision making, and control over

resources (Maynard et al. 2012). By contrast, psychological

empowerment is focused on ‘‘the state or set of conditions

that allow for employees or teams to believe that they have

control over their work’’ (Maynard et al. 2012, p. 1235).

Building on earlier scholarship, Spreitzer (1995) refined a

four-dimensional framework of empowerment, which

contains the dimensions of meaning, competence, self-

determination, and impact. In this framework, meaning

refers to the fit between one’s work goals and beliefs or

values; competence refers to individuals’ belief that they

can skillfully perform their work; self-determination

involves individuals’ sense of autonomy or control over

their work behaviors; and impact is the degree to which

individuals view their behavior as making a difference.

Two recent studies (Maynard et al. 2012; Seibert et al.

2011) have synthesised the past two decades of empow-

erment research. Seibert et al. (2011) found two categories

of antecedent variables to empowerment: contextual ante-

cedents and individual characteristics. One of the signifi-

cant contextual antecedents is socio-political support. One

source of socio-political support is organizational support,

and we believe by extension POS-E as well. Seibert et al.

(2011) explain how socio-political support has a direct

effect on multiple dimensions of psychological empower-

ment. For example, social support will foster feelings of

acceptance which will enhance the feeling that the work is

meaningful. At the same time, feelings of self-determina-

tion will be increased as the employee will be able to make

choices. Finally, feelings of competence and impact will be

increased ‘‘because of the greater availability of the

material resources, power, and influence needed to

accomplish tasks and work-related goals’’ (Seibert et al.

2011, p. 983). Thus, as it has been well established in the

literature that socio-political support leads to psychological

empowerment, and whereas POS-E is a measure of socio-

political support, POS-E should positively relate to psy-

chological empowerment.

Hypothesis 6 POS-E will positively relate to psycho-

logical empowerment for employees who value environ-

mental sustainability.

In addition to our prediction that POS-E will be related

to employees feeling psychologically empowered, we

Empowering Employee Sustainability

123

believe that perceptions of empowerment will mediate the

relationship between POS-E and the previously hypothe-

sized consequences. That is, psychological empowerment

will be the mechanism by which POS-E affects OCB-E, job

satisfaction, organizational identification, and turnover

intention. This is consistent with reviews of the psycho-

logical empowerment literature which have found that the

vast majority of studies have used psychological empow-

erment as a mediator (Maynard et al. 2012). The Seibert

et al. (2011) synthesis of the literature depicts an integrated

model whereby empowerment is preceded by contextual

antecedents (e.g., socio-political support) and individual

characteristics, followed by attitudinal consequences (e.g.,

job satisfaction and turnover intentions), as well as

behavioral consequences (e.g., OCB). Our study uses this

model for guidance in the directional nature of the

relationships.

The Seibert et al. (2011) meta-analysis found that OCB

was a behavioral consequence of psychological empower-

ment. Meaningful work that is within an employee’s dis-

cretion may make an employee go ‘‘above and beyond’’

because employees value and strive to improve the orga-

nization as a whole. Consequently, for those employees

who perceive that their organizations support their envi-

ronmental aims, they are likely to perform OCB-Es

because they feel a sense of meaning, self-determination,

and impact. Thus, psychological empowerment should

mediate the relationship between POS-E and OCB-E.

In addition, Seibert et al. (2011) found that psycholog-

ical empowerment is positively related to job satisfaction.

The authors noted that ‘‘psychologically empowered

workers are likely to experience more intrinsic need ful-

fillment through work and therefore report higher levels of

job satisfaction’’ (p. 985). Further, they found that psy-

chological empowerment negatively relates to turnover

intention and theorized two reasons why this might be the

case. First, employees are expected to view psychologi-

cally empowering work as a valuable resource provided by

the organization, which they will likely reciprocate with

increased loyalty and reduced turnover intentions (Blau

1964). Second, employees realize that empowering work

arrangements are difficult to find so the net benefit of

finding a better arrangement is reduced (Seibert et al.

2011). This finding is corroborated by the Maynard et al.

(2012) meta-analysis that revealed that higher levels of

psychological empowerment have been found to be asso-

ciated with lower intentions to leave or quit. Again,

employees who believe that their organization supports

their environmental goals are likely to feel satisfied at work

and less likely to leave their jobs because they feel a sense

of meaning, competence, and impact.

The Seibert et al. (2011) meta-analysis did not directly

examine the link between psychological empowerment and

organizational identification, although they did establish the

link between a related construct, organizational commitment.

However, a recent study (Zhu et al. 2012) found support for

psychological empowerment serving as a mediator between

transformational leadership and organizational identification.

The Maynard et al. (2012, p. 1249) meta-analysis of

empowerment provides further support. They noted that

psychological empowerment ‘‘serving as a mediator between

various antecedents and affective reactions (in particular, job

satisfaction) has been supported in numerous studies’’.

In sum, we believe that employees who perceive that

their organizations support their contributions to protect the

environment (POS-E) will feel a greater sense of psycho-

logical empowerment, which in turn will be associated with

increased OCB-E, job satisfaction, and organizational

identification, and reduced turnover intention.

Hypothesis 7 Psychological empowerment will mediate

the relationship between POS-E and (a) OCB-E, (b) job

satisfaction, (c) organizational identification, and (d) turn-

over intention for employees who value environmental

sustainability. Figure 1 depicts the hypothesized relation-

ships among variables in this study.

Contextual Antecedent

Perceived Organizational Support toward the Environment (POS-E)

Psychological Empowerment

Attitudinal Consequences

Job Satisfaction Organizational Identification Turnover Intention

Behavioral Consequences

Organizational Citizenship Behavior toward the Environment (OCB-E)

+ +

+

Fig. 1 Hypothesized Model

E. Lamm et al.

123

Methods

Participants and Procedure

To test our hypotheses, we conducted an online survey of

working adults. The researchers utilized their personal

social networks to recruit participants via email, as in

snowball sampling. In turn, we encouraged email recipients

to forward the survey on to recruit additional participants.

This approach has been effective in prior studies (Baltes

et al. 2011; Chou and Pearson 2012; Dries et al. 2008; He

and Li 2011; Lamm and Meeks 2009). We collected a total

of 1,225 completed surveys. Of these, 492 (40 %) were

eliminated because participants were not over 18 years of

age, working full-time (40 h per week or more), employed

within an organization, or did not provide complete

answers for the variables included in this study.

We then focused the analyses on the portion of the

remaining 733 respondents whom we determined highly

value sustainability. To determine this value, we utilized

the 15-item New Ecological Paradigm scale (Dunlap et al.

2000) that captures an overall pro-environmental sustain-

ability worldview (alpha = .82). Participants answered

questions such as ‘‘Humans are severely abusing the

environment’’ and ‘‘If things continue on their present

course, we will soon experience a major ecological catas-

trophe’’ on a 7-point Likert-type scale from (1) Strongly

Disagree to (7) Strongly Agree. We selected those

respondents who scored above the median of 4.66, noting

that this is also above the scale midpoint. Our remaining

analyses include only these 362 individuals.

Our sample was 39 % male, 37 % married, and 34 years

of age on average (M = 34.43, SD = 11.35). Participants

reported tenure in their organizations of 6.72 years

(SD = 7.01). Thirty-one percent of the sample worked for

organizations of 100 employees or less, while 30 %

worked for organizations of 5,000 employees or more.

Finally, 44 % of respondents reported being non-manage-

ment, 16 % lower management, 18 % middle management,

and 10 % top management.

Measures

Unless otherwise noted, all scale items were rated on a

7-point Likert-type scale from (1) Strongly Disagree to (7)

Strongly Agree.

POS

We measured POS using a 16-item scale (Eisenberger et al.

1986). Sample items included ‘‘The organization strongly

considers my goals and values,’’ and ‘‘The organization

shows very little concern for me’’ (reverse-scored). Scale

coefficient alpha was .96.

POS-E

We created a unique scale to measure POS-E. We devel-

oped five items which were inspired by those from the POS

scale described above. Items included ‘‘I feel that I am able

to behave as sustainably as I want to at my current orga-

nization,’’ ‘‘My actions toward sustainability are appreci-

ated by my organization,’’ and ‘‘My organization does not

care about whether I behave in a sustainable manner or

not’’ (reverse-scored). Coefficient alpha was .73. A full list

of the items appears in the Appendix.

OCB-E

We assessed OCB-E using a 12-item scale developed by

Lamm et al. (2013). Sample items included ‘‘I am a person

who prints double-sided,’’ and ‘‘I am a person who turns

off my lights when leaving my office for any reason’’.

Coefficient alpha for this measure was .85.

Job Satisfaction

We used a 3-item scale to measure job satisfaction (Cam-

mann et al. 1983). Sample items were ‘‘All in all, I am

satisfied with my job,’’ and ‘‘In general, I don’t like my

job’’. Coefficient alpha was 93.

Organizational Identification

Identification with the current organization was measured

using a 6-item scale developed by Mael and Ashforth

(1992). Sample items included ‘‘When I talk about my

organization, I usually say ‘we’ rather than ‘they,’’’ and ‘‘If

a story in the media criticized my organization, I would

feel embarrassed’’. Coefficient alpha was .89.

Turnover Intention

We assessed respondents’ likelihood of voluntarily leaving

their current job using a 5-item scale (Bozeman and Per-

rewe 2001). Example items were ‘‘At the present time, I am

actively searching for another job in a different organiza-

tion,’’ and ‘‘I do not intend to quit my job (reverse-

scored)’’. Coefficient alpha for this scale was .88.

Psychological Empowerment

Psychological empowerment was measured using Spreit-

zer’s (1995) 12-item scale. Sample items include ‘‘The

work I do is meaningful to me,’’ ‘‘I am confident about my

Empowering Employee Sustainability

123

ability to do my job,’’ and ‘‘My impact on what happens in

my job is large’’. Coefficient alpha for this scale was .88.

Controls

We assessed several demographic variables to serve as

control variables. These included age, gender, and marital

status. We also included as controls several elements of

respondents’ jobs, including organizational tenure in years.

Organization size was measured as a categorical variable:

(1) Less than 100 employees, (2) 101 to 500 employees, (3)

501 to 1,000 employees, (4) 1,001 to 5,000 employees, (5)

5,001 to 10,000 employees, and (6) Greater than 10000

employees. Management level was measured using the

following options: (1) Non-management, (2) Lower man-

agement, (3) Middle management, (4) Top management.

Results

We report descriptive statistics, coefficient alphas, and

zero-order correlations in Table 1. POS-E was positively

correlated with POS (r = .41, p \ .001), OCB-E (r = .28,

p \ .001), job satisfaction (r = .33, p \ .001), organiza-

tional identification (r = .24, p \ .001), and psychological

empowerment (r = .33, p \ .001), and negatively corre-

lated with turnover intention (r = -.25, p \ .001). To test

our Hypotheses 1a and 2–7, we used multiple regression

analysis, controlling for the effect of age, gender, marital

status, organizational tenure, organization size, and man-

agement level.

Hypothesis 1a predicted that POS-E and POS would be

positively related constructs. This hypothesis was sup-

ported (b = .37, p \ .001). Hypothesis 1b predicted that

POS-E and POS would be distinct constructs. Confirmatory

factor analysis (CFA) was used to test this hypothesis. We

compared the fit of two models: first, a model in which the

items associated with POS and POS-E loaded on their

intended factors and covariance among the factors was

estimated and second, a model in which the factor

covariance was set to 1.0. Acceptable fit is determined by a

CFI of .90 or higher, and an SRMR and RMSEA of .08 or

lower (Bentler 1990). The first model fit the data well

(X2 = 354.77, df = 169, CFI = .96, SRMR = .04, and

RMSEA = .06). The second model fit significantly worse

(DX2 (1, n = 342) = 27.05, X2 = 381.79, df = 170,

CFI = .94, SRMR = .18, and RMSEA = .06). Thus,

POS-E and POS appear to be distinct constructs, in support

of Hypothesis 1b.

Hypotheses 2, 3, 4, and 5, respectively, predicted that

POS-E would be positively related to OCB-E, job satis-

faction, and organizational identification, and negatively

related to turnover intention. Hypotheses 2-5 all received

support. That is, POS-E significantly related to OCB-E

(b = .25, p \ .001), job satisfaction (b = .28, p \ .001),

organizational identification (b = .32, p \ .001), and

turnover intention (b = -.21, p \ .001).

Hypothesis 6 predicted that POS-E would positively

relate to psychological empowerment. As expected, POS-E

was significantly related to psychological empowerment

(b = .26, p \ .001). Thus, Hypothesis 6 was supported.

Finally, Hypotheses 7a, 7b, 7c, and 7d predicted that

psychological empowerment would mediate the relation-

ship between POS-E and OCB-E, job satisfaction, organi-

zational identification, and turnover intention, respectively.

We used the procedure recommended by Baron and Kenny

(1986) to test for mediation. Hypothesis 6 established that

our independent variable, POS-E, was positively related to

the mediating variable, psychological empowerment. Next,

we examined whether psychological empowerment related

to the dependent variables of interest, controlling for POS-

E, in addition to the other control variables in the model.

We found that psychological empowerment was signifi-

cantly related to OCB-E (b = .19, p \ .05), job satisfac-

tion (b = .56, p \ .001), organizational identification

(b = .53, p \ .001), and turnover intention (b = -.32,

p \ .001). Finally, we investigated the relationship

between POS-E and the dependent variables of interest

after adding psychological empowerment to the model. The

relationship became less significant between POS-E and

OCB-E (b = .22, p \ .001), job satisfaction (b = .14,

p \ .01), organizational identification (b = .18, p \ .001),

and turnover intention (b = -.13, p \ .05). The Sobel

(1982) test for partial mediation was significant for all

hypothesized relationships (Z = 2.07, p \ .05; Z = 4.55,

p \ .001, Z = 4.52, p \ .001, Z = -3.77, all p \ .001 for

Hypotheses 7a, 7b, 7c, and 7d, respectively). These results

offer support for Hypotheses 7a, 7b, 7c, and 7d. That is,

psychological empowerment partially mediated the rela-

tionship between POS-E and OCB-E, job satisfaction,

organizational identification, and turnover intention. We

present the results of these hypotheses tests in Table 2.

Discussion

This paper introduces a new construct, POS-E and further

develops the emerging construct of OCB-E. We found that

POS-E positively related to OCB-E, job satisfaction and

organizational identification, and negatively related to

turnover intentions. Further, we established a psychological

mechanism behind these relationships, finding that psy-

chological empowerment partially mediated the relation-

ship between POS-E and these job attitudes and behaviors.

This study makes a number of theoretical contributions.

First, our findings extend existing research on the

E. Lamm et al.

123

Ta

ble

1D

escr

ipti

ve

stat

isti

cs,

coef

fici

ent

alp

has

,an

dze

ro-o

rder

corr

elat

ion

sfo

rst

ud

yv

aria

ble

s

Mea

nS

D1

23

45

67

89

10

11

12

1.

Per

ceiv

edo

rgan

izat

ion

alsu

pp

ort

tow

ard

the

env

iro

nm

ent

4.5

51

.15

0.7

3

2.

Per

ceiv

edo

rgan

izat

ion

alsu

pp

ort

4.7

81

.32

0.4

1*

**

0.9

6

3.

Org

aniz

atio

nal

citi

zen

ship

beh

avio

rto

war

dth

een

vir

on

men

t

5.5

01

.14

0.2

8*

**

0.0

30

.85

4.

Job

sati

sfac

tio

n5

.25

1.5

10

.33

**

*0

.76

**

*0

.05

0.9

3

5.

Org

aniz

atio

nal

iden

tifi

cati

on

4.7

71

.35

0.3

4*

**

0.6

2*

**

0.1

4*

*0

.64

**

*0

.89

6.

Tu

rno

ver

inte

nti

on

3.3

41

.68

-0

.25

**

*-

0.5

0*

**

-0

.06

-0

.64

**

*-

0.4

6*

**

0.8

8

7.

Psy

cho

log

ical

emp

ow

erm

ent

5.5

70

.93

0.3

3*

**

0.5

00

.18

**

0.6

0*

**

0.5

9*

**

-0

.42

**

*0

.88

8.

Gen

der

0.3

90

.49

-0

.14

**

-0

.03

-0

.15

**

0.0

30

.01

0.0

2-

0.0

5

9.

Ag

e3

4.4

31

1.3

50

.08

-0

.03

0.0

80

.11

*0

.12

**

-0

.29

**

*0

.30

**

*-

0.0

2

10

.M

arit

alst

atu

s0

.37

0.4

80

.10

0.0

40

.06

0.1

2*

0.1

0-

0.2

1*

**

0.1

9*

**

-0

.05

0.4

6*

**

11

.O

rgan

izat

ion

alte

nu

re6

.72

7.0

10

.11

*0

.00

0.0

00

.08

**

0.1

0-

0.2

3*

**

0.2

4*

**

-0

.05

0.6

3*

**

0.3

3*

**

12

.O

rgan

izat

ion

size

3.0

91

.96

0.0

2-

0.1

6*

*-

0.0

8-

0.0

6-

0.1

8*

**

-0

.07

-0

.04

0.0

30

.13

**

0.0

70

.13

*

13

.M

anag

eria

lle

vel

2.3

31

.44

0.0

60

.13

*-

0.0

40

.10

**

*0

.19

**

*-

0.0

90

.20

**

*0

.11

*0

.04

0.0

60

.09

**

-0

.14

**

Co

effi

cien

tal

ph

asar

eal

lal

on

gth

ed

iag

on

alin

bo

ld.

PO

S-E

,P

OS

,O

CB

-E,

job

sati

sfac

tio

n,

org

aniz

atio

nal

iden

tifi

cati

on

,tu

rno

ver

inte

nti

on

,an

dpsy

cho

log

ical

emp

ow

erm

ent

wer

eco

ded

1=

stro

ng

lyd

isag

ree

to7

=st

ron

gly

agre

e.A

ge

and

org

aniz

atio

nal

ten

ure

are

rep

ort

edin

yea

rs.

Gen

der

was

cod

ed1

=m

ale,

0=

fem

ale.

Mar

tial

stat

us

was

cod

ed1

=m

arri

ed,

0=

no

t

mar

ried

.O

rgan

izat

ion

size

was

cod

ed1

=le

ssth

an1

00

emp

loy

ees,

2=

10

1–

50

0,

3=

50

1–

10

00

,4

=1

00

1–

50

00

,5

=5

00

1–

10

00

0,

6=

gre

ater

than

10

00

0.

Man

ager

ial

lev

elw

asco

ded

1=

no

n-m

anag

emen

t,2

=lo

wer

man

agem

ent,

3=

mid

dle

man

agem

ent,

4=

up

per

man

agem

ent

*p\

.05

,*

*p\

.01

,*

**

p\

.00

1

Empowering Employee Sustainability

123

Ta

ble

2M

ult

iple

reg

ress

ion

resu

lts

for

hy

po

thes

este

sts

Sta

nd

ard

ized

ba

Org

aniz

atio

nal

citi

zen

ship

beh

avio

rto

war

dth

e

env

iro

nm

ent

Job

sati

sfac

tio

nO

rgan

izat

ion

al

iden

tifi

cati

on

Tu

rno

ver

inte

nti

on

Psy

cho

log

ical

emp

ow

erm

ent

H2

H7

aH

3H

7b

H4

H7

cH

5H

7d

H6

Co

ntr

ol

var

iab

les

Gen

der

-0

.11

*-

0.1

1*

0.0

90

.09

*0

.06

0.0

6-

0.0

3-

0.0

30

.00

Ag

e0

.16

0.1

40

.08

-0

.07

0.1

2-

0.0

3-

0.2

1*

*-

0.1

30

.26

**

*

Mar

ital

stat

us

0.0

10

.00

0.0

80

.06

*0

.02

0.0

0-

0.0

6-

0.0

50

.03

Org

aniz

atio

nal

ten

ure

-0

.13

-0

.13

-0

.01

-0

.03

0.0

2-

0.0

1-

0.0

5-

0.0

40

.04

**

Org

aniz

atio

nsi

ze-

0.1

0-

0.0

9-

0.0

8-

0.0

4-

0.1

7*

*-

0.1

3*

*-

0.0

3-

0.0

5-

0.0

7

Man

ager

ial

lev

el-

0.0

8-

0.1

00

.05

-0

.04

0.1

3*

0.0

4-

0.0

8-

0.0

30

.15

**

Ind

epen

den

tv

aria

ble

s

Per

ceiv

edo

rgan

izat

ion

al

sup

po

rtto

war

dth

een

vir

on

men

t

0.2

5*

**

0.2

2*

**

0.2

8*

**

0.1

4*

*0

.32

**

*0

.18

**

*-

0.2

1*

**

-0

.13

*0

.26

**

*

Psy

cho

log

ical

emp

ow

erm

ent

0.1

9*

0.5

6*

**

0.5

3*

**

-0

.32

**

*

Fst

atis

tic

4.9

5*

**

4.7

4*

**

5.6

5*

**

22

.51

**

*9

.22

**

*2

5.8

9*

**

7.6

6*

**

11

.51

**

*1

1.7

3*

**

Ad

just

edR

20

.08

0.1

10

.09

0.3

50

.15

0.3

80

.13

0.2

10

.19

*p\

.05

,*

*p\

.01

,*

**

p\

.00

1a

Sta

nd

ard

erro

rsra

ng

edfr

om

.00

to.1

9

E. Lamm et al.

123

sustainability behaviors of organizations to the understud-

ied individual employee level. Specifically, we introduce a

novel contextual factor, POS-E, that relates to discretionary

sustainability behaviors by employees. Second, our paper

finds that, for employees who value environmental sus-

tainability, perceptions that an organization values sus-

tainable behavior at work will not only associated with

sustainable behaviors, but also with positive job attitudes.

Thus, POS-E is a unique source of boosting job satisfaction

and organizational identification while lowering turnover

intentions. These findings also suggest that organizations

experience significant benefits when appearing to support

actions benefiting the environment.

A third contribution of this study is the finding that

psychological empowerment partially mediates the rela-

tionship between POS-E and job attitudes and behaviors.

While other studies have found relationships between

psychological empowerment and OCBs in general, our

research suggests that psychological empowerment relates

to OCB-E as well. Further, psychological empowerment

was the mechanism through which POS-E related to other

beneficial employee-level outcomes. This result expands

our understanding of the antecedents and consequences of

psychological empowerment.

The management implications of these findings are

wide. As the public increasingly expects organizations to

contribute to environmental sustainability, our findings

indicate that employees who have opportunities to act in

accordance with environmental goals and values will be

more satisfied with their jobs, will identify more strongly

with their organizations, and will be less likely to intend to

leave their jobs. Further, since the outcomes of POS-E

appear to be beneficial for organizations and employees,

managers should consider ways to increase employees’

perceptions that the organization supports their environ-

mental values and goals. For example, by providing

employees with information about the environmental

impacts of different activities, managers can signal greater

support for sustainable behaviors. The result could be a

more empowered and satisfied workforce.

Managers might also consider using the POS-E scale

measure used in this survey to assess their employees’

current perceptions of POS-E. Findings could lead orga-

nizations to expend further effort in demonstrating support

for sustainable behaviors, perhaps through simple additions

to training and communication. Managers could also

strengthen the conditions for empowerment by increasing

opportunities for autonomous, significant, and interdepen-

dent voluntary sustainability-oriented behaviors. For

example, supporting informal group interactions and giving

employees time to develop new ideas related to sustain-

ability may empower employees to embrace voluntary

environmental initiatives across the organization. In

summary, our findings suggest that managers should

explore a range of possible strategies to increase POS-E, to

benefit from the resultant increase in psychological

empowerment, OCB-E, job satisfaction, organizational

identification, and reduced turnover intention.

Limitations and Future Directions

This study has a number of limitations. First, our argument

takes an inherently positive view toward sustainability. We

acknowledge that OCB-Es are discretionary behaviors and

therefore may temporarily take employees away from their

core job responsibilities. It is presumed that any produc-

tivity loss in terms of in-role tasks will be more than made

up for with extra-role tasks, but that may not always be the

case. If behaving sustainability disrupts critical productiv-

ity cycles, or thought-processes, the ‘‘sustainable’’ savings

may not offset the potential productivity losses. Future

research should address the boundary conditions associated

with the findings reported here.

Second, the data that we collected were self-reported

and taken at one point in time, which prevented us from

testing causality. In the future, researchers should employ

different methods, such as longitudinal or experimental

studies, to test the precise causal linkages between the

variables under consideration. Also, future researchers

might utilize third-party reports of OCB-Es to test whether

these findings hold true when behaviors are observed.

Another limitation relates to the possibility of common

method variance, which may occur with single-source,

cross-sectional data (Podsakoff et al. 2003). In order to

minimize this bias, we utilized the recommended proce-

dure of separating the survey into different sections for

independent and dependent variables, to prevent respon-

dents from cognitively grouping all of the responses into

the same category (Podsakoff et al. 2003).

Third, the sampling methodology employed could be

subject to certain biases. First, the use of a snowball

sampling method to find respondents creates the possibility

that respondents may have forwarded the survey link to

people who are similar to themselves in terms of their

beliefs about sustainability. In an effort to reduce this bias,

we did not mention sustainability in the recruitment email

and titled the survey ‘‘Work Attitudes and Behaviors Sur-

vey’’ to recruit a broad cross section of respondents. Sec-

ond, another possible bias may have arisen through the use

of online social media, since respondents received the

survey via email and re-sent it out freely. The concern

would be that the distribution method may have resulted in

a bias of younger and more technologically adept Internet

users. However, the demographics of the survey respon-

dents indicated that these biases were not substantial given

that our sample was varied in both age and family status.

Empowering Employee Sustainability

123

Despite this variability in participants’ backgrounds, future

studies should re-test our proposed model with probability

sampling techniques.

Fourth, it is likely that POS-E relates to additional

variables that were not included in this study. In order to

further develop the emerging constructs of POS-E and

OCB-E, researchers should test additional related vari-

ables. Future research should also further test the rela-

tionship between POS-E and empowerment to understand

how this relationship varies with personality type, mana-

gerial style, and organizational context. This information

would help managers understand how to best increase

POS-E in different contexts, and for different employees.

In addition, multi-level studies which examine how indi-

vidual OCB-Es are related to organization-level anteced-

ents and outcomes would help both researchers and

practitioners understand how these levels can be coordi-

nated to improve performance and to achieve sustainability

goals. Future investigations should examine how the

organization’s policies, procedures, reputation, norms,

leadership, strategy, and design factors influence POS-E as

well as enhance or inhibit individual-level OCB-Es.

Including team-level factors, such as group norms and

social pressure, would add another level of nuance and

understanding to this area.

Fifth, the OCB-E measure used in this study was chosen

to assess individual-level behaviors that employees could

perform every day to advance sustainability in the work-

place. There are many discrete discretionary behaviors

employees could perform at work that we have not cap-

tured, such as bicycling or carpooling to offsite meetings.

In addition, a wide range of behaviors were not assessed,

ranging from indirect behaviors to influence other people,

to learning new skills which may be used to reduce an

organization’s environmental impact. Future studies might

employ an expanded measurement scale that captures a

wider range of OCB-Es, congruent with emerging typolo-

gies designed to encompass the entirety of OCB-E

behaviors (e.g., Boiral and Paille 2012; Smith and O’Sul-

livan 2012).

Finally, managers are increasingly striving to measure

and reward behaviors they would like to achieve, and

sustainability behaviors will likely be increasingly

included as goals in coming years (Lacy et al. 2010). As

organizations respond to changing public expectations

about their responsibility to the environment and broader

society, sustainability will likely become increasingly

formalized and centralized within organizations. As more

employees’ jobs will be designed to focus on these issues,

POS-E will become more important to understand how

extra-role and in-role behaviors are related. While the

definition of OCB-E currently precludes rewarded

behaviors, some definitions of OCB recognize that extra-

role behaviors are at times rewarded, and there is latitude

within the OCB framework to explore the relationship

between voluntary environmental behaviors and formal

rewards. Studying this relationship with OCB-Es would

further illuminate employees’ underlying motivations for

performing environmental behaviors, and help managers

to develop environmental conditions where employees

will feel empowered to proactively engage in sustain-

ability behaviors.

Corporations vary in the degree to which their sustain-

ability initiatives have been institutionalized, and in the

factors that initially motivated these initiatives (Rupp et al.

2010). Likewise, if employees are motivated to perform

OCB-Es as a result of feeling empowered, then it might

backfire if managers try to require such behaviors in the

workplace. These considerations need to be taken into

account and tested during the design of employee

engagement and sustainability initiatives.

Conclusion

Organizations are increasingly tasked with finding ways to

improve their triple bottom-line performance. Due to the

ongoing and often significant environmental impacts that

result from organizations’ daily activities, employees have

an important role to play in helping companies increase

their overall sustainability. This paper makes an important

contribution to understanding how perceptions of organi-

zational support toward the environment relate signifi-

cantly to employee attitudes and behaviors, including

discretionary sustainability behaviors. The results further

suggest that perceptions of organizational support toward

sustainability can psychologically empower employees,

which in turn results in positive implications for individ-

uals, organizations, and the environment.

Appendix

Perceived Organizational Support toward the Environment

(POS-E) Scale Items

The following statements ask about behaviors and atti-

tudes at work. Please consider the place where you cur-

rently work. Indicate how much you agree or disagree with

the following statements. All items were rated on a 7-point

scale, (1) Strongly Disagree, (2) Disagree, (3) Somewhat

Disagree, (4) Neither Agree nor Disagree, (5) Somewhat

Agree, (6) Agree, and (7) Strongly Agree, or Not

Applicable.

1. I feel that I am able to behave as sustainably as I want

to at the organization where I currently work.

E. Lamm et al.

123

2. My organization does not care about whether I behave

in a sustainable manner or not. (reverse-scored)

3. My organization provides an incentive for me to

reduce the use of non-renewable resources.

4. I do not feel that I make a positive environmental

impact through work at my organization. (reverse-

scored)

5. My actions toward sustainability are appreciated by

my organization.

References

Aguilera, R. V., Rupp, D. E., Williams, C. A., & Ganapathi, J. (2007).

Putting the S back in corporate social responsibility: A

multilevel theory of social change in organizations. Academy

of Management Review, 32, 836–863.

Aguinis, H., & Glavas, A. (2012). What we know and don’t know

about corporate social responsibility: A review and research

agenda. Journal of Management, 38, 932–968.

Andersson, L. M., & Bateman, T. S. (2000). Individual environmental

initiative: Championing natural environmental issues in U.S.

business organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 43,

548–570.

Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the

organization. Academy of Management Review, 14, 20.

Baker, R. (2012, April 10). Unilever to crowdsource sustainability.

Retrieved from http://www.marketingweek.co.uk/news/unilever-to-

crowdsource-sustainability/4001074.article. Accessed 14 Feb 2014.

Baltes, B., Zhdanova, L., & Clark, M. (2011). Examining the

relationships between personality, coping strategies, and work-

family conflict. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26,

517–530.

Bamberg, S., & Moser, G. (2007). Twenty years after Hines,

Hungerford, and Tomera: A new meta-analysis of psycho-social

determinants of pro-environmental behavior. Journal of Envi-

ronmental Psychology, 27, 14–25.

Bansal, P. (2003). From issues to actions: The importance of

individual concerns and organizational values in responding

to natural environmental issues. Organization Science, 14,

510–527.

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, 1173–1182.

Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models.

Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246.

Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New Brunswick,

NJ: Transaction Books.

Boiral, O. (2009). Greening the corporation through organizational

citizenship behaviors. Journal of Business Ethics, 87, 221–236.

Boiral, O., & Paille, P. (2012). Organizational citizenship behaviour

for the environment: Measurement and validation. Journal of

Business Ethics, 109, 431–445.

Bozeman, D. P., & Perrewe, P. L. (2001). The effect of item content

overlap on organizational commitment questionnaire-turnover

cognitions relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86,

161–173.

Caldwell, S. D., Herold, D. M., & Fedor, D. B. (2004). Toward and

understanding of the relationships among organizational change,

individual differences, and changes in person-environment fit: A

cross-level study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 868–882.

Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, D., & Klesh, J. (1983).

Assessing the attitudes and perceptions of organizational mem-

bers. In S. Seashore, E. Lawler, P. Mirvis, & C. Cammann

(Eds.), Assessing organizational change: A guide to methods,

measures and practices (p. 84). New York: Wiley.

Chen, X. P. (2005). Organizational citizenship behavior: A predictor

of employee voluntary turnover. In D. L. Turnipseed (Ed.),

Handbook of organizational citizenship behavior (pp. 435–454).

New York, NY: Nova Science.

Chen, X. P., Hui, C., & Sego, D. J. (1998). The role of organizational

citizenship behavior in turnover: Conceptualization and pre-

liminary tests of key hypotheses. Journal of Applied Psychology,

83, 922–931.

Chou, S. Y., & Pearson, J. M. (2012). Organizational citizenship

behavior in IT professionals: An expectancy theory approach.

Management Research Review, 35, 1170–1186.

Daily, B. F., Bishop, J. W., & Govindarajulu, N. (2009). A conceptual

model for organizational citizenship behavior directed toward

the environment. Business and Society, 48, 243–256.

Dries, N., Pepermans, R., & De Kerpel, E. (2008). Exploring four

generations’ beliefs about career. Journal of Managerial

Psychology, 23, 907–928.

Dunlap, R., Van Liere, K., Mertig, A., & Jones, R. E. (2000).

Measuring endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm: A

revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 425–442.

Egri, C. P., & Herman, S. (2000). Leadership in the North American

environmental sector: Values, leadership styles, and contexts of

environmental leaders and their organizations. Academy of

Management Journal, 43, 571–604.

Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchinson, S., & Sowa, D. (1986).

Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychol-

ogy, 71, 500–507.

Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA:

Stanford University Press.

Fielding, K. S., Terry, D. J., Masser, B. M., & Hogg, M. A. (2008).

Integrating social identity theory and the theory of planned

behaviour to explain decisions to engage in sustainable agricul-

tural practices. British Journal of Social Psychology, 47(1),

23–48.

Galpin, T., & Whittington, J. L. (2012). Sustainability leadership:

From strategy to results. Journal of Business Strategy, 33(4),

40–48.

Haugh, H. M., & Talwar, A. (2010). How do corporations embed

sustainability across the organization? Academy of Management

Learning & Education, 9, 384–396.

He, H., & Li, Y. (2011). CSR and service brand: The mediating effect

of brand identification and moderating effect of service quality.

Journal of Business Ethics, 100, 673–688.

Jaramillo, F., Mulki, J. P., & Solomon, P. (2006). The role of ethical

climate on salesperson’s role stress, job attitudes, turnover

intention, and job performance. Journal of Personal Selling &

Sales Management, 26(3), 271–282.

Jenkin, T. A., McShane, L., & Webster, J. (2011). Green information

technologies and systems: Employees perceptions’ of organiza-

tional practices. Business and Society, 50, 266–314.

Jung, J. (2012). As Wal-Mart greens. Institutional Investor-Interna-

tional Edition, 37(3), 34–72.

Kim, H.-R., Lee, M., Lee, H.-T., & Kim, N.-M. (2010). Corporate

social responsibility and employee–company identification.

Journal of Business Ethics, 95, 557–569.

Koh, H. C., & Boo, E. H. Y. (2001). The link between organizational

ethics and job satisfaction: A study of managers in Singapore.

Journal of Business Ethics, 29, 309–324.

Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005).

Consequences of individuals’ fit at work: A meta-analysis of

Empowering Employee Sustainability

123

person-job, person-organization, person-group, and person-

supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58, 281–342.

Lacy, P., Cooper, T., Hayward, R., & Neuberger, L. (2010). A new era

of sustainability: UN Global Compact-Accenture CEO Study

2010. Retrieved from http://www.unglobalcompact.org/docs/news_

events/8.1/UNGC_Accenture_CEO_Study_2010.pdf. Accessed 14

Feb 2014.

Lamm, E., & Meeks, M. (2009). Workplace fun: The moderating effects

of generational differences. Employee Relations, 31, 613–631.

Lamm, E., Tosti-Kharas, J., & Williams, E. (2013). Read this article but

don’t print it: Organizational citizenship behavior toward the

environment. Group and Organization Management, 38(2), 163–197.

Liu, Y. (2008). Perceived organizational support and expatriate organi-

zational citizenship behavior. Personnel Review, 38, 307–319.

Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A

partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identi-

fication. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(2), 103–123.

Maynard, M. T., Gilson, L. L., & Mathieu, J. E. (2012). Empower-

ment-fad or fab? A multilevel review of the past two decades of

research. Journal of Management, 38, 1231–1281.

Miel, R. (2012, May 23). Ford standardizing sustainability plans.

Retrieved from http://www.plasticsnews.com/headlines2.html?id=

25533. Accessed 14 Feb 2014.

Morales, A. (2012, October 22). Ikea more than doubles renewable-

energy spending as costs climb. Retrieved from http://www.

businessweek.com/news/2012-10-22/ikea-more-than-doubles-renew

able-energy-spending-as-costs-climb. Accessed 14 Feb 2014.

Mossholder, K. W., Settoon, R. P., & Henagan, S. C. (2005). A

relational perspective on turnover: Examining structural, attitu-

dinal, and behavioral predictors. Academy of Management

Journal, 48, 607–618.

Mudrack, P. (2007). Individual personality factors that affect

normative beliefs about the rightness of corporate social

responsibility. Business and Society, 46, 33–62.

Mulki, J. P., Jaramillo, F., & Locander, W. B. (2006). Effects of

ethical climate and supervisory trust on salesperson’s job

attitudes and intentions to quit. Journal of Personal Selling &

Sales Management, 26(1), 19–26.

Mulki, J. P., Jaramillo, J. F., & Locander, W. B. (2008). Effect of

ethical climate on turnover intention: Linking attitudinal-and

stress theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 78(4), 559–574.

Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & McKenzie, S. B. (2006).

Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature, antecedents, and

consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Podsakoff, N. P., Blume, B. D., Whiting, S. W., & Podsakoff, P. M.

(2009). Individual- and organizational-level consequences of

organizational citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 94, 122–141.

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, 879–903.

Ramus, C. A., & Killmer, A. B. C. (2007). Corporate greening

through prosocial extrarole behaviours: A conceptual framework

for employee motivation. Business Strategy and the Environ-

ment, 16, 554–570.

Ramus, C. A., & Steger, U. (2000). The roles of supervisory support

behaviors and environmental policy in employee ‘‘ecoinitiatives’’ at

leading-edge European companies. Academy of Management

Journal, 43, 605–626.

Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational

support: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychol-ogy, 87, 698–714.

Rhoades, L., Eisenberger, R., & Armeli, S. (2001). Affective

commitment to the organization: The contribution of perceived

organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86,

825–836.

Ruiz-Palomino, P., Martinez-Canas, R., & Fontrodona, J. (2013). Ethical

culture and employee outcomes: The mediating role of person-

organization fit. Journal of Business Ethics, 116, 173–188.

Rupp, D. E., Williams, C. A., & Aguilera, R. V. (2010). Increasing

corporate social responsibility through stakeholder value inter-

nalization (and the catalyzing effect of new governance): An

application of organizational justice, self-determination, and

social influence theories. In M. Schminke (Ed.), Managerial

ethics: Managing the psychology of morality (pp. 69–88). New

York, NY: Routledge.

Schaltegger, S., Berkmann, M., & Hansen, E. G. (2013). Transdis-

ciplinarity in corporate sustainability: Mapping the field. Busi-

ness Strategy and the Environment, 22, 219–229.

Scott, A. (2012, April 11). P&G shares sustainability scorecard

with rivals. Retrieved from http://www.supplymanagement.

com/news/2012/pg-shares-sustainability-scorecard-with-rivals/.

Accessed 14 Feb 2014.

Seibert, S. E., Wang, G., & Courtright, S. H. (2011). Antecedents and

consequences of psychological and team empowerment in

organizations: A meta-analysis review. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 96, 981–1003.

Senge, P. M., Smith, B., Kruschwitz, N., Laur, J., & Schley, S. (2008).

The necessary revolution: How individuals and organizations

are working together to create a sustainable world. London:

Nicholas Brealey.

Smith, A. M., & O’Sullivan, T. (2012). Environmentally responsible

behaviour in the workplace: An internal social marketing

approach. Journal of Marketing Management, 28, 469–493.

Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic intervals for indirect effects in

structural equations models. In S. Leinhart (Ed.), Sociological

methodology (pp. 290–312). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the work-

place: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of

Management Journal, 38, 1442–1465.

Starik, M., & Rands, G. P. (1995). Weaving an integrated web:

Multilevel and multisystem perspectives of ecologically sustainable

organizations. Academy of Management Review, 20, 908–935.

Stern, P. C. (2000). Toward a coherent theory of environmentally

significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 407–424.

Thomas, T. E., & Lamm, E. (2012). Legitimacy and organizational

sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics, 110, 191–203.

Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Perceived organizational

support and leader-member exchange: A social exchange perspective.

Academy of Management Journal, 40, 82–111.

Zhu, W., Sosik, J. J., & Riggio, R. E. (2012). Relationships between

transformational and active transactional leadership and follow-

ers’ organizational identification: The role of psychological

empowerment. Journal of Behavioral & Applied Management,

13(3), 186–212.

E. Lamm et al.

123