linking environmental management practices and
TRANSCRIPT
This article was downloaded by: [Universite Laval]On: 15 April 2013, At: 06:28Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
The International Journal of HumanResource ManagementPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rijh20
Linking environmental managementpractices and organizational citizenshipbehaviour for the environment: a socialexchange perspectivePascal Paillé a , Olivier Boiral a & Yang Chen ba Department of Management, Université Laval, Quebec, Canadab School of Business Administration, Southwestern University ofFinance and Economics, Chengdu, ChinaVersion of record first published: 14 Apr 2013.
To cite this article: Pascal Paillé , Olivier Boiral & Yang Chen (2013): Linking environmentalmanagement practices and organizational citizenship behaviour for the environment: asocial exchange perspective, The International Journal of Human Resource Management,DOI:10.1080/09585192.2013.777934
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2013.777934
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Linking environmental management practices and organizationalcitizenship behaviour for the environment: a social exchange
perspective
Pascal Paillea*, Olivier Boirala and Yang Chenb
aDepartment of Management, Universite Laval, Quebec, Canada; bSchool of BusinessAdministration, Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, Chengdu, China
This paper reports a field study on the relationship between environmental managementpractices and organizational citizenship behaviour for the environment via exchangeprocess (i.e. perceived superior support, perceived organizational support andemployee commitment). Results from a survey conducted with 407 employees fromseveral organizations suggest that employee is more likely to make extra environmentalefforts if he/she perceives that the organization supports his/her supervisor by grantinghim/her the decision-making latitude and necessary resources to engage in pro-environmental behaviour.
Keywords: employee commitment; environmental management; green behaviours;perceived support; pro-environmental behaviour; workplace
Introduction
In business organizations, environmental commitment is generally associated with a range
of more or less formal environmental management practices (EMPs), such as the
development of an environmental policy, the definition of environmental objectives, the
adoption of a management system (e.g. ISO 14001) and the publication of reports on
sustainable development (Christmann 2000; Bansal and Bogner 2002; Ramus and Montiel
2005; Darnall and Edwards 2006; Boiral 2011). EMPs are generally considered to be
essential and can significantly improve the environmental and economic performance of
organizations (Christmann 2000; Corbett and Cutler 2000; Perez, Amichai-Hamburger
and Shterental 2009; Boiral 2011). However, EMPs may not be sufficient to deal with the
complexity of environmental issues, since their effectiveness largely depends on informal
voluntary initiatives that are difficult to control (Ramus and Killmer 2007; Boiral 2009;
Daily, Bishop and Govindarajulu 2009). Environmental actions in organizations are often
based on individual discretionary initiatives taken independently of formal management
systems. Initiatives in this area include suggestions for improving eco-efficiency, paper
recycling, water and electricity savings and carpooling. In addition, the success of
environmental programmes and activities presupposes the support and voluntary
engagement of employees. Voluntary support can take a variety of forms, including
participation in recycling programmes, involvement in environment committees and
employee contribution to pollution prevention measures (Hanna, Newman and Johnson
2000; Jiang and Bansal 2003; Boiral 2007; Perez et al. 2009). Finally, the complex
interdisciplinary nature of environmental issues generally not only requires team work,
q 2013 Taylor & Francis
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 2013
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2013.777934
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ite L
aval
] at
06:
28 1
5 A
pril
2013
collaboration and mutual support, which depend on EMPs, but also involves collaboration
between different services to resolve environmental problems and incentives to adopt
more pro-environmental behaviours (among other things) (Boiral 2009; Daily et al. 2009).
As suggested by a number of authors (Boiral 2009; Daily et al. 2009), voluntary
initiatives in this area can be viewed as a form of organizational citizenship behaviour
(OCB) applied to environmental issues (OCBE). OCB is generally 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, Podsakoff and MacKenzie 2006, p. 3). OCBEs can therefore be
defined as individual discretionary behaviours that supplement formal EMPs and
contribute to the efficiency of environmental measures. The inclusion of EMPs and
OCBEs in the analysis of environmental commitment provides a more global view of
environmental actions by taking into account both formal and informal dimensions.
The purpose of this study is to analyse the relationships between EMPs and OCBEs
with a view to improving our understanding of the factors that promote voluntary
environmental initiatives among employees. The more specific objective is to examine
how EMPs can influence OCBEs on the basis of the conceptual framework of social
exchange theory (SET). Cropanzano and Mitchell (2005) argued that SET provides strong
theoretical and empirical arguments for examining various types of behaviour in the
workplace, including job performance, desire to quit and absenteeism (among others).
Schaninger and Turnipseed (2005) noted that social exchange is based on the norm of
reciprocity and occurs when employees respond effectively to a donor (e.g. organization,
supervisor or colleague) who provides something that is deemed to have value. Give and
take between individuals in the workplace forms the basis of exchange relationships
(Schaninger and Turnipseed 2005). Therefore, the combined perception of supervisor
support and organizational support can be assumed to play a key role in stimulating
employee commitment (EC), voluntary initiatives and extra efforts in the environmental
domain. Two conceptual papers have already underlined this relationship. Daily et al.
(2009) and Ramus and Killmer (2007) sought to account for the conditions of emergence
of OCBEs by proposing models based on key variables of SET. The model proposed by
Daily et al. (2009) posits that supervisor support for environmental efforts plays a key role
in the emergence of OCBEs: ‘The norm of reciprocity and social exchange theory suggests
that supervisor value and support for proenvironmental behavior is related to OCBE’ (p. 8).
In exchange for the (implicit) consideration of their supervisor, employees may engage in
eco-initiatives that meet or exceed the supervisor’s expectations, even though OCBEs are
not directly or explicitly recognized by the organization/company (or formal reward
system; see Organ et al. 2006). The conceptual model proposed by Ramus and Killmer
(2007) also emphasizes the important role of supervisor support in promoting the
emergence of OCBEs, without, however, referring explicitly to the SET framework.
However, the relationships highlighted in both models remain hypothetical and require
empirical validation. Both models also ignore the possible role of EMPs in the emergence
of employee pro-environmental behaviour and are limited to informal factors in
accounting for OCBEs, such as supervisor support, environmental concern and individual
employee motivation. Generally speaking, the literature on OCBEs and their determinants
remains embryonic and speculative despite the importance of eco-initiatives for improving
corporate environmental practices and performance (Ramus and Killmer 2007; Boiral
2009; Daily et al. 2009; Perez et al. 2009).
This study makes two significant contributions to the emerging literature on this issue.
First, the study examines the links between the literature on environmental management
P. Paille et al.2
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ite L
aval
] at
06:
28 1
5 A
pril
2013
and SET in order to improve our understanding of the possible determinants of OCBEs and
to verify a number of hypotheses. Second, the study presents a model aimed at
highlighting the complex relationships between EMPs, OCBEs and variables associated
with SET. These relationships are particularly useful for analysing the extent to which
EMPs contribute to factors that are considered to be essential in the general management
of human resources: perceived supervisor support (PSS), perceived organizational support
(POS) and EC to the organization. This paper is organized as follows. First, the theoretical
background is presented based on a model that includes the main variables of the study and
their hypothesized relationships. The methodology and the main results are then presented.
Finally, the discussion section focuses on the main contributions of the study and suggests
avenues for further research.
Theoretical background and hypotheses
EMPs can be defined as formal practices aimed at integrating environmental concerns in
organizational management and at providing stakeholders with tangible evidence of the
environmental commitment of the organization, including the implementation of an
environmental policy, the adoption of ISO-norm 14001 and environmental reporting. The
economic benefits (savings, innovation, etc.), environmental benefits (pollution prevention
and waste minimization) and social benefits (improved image, relationships with
stakeholders, etc.) of EMPs have been widely reported in the literature (Russo and Fouts
1997; Christmann 2000; Roy, Boiral and Lagace 2001; Delmas and Toffel 2004).
However, the effects of EMPs on human resource management (HRM), and in particular
on EC to the organization and OCBEs, have been largely or entirely ignored. The effects
of EMPs are not necessarily direct. According to SET, PSS and POS play a key role in
determining EC and voluntary employee initiatives (Cropanzano and Mitchell 2005).
Figure 1 summarizes the relationships between these variables and the different
hypotheses associated with the variables.
Environmental management practices, employee commitment and OCBE
The potential benefits of EMPs for EC can represent a key challenge in efforts to foster the
(internal) involvement of employees and sustain/improve the triple bottom line, i.e.
economic, environmental and social performances. Employee commitment to the
organization reflects the extent to which an employee is tied to the employer. Affective
commitment to the organization reflects a desire of affiliation (O’Reilly and Chatman
+ +Perceived superior support
++ +
Perceived organizational support+
+ +Organizational commitment
+
Environmentalmanagement
practices
Organizationalcitizenship
behaviour forthe environment
Figure 1. Research model.
The International Journal of Human Resource Management 3
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ite L
aval
] at
06:
28 1
5 A
pril
2013
1986) and an emotional attachment (Allen and Meyer 1990), and refers to a psychological
state whereby the employee shares the values of the organization and adheres to its
objectives (Mowday, Steers and Porter 1979). The greater the convergence between the
employee’s values and objectives and the values and objectives of the organization, the
higher the level of EC. The literatures on HRM and organizational behaviour (OB) have
provided evidence to suggest that the greater the fit between the values and objectives of
employees and those of the employer, the greater the likelihood that work outcomes will
contribute to organizational performance. On the basis of previous meta-analytic findings
relating to commitment to the organization (e.g. Mathieu and Zajac 1990; Meyer, Stanley,
Herscovitch and Topolnysky 2002), committed employees appear to be less prone to
withdrawing voluntarily in terms of low employee lateness, low absenteeism and low
desire to leave. Committed employees are also more likely to work hard in terms of job
performance and extra efforts and less likely to develop counterproductive behaviours,
such as non-ethical behaviour, sabotage and theft. Therefore, an important challenge for
employers is to implement effective management practices aimed at fostering a high level
of EC.
EMPs can help to achieve this objective, although their contribution has been largely
overlooked in the literature. First, environmental measures increase the social legitimacy
of organizations and help to meet the expectations of stakeholders (Corbett and Cutler
2000; Delmas 2001; Jiang and Bansal 2003; Christmann and Taylor 2006; Boiral 2007).
Employees represent one of the main stakeholders and are therefore directly concerned by
organizational commitment to the environment (Fernandez, Junquera and Ordiz 2003;
Boiral 2009; Perez et al. 2009). In view of the growing concern for environmental issues
among employees (Hoffman 1993), it seems reasonable to posit that EMPs may support a
relative fit between organizational values and individual values, thereby contributing to
improving the image of the organization, employee adherence to the objectives of the
organization and employee motivation and commitment, as speculated by Hoffman
(1993). Second, the implementation of EMPs can contribute to improving corporate social
performance (CSP) (Global Reporting Initiative 2006; Schwartz and Carroll 2008), thus
increasing EC. The relationship between perceived CSP and commitment to the
organization is well documented (see, for example, Peterson 2004; Brammer, Millington
and Rayton 2007; Turker 2009; Stites and Michael 2011). SET has addressed this issue by
examining the exchange process underlying EC and corporate social practices. For
example, Perterson (2004) found an increase of commitment to the organization when
employees perceived that their employer showed a concern for social issues by complying
with ethical commitments (i.e. economical, legal, ethical and discretionary responsi-
bilities). Brammer et al. (2007) examined CSP from two perspectives: first in terms of
external CSP (i.e. external image and employer reputation), and second in terms of internal
CSP (i.e. perceived procedural justice and training). Brammer et al. (2007) found that both
external and internal CSPs had a positive impact on organizational commitment. Though
interesting, these studies examined CSP in terms of community and not in terms of
environmental issues. Stites and Michael (2011) proposed to take into account both
community- and environmentally-related CSPs. Based on their findings, perceived
corporate social and environmental performance appears to play a similar role in
determining commitment to the organization. Stites and Michael (2011) found that both
environmental practices and corporate social responsibility are related to EC to the
organization. Therefore, the following relationship is expected.
Hypothesis 1: EMP and commitment to the organization (EC) are positively related.
P. Paille et al.4
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ite L
aval
] at
06:
28 1
5 A
pril
2013
The efficiency of EMPs is not only dependent on formal management systems and
managers’ decisions, but also governed by more informal and discretionary factors related
to employee behaviours (Andersson and Bateman 2000; Walley and Stubbs 2000; Daily
et al. 2009). The success of EMPs is largely based on voluntary employee participation,
such as employee involvement in recycling programmes and green committees.
Employees may also operate independently of EMPs by suggesting ideas or innovative
solutions for reducing the environmental impact of their activities in their work
environment, such as changes in products or procedures and the identification of new
pollution sources (Ramus and Steger 2000; Ramus 2001; Ramus and Killmer 2007).
Voluntary and discretionary environmental behaviour of this kind can be likened to a form
of OCB (Boiral 2009; Daily et al. 2009; Perez et al. 2009).
Over the last decade, OCB has emerged as an important outcome of commitment to the
organization. Previous literature reviews and meta-analyses have shown that commitment
to the organization and OCB are positively related, suggesting that a high level of
commitment to the organization increases the willingness to cooperate by making extra
efforts beyond the duties and requirements of the job (Organ and Ryan 1995; LePine, Erez,
and Johnson 2002; Hoffman, Blair, Meriac and Woehr 2007). If such behaviours are not
rewarded with traditional methods, why would employees display extra efforts beyond
their duties? The OCB literature has addressed this issue from an SET perspective (Organ
et al. 2006). For example, consistent with the premises of SET, Konovsky and Pugh (1994)
argued that for a given employee, OCBs reflect a repayment in exchange for fair treatment
by the employer.
A similar underlying process can be expected when the employer is committed to the
environment and implements EMPs. Because environmental protection is a major social
concern, including within the organization, EMPs meet social expectations and increase
employee satisfaction (Hoffman 1993). From this perspective, EMPs can encourage OCBE
in response to organizational commitment in this area. Daily et al. (2009, p. 246) defined
OCBE as ‘discretionary acts by employees within the organization not rewarded or required
that are directed toward environmental improvement’. Although OCBEs are discretionary,
EMPs can send a positive signal in favour of employee environmental initiatives.
The findings of the study by Perez et al. (2009) based on research conducted in ISO
14001 firms provide evidence for this relationship. The study found that EMPs related to
ISO 14001 implementation increased both the level of EC to the organization and OCBE.
On the basis of previous environmental management studies, Daily et al. (2009)
hypothesized that organizational commitment to the environment and OCBE (Proposition
2 in their paper) are positively related and that perceived performance in this area is
positively related to commitment to the organization (Proposition 3). Although Daily et al.
(2009) did not explore this issue, their propositions suggest that commitment to the
organization can mediate the relationship between perceived CSP and OCBE. Therefore,
based on previous findings, the following relationships are expected.
Hypothesis 2: EMP and OCBE are positively related.
Hypothesis 3: Commitment to the organization and OCBE are positively related.
Environmental management practices and foci of support
Blau (1964) suggested that social support is an important input for the social exchange
process among entities involved in a given relationship. Social approval and intrinsic
attraction are defined by Blau as two key mechanisms. First, people need the approbation
The International Journal of Human Resource Management 5
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ite L
aval
] at
06:
28 1
5 A
pril
2013
of others to justify their actions, decisions or gestures, and second, the mutual
attractiveness of persons (or entities) will be greater if they share the same opinions, values
and/or norms. In other words, by applying Blau’s contention to an environmental
management context, employees may be said to feel support when they receive
approbation in the form of encouragement from those with whom they share common
values in terms of environmental protection. Employees who are motivated to develop and
adopt pro-environmental behaviours can receive support from both the organization and
their supervisor.
POS refers to an employee’s belief that the employer values his/her contributions and
demonstrates concern for his/her well-being at work (Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison
and Sowa 1986). For employees, POS reflects the extent to which an employer is committed
to them. However, as suggested by support theory, the feeling of being supported by the
organization implies that supportive actions must be voluntary and not imposed by a
government decision or as a result of negotiations with a union (Rhoades and Eisenberger
2002). For example, if the actions of the employer are imposed by a union (for example, after
a round of negotiations, the organization takes actions that improve the return to work after a
long sick leave), employees will tend not to believe that the organization provides support.
Conversely, if the actions of the employer are voluntary (e.g. introduction of a programme for
promoting fitness or health among employees), employees will tend to feel supported.
Similarly, if the employer adopts an environmental policy following a government reform
(e.g. fiscal incentives), employees will tend not to believe that the employer is committed to
pro-environmental objectives. This suggests that discretionary decisions, actions or facts
generate a feeling that the time and effort devoted by the employer to employees or to an issue
such as environmental protection are voluntary and not imposed.
PSS is defined as the degree to which supervisors value the contributions, opinions or
gestures of their subordinates and care about their well-being (Rhoades and Eisenberger
2002). As such, PSS has been conceptualized to explain why subordinates display
commitment to their supervisor. Kottke and Sharafinski (1988) developed a measurement
to capture PSS. In addition, they found that employees reported more support from their
supervisor than employers. On this basis, how might we define a supportive manager in the
context of environmental management? Following Ramus (2001), a supportive supervisor
may be said to encourage new ideas, is open-minded, provides regular training to
subordinates, shares critical information, rewards efforts and shows a sense of
responsibility.
Supervisor support is essential for promoting employee environmental initiatives
(Ramus 2001). Generally speaking, employee initiatives in this area are essential for
improving environmental performance (Andersson and Bateman 2000; Hanna et al. 2000;
Walley and Stubbs 2000; Boiral 2009). However, in order to make a difference,
employees’ actions must be encouraged and supported by the organization. Lack of
support has been identified as the major impediment to eco-initiatives (Ramus 2001;
Govindarajulu and Daily 2004). More often than not, a lack of support from management
is explained by the tendency of managers to focus primarily on their core activities rather
than peripheral activities (Ramus 2001). It has also been argued that ‘a company can
devastate its efforts to become environmentally responsible if there is little or no support to
train and encourage its employees to “do the right thing”’ (Govindarajulu and Daily 2004,
p. 336). In short, the literature has tended to argue that EMPs promoted by the supervisor
and the organization (i.e. the employer) can play a key role in supporting and fostering PSS
and POS. Therefore, the following relationships are expected.
P. Paille et al.6
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ite L
aval
] at
06:
28 1
5 A
pril
2013
Hypothesis 4: EMPs and POS are positively related.
Hypothesis 5: EMPs and PSS are positively related.
Foci of support and OCBE
The importance of leadership for promoting employee environmental initiatives has been
clearly emphasized in the literature (e.g. Daily and Huang 2001). However, with a few
exceptions (Ramus and Steger 2000; Ramus 2001), the issue of which foci of support can
foster employee eco-initiatives has been largely overlooked. We believe in the importance
of multiple sources of support for managing and encouraging employee eco-initiatives in
the workplace. However, although researchers in environmental management studies have
recognized the importance of support, they have often focused on supervisor support and
largely overlooked organizational support. As a result, the literature offers little evidence
for showing how distinct foci of support promote innovative behaviours among
employees. Some notable counter-examples have been provided in research by Ramus.
For example, Ramus and Steger (2000, p. 623) found that employees are more prone to
engaging in eco-initiatives when they perceive support from the company and their
respective manager, suggesting that ‘companies that want to eco-innovate apparently need
managers who use supportive behaviors to encourage employee environmental actions’. In
another study, Ramus (2001) found that the efforts made by a company to encourage
employee eco-innovations will have little or no impact if the immediate supervisor is not
supportive. The findings suggest the usefulness of combining different foci of support to
enhance employee motivation to engage in eco-initiatives.
Based on support theory in the OB/HRM literature, some interesting benchmarks can
be given. Since the study of Kottke and Sharafinski (1988), researchers have found
significant empirical evidence in support of the contention that PSS and POS are close but
distinct constructs (Roadhes, Eisenberger and Armeli 2001; Stinglhamber, De Cremer and
Mercken 2006). The implication is that employees are able to make a difference to the
source of support they receive. In some studies, PSS and POS have been examined as
alternative forms of support (Lavelle, Rupp and Brockner 2007). By contrast, in other
studies, PSS has been examined as an antecedent of POS. Previous studies have found that
PSS increases POS (e.g. Roadhes et al. 2001; Tepper and Taylor 2003; Maertz, Griffeth,
Campbell and Allen 2007). Empirical research has reported a kind of domino effect. When
the supervisor feels supported by the organization, he/she reciprocates by transferring the
treatment he/she received to a third entity, such as customers (Bell and Menguc 2002) or
subordinates (Tepper and Taylor 2003). In addition, supervisor actions and decisions are
more legitimate when subordinates believe that their supervisor is supported by the
employer (Roadhes-Shanock and Eisenberger 2006).
Although the literature on environmental management has not explicitly explored the
positive impact of PSS on POS, a relatively similar process has been suggested in a
number of previous studies. According to Marshall, Cordano and Silverman (2005),
managerial attitudes play a key role in shaping proactive environmental behaviours among
employees. Marshall et al. (2005) reported that proactive environmental behaviour
emerges as a personal concern before strategic considerations. In addition, on the basis of
semi-structured interviews, Harris and Tregidga (2012) reported that managers may show
little evidence of environmental initiatives in the workplace despite adopting practices
aimed at protecting the environment in their private life. Harris and Tregidga (2012)
showed that these results are explained more by a lack of resources (money and time) than
a lack of willingness. However, consistent with the support literature discussed below,
The International Journal of Human Resource Management 7
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ite L
aval
] at
06:
28 1
5 A
pril
2013
some studies in the field of environmental management have shown how top management
encourages line managers to implement eco-innovations. For example, Ramus (2001,
p. 87) reported that ‘supportive behaviors from supervisors, like time and resources to
experimenting/developing ideas, rewarding ideas for environmental improvements,
providing environmental competence-building opportunities, and being open to employ-
ees’ ideas can demonstrate that the company encourages eco-innovation’. Based on
research by Ramus, and consistent with the recent advances in support theory outlined
above, two important points need to be emphasized. First, a company encourages eco-
innovation when its representatives (CEO, management team, managers, etc.) have
developed an awareness of the importance of environmental management. Second, the
company must deploy sufficient resources to enable employees to engage in pro-
environmental behaviours. In line with Roadhes-Shanock and Eisenberger (2006), Ramus
(2001) suggested that by granting resources to the supervisor, the employer contributes to
legitimizing the eco-initiatives of the supervisor in the eyes of subordinates. Therefore, the
following relationship is expected.
Hypothesis 6: PSS and POS are positively related.
There is significant evidence to suggest that POS is related to organizational
performance. Consistent with the SET framework, when employees feel supported, they
will tend to return the favour by exhibiting behaviours in the workplace that are highly
valued by the employer. Previous findings indicate that POS increases employee retention
by reducing the desire to leave the organization (Allen, Shore and Griffeth 2003),
decreases absenteeism (Eisenberger et al. 1986) and increases performance effort (Eder
and Eisenberger 2008, study 2). Previous findings that are more directly relevant to the
issue addressed in this paper have shown that POS and OCBs are linked (Kaufman,
Stamper and Tesluk 2001; Paille, Bourdeau and Galois 2010), indicating that employees
are prone to making (or willing to make) extra efforts that benefit the employer, colleagues
or the supervisor in exchange for fair treatment. As such, and consistent with the norm of
reciprocity (Gouldner 1960), employee willingness to make extra efforts can be viewed as
a form of repayment (Aselage and Eisenberger 2003). A similar process can be expected in
an environmental context. If the employer develops a concern for the environment in
response to stakeholder pressure, the resulting actions taken by the employer may not be
interpreted as a commitment to protecting the environment in the eyes of employees. By
contrast, if the employer believes that the protection of the environment is an important
issue and takes appropriate measures, the employer fulfils employees’ needs relating to
their environmental concerns. Although the relationships between POS and OCBE remain
underexplored, Govindarajulu and Daily (2004) highlighted four key factors that are
thought to promote EC to environmental performance: management commitment,
employee empowerment, rewards and feedback. The authors discussed several studies that
provide anecdotal and empirical data showing how organizations value and recognize the
contribution of employees who make efforts by adopting good environmental practices.
The findings of Govindarajulu and Daily (2004) are consistent with the core definition of
POS. By valuing employee eco-initiatives, the employer creates a normative context that
incites employees to reciprocate. OCBE can thus be viewed as a form of repayment in
exchange for POS. Therefore, the following relationship is expected.
Hypothesis 7: POS is positively related to OCBE.
The environmental management literature has highlighted the key role of the
supervisor as a driver of proactive environmental behaviour (e.g. Marshall et al. 2005) or
P. Paille et al.8
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ite L
aval
] at
06:
28 1
5 A
pril
2013
as an important source of employee motivation in adopting pro-environmental initiatives
(e.g. Ramus and Killmer 2007). Ramus and Killmer (2007) noted that supervisor support
reflects one of the four key motivational drivers (the other factors are social norms,
personal predisposition and self-efficacy) that help an individual to engage in eco-
initiatives. Finally, Daily et al. (2009) argued that PSS for environmental efforts is
positively related to OCBE (Proposition 5). Generally speaking, the environmental
commitment of managers and supervisors is considered to be one of the main drivers of
corporate greening and employee initiatives in this area (Andersson and Bateman 2000;
Egri and Herman 2000; Bansal 2003). Based on the previous development, the following
relationship is expected:
Hypothesis 8: PSS is positively related to OCBE.
POS and commitment to the organization
Cropanzano and Mitchell (2005) argued that in a social exchange context, the relationship
between support and commitment reflects a somewhat similar process between an
employer and an employee. For a given employee, POS reflects the extent to which an
employer is committed to employees, while commitment to the organization reflects the
extent to which employees are committed to their employer. Meta-analyses of POS
(Riggle, Edmondson and Hensen 2009; k ¼ 112, N ¼ 42874, corrected r ¼ 0.71) and
commitment to the organization (Meyer et al. 2002; k ¼ 18, N ¼ 7128, corrected
r ¼ 0.63) have reported a high average positive correlation between the two constructs.
Thus, we derive the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 9: POS and commitment to the organization are positively related.
Method
Sample
Survey forms were sent to 2441 employees enrolled in the executive MBA programmes at
a large Canadian university between 2004 and 2009. Of these, 731 responses were
returned, yielding a response rate of 29.9%. After reading the invitation to participate
(which explained the overall objectives of the study) and the consent form (which
summarized the ethical guidelines of the research), 16 respondents opted to withdraw from
the study. Of the 715 remaining questionnaires, only those that were fully completed were
used. At this stage, 308 questionnaires were discarded. Therefore, the final sample
included 407 individuals employed at the time of the study. Of the respondents 65.2%
were women. A total of 68% worked for an organization with over 500 employees. The
mean age of participants was 42.30 years (SD ¼ 7.2), while the average number of years
of work experience was 22.9 years (SD ¼ 9.3).
Measurement
EMPs were measured using a list of statements drawn up by Ramus and Montiel (2005).
The statements are related to typical requirements for an EMS to indicate the extent to
which each environmental initiative has been implemented. The internal consistency
(measured using Cronbach’s a) was a ¼ 0.88.
The International Journal of Human Resource Management 9
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ite L
aval
] at
06:
28 1
5 A
pril
2013
POS was measured using three high-loading items from the SPOS (Items 1, 4 and 9,
with factor loadings of 0.71, 0.74 and 0.83, respectively; see Table 1 in Eisenberger et al.
1986). The internal consistency (measured using Cronbach’s a) was a ¼ 0.96.
Commitment to the organization was measured using the three-item scale developed
by Bentein, Stinghlamber and Vandenberghe (2002). The internal consistency (measured
using Cronbach’s a) was a ¼ 0.92.
PSS was measured using a short version (four items) of the POS scale (Eisenberger
et al. 1986). Following Stinglhamber and Vandenberghe (2003), items were used and
adapted by replacing the term ‘organization’ by ‘supervisor’. The internal consistency
(measured using Cronbach’s a) was a ¼ 0.92.
OCBE was measured using the scale developed by Boiral and Paille (2012). This scale
consists of several items from the Podsakoff and MacKenzie’s (1994) measurement,
adapted to capture pro-environmental behaviour in the workplace. The internal
consistency (measured using Cronbach’s a) was a ¼ 0.94.
Finally, based on a Likert-type scale, all items (shown in Table 1) were measured on a
seven-point scale ranging from 1 (disagree completely) to 7 (completely agree).
Data analysis
Because we were unable to collect data using a longitudinal design (the partner university
refused to grant permission to conduct a survey in several stages), the recommendations of
other studies were followed to assess the validity of the model by cross-model validation
(e.g. Byrne 2010). There are several strategies for ensuring model validity (Byrne 2010).
In this study, the three-stage procedure used by Camilleri (2006) was followed. First, the
initial data-set (full sample) is randomly split into two data-sets (samples a and b,
respectively). The second stage involves calculating the fit index and squared multiple
correlations for each data-set. The third stage involves comparing the R 2 difference for
each data-set. Model validity is achieved if the results show a small difference.
The two-stage process recommended by Anderson and Gerbing (1988) was also
followed. The first stage examines the measurement model, while the second stage
assesses the research model using structural equation modelling (SEM). In both stages, the
x 2 statistic and several other fit indexes are used to examine the data; fit indexes included
the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), the comparative fit index (CFI)
and the non-normed fit index (NNFI). For RMSEA, the expected value should be below
0.05 (Schermelleh-Engel, Moosbrugger and Muller 2003); for CFI and NNFI, values
higher than 0.90 are recommended (Hu and Bentler 1999).
Results
Testing for common method variance
Because self-reports were used for all the items, it was important to test for common
method variance (CMV) bias. Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee and Podsakoff (2003) indicated
that a single-common-method-factor approach is appropriate when the study falls within
Situation 4 described in their paper (i.e. only one rating source, different contexts and an
unidentifiable source of method bias). This widely used method (e.g. Andrews, Kacmar,
Blakely and Blucklew 2008; Marler, Fisher and Ke 2009) requires adding a common
factor (latent variable) to the measurement model. Following Marler et al. (2009), all items
were loaded on their theoretical constructs as well as on a created latent method factor.
The significance of the structural parameters was then examined both with and without the
P. Paille et al.10
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ite L
aval
] at
06:
28 1
5 A
pril
2013
Table 1. Measurement model (N ¼ 407).
Items CR r AVE
Environmental management practices 0.91 0.91 0.63Publishing an environmental policy 0.78Determining specific targets for environmental performance 0.72Publishing an annual environmental report 0.86Using an environmental management system 0.76Determining environmental criteria for purchasing decisions 0.83Making employees more responsible for the
environmental performance0.81
Perceived supervisor support 0.90 0.91 0.71My supervisor values my contributions 0.84My supervisor strongly considers my opinions 0.81Values help is available from my
supervisor when I have a problem0.87
My supervisor really cares about mywell-being
0.84
Perceived organizational support 0.89 0.90 0.68My employer values my contributions 0.85My employer strongly considers my opinions 0.84Values help is available from my
employer when I have a problem0.83
My employer really cares about mywell-being
0.80
Commitment to the organization 0.88 0.88 0.71I really feel that I belong
in organization0.72
My organization has a great dealof personal meaning for me
0.87
I am proud to belong tomy employer
0.93
OCBE 0.92 0.92 0.57I encourage my colleagues to express
their ideas and opinions on environmentalissues
0.70
At work, I weigh my actionsbefore doing something that could affectthe environment
0.79
I give my time to helpmy colleagues take the environment intoaccount at work
0.83
I speak to my colleagues tohelp them better understand the environmentalproblems
0.80
I volunteer for projects or eventsthat address environmental issues in myorganization
0.73
I suggest new practices that couldimprove the environmental performance of myorganization
0.69
I undertake environmental actions that contributepositively to my organization’s image
0.67
I actively participate in environmental eventsorganized in and/or by my company
0.81
(Continued)
The International Journal of Human Resource Management 11
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ite L
aval
] at
06:
28 1
5 A
pril
2013
latent factor. The measurement model with the method factor fitted the data well
(x 2 ¼ 538.58, df ¼ 277, p ¼ 0.000; CFI ¼ 0.96; NNFI ¼ 0.96; RMSEA ¼ 0.04).
However, the results of the x 2 difference indicate that the measurement model (see below)
improved the fit compared to the measurement model with the method factor x 2diff
(1) ¼ 48.52, p ¼ 0.001. Therefore, following the authors, CMV bias was not a serious
threat.
First stage – measurement model
A confirmatory factor analysis was performed to assess the psychometric properties of the
measures. The measurement model included five factors (perceived environmental
practices, POS, commitment to the organization, PSS and environmental citizenship
behaviour) and provided an excellent fit of the data (x 2 ¼ 490.06, df ¼ 278, p ¼ 0.000;
CFI ¼ 0.97; NNFI ¼ 0.97; RMSEA ¼ 0.04). All indicators loaded significantly
( p ¼ 0.001) onto their respective constructs; thus, convergent validity was evidenced.
Table 1 shows the composite reliability (CR) that estimates the extent to which a set of
latent construct indicators share their measurement of a construct; average variance
extracted (AVE), i.e. the proportion of the total variance due to the latent variable; and
Joreskog’s r for each construct. According to Hair, Anderson, Tatham and Black (1998),
the recommended threshold values for CR and AVE are above 0.70 and 0.50, respectively.
Fornell and Larker (1981) recommend that Joreskog’s r should be above the 0.70
threshold. Following Fornell and Larker (1981) and Hair et al. (1998), since Joreskog’s r
ranged from 0.88 to 0.92, CR ranged from 0.88 to 0.92 and AVE ranged from 0.57 to 0.71,
the internal consistency of the constructs was evidenced. In addition, discriminant validity
was assessed by comparing, for each pair of constructs, the average of their respective
AVE and the shared variance. Following Fornell and Larker (1981), if the AVE of two
constructs is greater than the shared variance, discriminant validity is evidenced. Table 2
shows results indicating that discriminant validity for each pair of constructs was
demonstrated.
In summary, since the values obtained were above the recommended threshold values,
we may conclude that the measurement model provided evidence of the reliability,
convergent validity and discriminant validity of the measures.
Model validation and second stage – SEM
Table 3 summarizes cross-validation for model selection. Overall, the cross-validation
procedure yielded good results. The fit indices were above the recommended threshold
(CFI ranged from 0.95 to 0.97, NNF ranged from 0.94 to 0.96 and RMSEA ranged from
0.04 to 0.05). In addition, DR2 for samples a and b were small, suggesting similar
explained variances. Therefore, the validity of the model was demonstrated.
Table 1 – continued
Items CR r AVE
I voluntarily carry out environmental actionsand initiatives in my daily activitiesat work
0.79
Notes: r, Joreskog’s r; CR, composite reliability; AVE, average variance extracted.
P. Paille et al.12
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ite L
aval
] at
06:
28 1
5 A
pril
2013
Table 4 presents the descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations among the
variables of the study. Reliability coefficients have been given in the measurement section.
For the second stage (SEM), the measurement model was used to examine the research
model (see Anderson and Gerbing 1988). The quality of fit of the model (full model in
Table 1) to the data was excellent: x2 (277, N ¼ 407) ¼ 523.14, p ¼ 0.000, CFI ¼ 0.96,
NNFI ¼ 0.97, RMSEA ¼ 0.04.
First, the positive association between EMP and EC to the organization (b ¼ .087,
t value ¼ 2.04, p ¼ 0.04) provided support for H1. The positive association between EMP
and OCBE (b ¼ 0.142, t value ¼ 2.53, p ¼ 0.01) provided support for H2. Since the
relationship between commitment to the organization and OCBE was non-significant
(b ¼ .075, t value ¼ 0.94, p ¼ 0.341), H3 was not supported.
The positive relationships between EMP, POS (b ¼ 0.148, t value ¼ 3.34, p ¼ 0.000)
and PSS (b ¼ 0.166, t value ¼ 3.08, p ¼ 0.002) provided support for H4 and H5. The
positive relationship between PSS and POS (b ¼ 0.582, t value ¼ 12.13, p ¼ 0.000)
provided support for H6. The positive relationship between POS and OCBE (b ¼ 0.184,
t value ¼ 2.00, p ¼ 0.04) provided support for H7. Since the relationship between PSS
and OCBE was significant (b ¼ –0.143, t value ¼ –2.09, p ¼ 0.036) but not in the
direction predicted (negative rather than positive), H8 was not supported. Finally, the
positive relationship between POS and commitment to the organization (b ¼ 0.681, t
value ¼ 12.73, p ¼ 0.000) provided support for H9.
Table 2. Results of discriminant validity.
Pair of constructs RSharedvariance
AVEaverage
Discriminantvalidity
Environmental managementpractices versus perceivedorganizational support
0.258** 0.066 0.655 Evidenced
Environmental managementpractices versus perceivedsupervisor support
0.159** 0.025 0.670 Evidenced
Environmental managementpractices versus organizationalcommitment
0.221** 0.048 0.670 Evidenced
Environmental managementpractices versus OCB towardsenvironment
0.197** 0.038 0.600 Evidenced
Perceived organizational supportversus perceived supervisorsupport
0.586** 0.343 0.695 Evidenced
Perceived organizational supportversus organizational commitment
0.683** 0.466 0.695 Evidenced
Perceived organizational supportversus ocb towards environment
0.196** 0.038 0.625 Evidenced
Perceived supervisor support versusorganizational commitment
0.438** 0.191 0.710 Evidenced
Perceived supervisor support versusocb towards environment
0.026 0.000 0.640 Evidenced
Organizational commitment versusOCB towards environment
0.157** 0.025 0.640 Evidenced
**p , 0.001.
The International Journal of Human Resource Management 13
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ite L
aval
] at
06:
28 1
5 A
pril
2013
Tab
le3
.R
esu
lts
of
mo
del
cro
ss-v
alid
atio
n.
Fitindices
forthemodelsincludingallvariables
Fullsample
(N¼
40
7)
Sample
a(N
¼2
03
)Sample
b(N
¼2
04
)
x2
49
6.6
7*
**
47
1.2
6*
**
42
4.5
9*
**
df
27
72
77
27
7N
NF
I0
.96
0.9
40
.95
CF
I0
.97
0.9
50
.96
RM
SE
A0
.04
0.0
50
.05
Str
uct
ura
lfi
tin
dex
(R2)
DR
2fo
rsa
mp
lea
and
sam
ple
bP
red
icte
dv
aria
ble
sR
2in
full
sam
ple
R2
insa
mp
lea
R2
insa
mp
leb
Per
ceiv
edsu
per
vis
or
sup
po
rt0
.03
30
.06
00
.01
00
.05
0P
erce
ived
org
aniz
atio
nal
sup
po
rt0
.39
00
.38
80
.39
10
.00
3C
om
mit
men
tto
the
org
aniz
atio
n0
.46
00
.44
30
.48
30
.04
0O
CB
E0
.08
10
.13
00
.05
60
.07
4
**
*p,
0.0
00
.
P. Paille et al.14
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ite L
aval
] at
06:
28 1
5 A
pril
2013
Additional analyses
The research model shown in Figure 1 suggests that five possible mediations need to be
examined (first, the mediating role of PSS in the relationship between EMP and OCBE;
second, the mediating role of POS in the relationship between EMP and OCBE; third, the
mediating role of POS in the relationship between PSS and OCBE; fourth, the mediating
role of EC in the relationship between POS and OCBE; and fifth, the mediating role of EC
in the relationship between EMP and OCBE). Following the requirements defined by
Holmbeck (1997), mediations that involved PSS were not assessed since the relationship
with OCBE was negative rather than positive. Finally, mediations that involved
commitment to the organization were not examined since the relationship with OCBE was
not significant. Therefore, of the five possible mediations, only one was examined – the
mediating role of POS in the relationship between EMP and OCBE.
In order to test the mediating role of POS on the relationship between EMP and OCBE,
the bias-corrected bootstrap method was performed, because of its statistical power
(Cheung and Lau 2008). Findings for H2 reported that the direct effect of EMP on OCBE
was statistically significant. In the model with POS as a mediator, the standardized direct
effect of EMP on OCBE is 0.168. The 95% bias-corrected confidence intervals for this
direct effect are between 0.057 (lower bound) and 0.274 (upper bound), with a p-value ,
0.002 for two-tailed significance test. The standardized indirect effect of EMP on OCBE
through POS was 0.037. The 95% bias-corrected confidence intervals for this indirect
effect are between 0.010 (lower bound) and 0.078 (upper bound), with a p-value , 0.007
for two-tailed significance test. These results lead to the conclusion that POS played a
partial mediation EMP and OCBE.
Discussion
The purpose of the study was to analyse the relationships between EMPs and OCBE from
the perspective of SET. More specifically, the study aimed to assess a model in which
EMPs influence OCBE through the support provided by the supervisor and the employer,
and commitment to the organization. Of the nine hypotheses examined, seven were
supported (H1 and H2, H4–H7 and H9), while two were not (H3 and H8). Consistent with
the literature on environmental management and HRM, the findings indicate that EMP is
positively related to commitment to the organization (e.g. Stites and Michael 2011),
OCBE (Ramus and Killmer 2007), POS (Govindarajulu and Daily 2004) and PSS (e.g.
Ramus 2001). Consistent with previous findings (e.g. Maertz et al. 2007), the study also
found a positive relationship between PSS and POS. In line with previous research (e.g.
Riggle et al. 2009), a positive relationship between POS and commitment to the
Table 4. Correlation matrix.
Mean SD EMP PSS POS OC OCBE
EMP 17.8 6.4PSS 22.5 4.9 0.167**POS 20.8 4.7 0.236** 0.589**OC 17.2 3.4 0.225** 0.413** 0.668**OCBE 41.9 11.8 0.190 0.019** 0.174** 0.152** –
Notes: EMP, environmental management practices; PSS, perceived supervisor support; POS, perceivedorganizational support; OC, organizational commitment; OCBE, organizational citizenship behaviour for theenvironment. **p , 0.01.
The International Journal of Human Resource Management 15
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ite L
aval
] at
06:
28 1
5 A
pril
2013
organization was also found. In addition, the study did not find a significant direct
relationship between EC and OCBE. Finally, findings revealed a direct negative (rather
than positive) relationship between PSS and OCBE. Based on the data, the study showed
that while EMP influences OCBE directly, the variables involved in the social exchange
process (except for PSS) provide adequate conditions for sustaining and fostering
employee willingness to engage in OCBE. Figure 2 summarizes the main relationships
highlighted by the data analysis.
Contributions of the study
This paper makes several contributions to the environmental literature. This study is the
first to provide empirical data by encompassing, within the same research model,
perceived environmental practices, social exchange variables (POS, PSS and EC) and
OCBE to account for employee willingness to sustain and support the environmental
efforts of the organization. With the exception of conceptual research by Ramus and
Killmer (2007) and Daily et al. (2009), very few studies have used the premises of social
exchange framework to explain why employees are willing to engage in OCBE. The data
improve our understanding of the key variables driving employees to engage in OCBEs.
Employees engage in proactive environmental behaviours as a result of a process of
reciprocity between the actions of the organization and their own. Consistent with the
social exchange framework, reciprocity is the key tenet (Blau 1964). In a work context, a
desire for reciprocity between two entities emerges when one of the two entities performs
an action that enables the second entity to carry out their work efficiently or to fulfil their
objectives. In this study, reciprocity was examined at two levels – between the
organization and supervisors and between supervisors and subordinates. Following
previous findings (e.g. Walley and Stubbs 2000; Ramus 2001), and in line with advances
in the literature on support (e.g. Tepper and Taylor 2003), it was also assumed that an
employee is more likely to make extra environmental efforts if he/she perceives that the
organization supports his/her supervisor by granting him/her the decision-making latitude
and necessary resources to engage in pro-environmental behaviour. The results contribute
to the literature since the use of the premises of SET explained the nature of the
relationships between the organization, supervisors and employees in an environmental
management context. In this sense, the results confirm the findings of previous studies,
although they also provide an SET-based account of the factors that drive an employee to
engage in environmental citizenship behaviours.
Perceived superior support
Perceived organizational support
Organizational commitment
Environmentalmanagement
practices
Organizationalcitizenship
behaviour forthe
environment
.142, p=.01
.087,p=.04
.681, p=.000
.582, p=.000
–.143, p=.036
.184, p=.04.148,p=.000
.166,p=.002
Figure 2. Final model.
P. Paille et al.16
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ite L
aval
] at
06:
28 1
5 A
pril
2013
The study also highlighted the role of EMPs in strengthening key aspects of HRM, such as
PSS, POS and EC. The positive relationships between EMP and the foci of support (PSS and
POS) confirm the initial hypotheses concerning the role of environmental practices as a
means of demonstrating the support of the organization for values shared by the employees.
POS for these values tends to reinforce perceived organizational and supervisor support for
employees. Although the positive impact of support on EC is consistent with SET
(Cropanzano and Mitchell 2005), this study is the first to provide evidence of this in the
particular context of EMPs. The study also showed the positive influence of EMP on EC.
Therefore, the findings extend the results obtained by Stites and Michael (2011), who
provided empirical evidence for the positive influence of environmental management on EC
to the organization. The positive influence of environmental management shows that EMP
can promote the sense of belonging and the positive outcomes associated with this feeling,
such as employee motivation, participation and loyalty to the organization. This finding
confirms the links between EC and organizational practices in the area of social responsibility
(Peterson 2004; Brammer et al. 2007).
The study also sheds light on the main determinants of OCBE. The determinants of
OCBE appear essentially to be linked to measures that provide evidence of organizational
support for environmental actions (EMP) and employees (POS). This result is somewhat
surprising given the emphasis on the role of supervisors (PSS) in the literature on the
determinants of OCBE (Ramus and Killmer 2007; Daily et al. 2009). Furthermore, given
the individual, discretionary and non-prescriptive nature of OCBE, their links with formal
environmental practices (EMP) are not necessarily predictable. The results appear to
indicate that the organization can play an active role in the development of OCBE and that
OCBE do not necessarily emerge independently of established practices. Employees
appear to be more inclined to commit individually and voluntarily to environmental
objectives when the organization shows commitment through EMP and supports its
employees. One possible explanation for the relationships found in this study is that some
EMPs, such as the introduction of an environmental policy or the implementation of an
environmental management system, tend to increase the likelihood of voluntary actions on
the part of employees, even if these actions are not formally prescribed. Therefore, EMPs
can be seen as a positive signal that provides evidence of the environmental concerns of
the organization, and encourages voluntary pro-environmental initiatives in the
workplace. Another explanation in terms of social exchange is that employees will tend
to reciprocate the commitment of the organization in an area they consider to be important
to them. From this perspective, environmental actions allow for reciprocal exchanges
based on common values that, if promoted, will strengthen social approval between
employees and the organization (see Hoffman 1993).
The study also clarifies a number of key concepts, including OCBE, PSS and POS, by
verifying a number of links associated with SET. The negative relationship between PSS and
OCBE is a somewhat surprising result, indicating that a supportive manager tends to
discourage subordinates to engage in OCBE. These findings are not consistent with the
theoretical proposals made by Daily et al. (2009) and the empirical results of the study by
Ramus and Killmer (2007). Daily et al. (2009) suggested viewing the supervisor as a key
antecedent of OCBE. This contention is based on little previous evidence, and the widespread
assumption of SET is that an employee reciprocates support from a supportive entity by
making extra efforts to help the entity to achieve its objectives. Therefore, if a supervisor is
sensitive to environmental concerns, and if he/she is perceived to be a supportive supervisor,
subordinates will be more likely to devote time to environmental matters and to make pro-
environmental efforts. In the light of the literature, how might we explain the findings
The International Journal of Human Resource Management 17
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ite L
aval
] at
06:
28 1
5 A
pril
2013
indicating that supervisor support and OCBE are negatively related? Lack of organizational
support for the supervisor is one possible explanation. Consistent with previous findings in
the HRM and environmental literatures, when a supervisor feels supported by the
organization, she/he reciprocates by transferring the good treatment to a third entity such as
subordinates. Therefore, the actions, decisions and managerial choices of the supervisor are
viewed as legitimate by subordinates. In line with previous findings, our data show a
significant positive relationship between PSS and POS, indicating that employees believe
their supervisors are supported by the organization. However, despite the significant
relationship between PSS and POS, the results of this study reflect the situation described by
Harris and Tregidga (2012) who found that in the absence of specific temporal and financial
resources provided by the employer, supervisors may give the impression to their
subordinates that they are neglecting to support environmental concerns. Therefore, the
findings of this study may reflect a comparable situation to the results of the study by Harris
and Tregidga (2012). Our data indicate that both POS and EMP are positively related to
OCBE. In addition, compared to EMP and PSS, POS is the best predictor of OCBE,
suggesting that employees perceive POS as a key determinant of their willingness to make
extra efforts to promote environmental concerns in the workplace.
The negative relationship between PSS and OCBE may provide an additional
explanation in the light of the results of two previous studies, the first drawn from the
environmental management literature (Ramus 2002) and the second from the social
exchange literature (Schaninger and Turnipseed 2005). Ramus (2002, p. 160) indicated
that ‘employees who felt their supervisors were supportive of environmental actions were
more likely to try environmental initiatives than those who did not feel their supervisors
used supportive behaviors’. Based on the results of the study by Ramus (2002), it seems
reasonable to posit that despite organizational support, supervisors make little effort to
engage in pro-environmental behaviours in their work because they consider that efforts in
this area are performed inadequately by the organization. More recently, Schaninger and
Turnipseed (2005) showed on the basis of a proximal and distal approach that exchanges at
the level of the organization, the superior and colleagues are incorporated in a network of
social exchanges in which the variables involved are summative rather than compensatory.
To take the opposite example, an experience of poor exchanges between an employee and
the employer is not compensated by a positive experience with the superior. The results of
the studies by Ramus (2002) and Schaninger and Turnipseed (2005) improve our
understanding of the negative relationship between PSS and OCBE.
The negative relationship between PSS and OCBE can also be explained by low level
of environmental concern exhibited by managers. Dangelico and Pujari (2010) reported
that the origin of an internal environmental orientation derives from the personal
commitment of the top management and managers. Therefore, if managers are not
convinced by the necessity to act in order to protect the natural environment, they cannot
be a source of inspiration for their subordinates to become eco-innovators.
Finally, contrary to expectations, our study failed to find a significant relationship
between commitment to the organization and OCB for the environment. Therefore, the
study provides no evidence for the contention that commitment to the organization plays a
mediating role between EMP and OCBE, as argued by Daily et al. (2009). As noted above,
commitment to the organization indicates the extent to which an individual is tied to the
organization. A high level of commitment indicates that an employee shares the values and
objectives of the organization. A low level of commitment reflects a possible divergence,
suggesting that the employee does not adhere to the values and objectives of the employer.
However, based on our data, the participants showed a high level of commitment to the
P. Paille et al.18
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ite L
aval
] at
06:
28 1
5 A
pril
2013
organization, suggesting that they shared the values and objectives of their employer.
Therefore, a lack of shared values cannot be used as a basis for explaining the absence of
significant relationship between commitment to the organization and OCBE. Since the
literature on HRM has identified a wide range of behaviours empirically related to EC (e.g.
turnover and job performance), this finding might be explained by a missing variable not
included in the study.
Finally, except for the relationship between PSS and POS, and POS and EC, we must
recognize that the correlations are somewhat moderate. Given the novelty of OCBE, and
lack of available findings, it remains difficult to interpret these data. However, some of our
findings are similar to those observed by Ones, Dilchert and Biga (2010) (cited by
Mesmer-Magnus, Viwsevaran and Wiernik 2012) who have found a moderate correlation
between POS and employee green behaviours. Depending on the context employee, green
behaviours can be discretionary (see explanations given by Ones and Dlichert 2012,
p. 107). In addition, for the relationship between EMP and OC, we reported a weak
relationship. Even so, for measuring environmental policies, Stites and Michael (2011)
have used different tools (i.e. perceived environmentally-related CSP), our findings are
also similar to those revealed by the latter.
Managerial implications
The results show that EMPs can have a positive impact on HRM by increasing perceived
organizational and supervisor support and strengthening EC. Therefore, independently of
their environmental and economic benefits, EMPs can have a positive impact on
organizational factors that have been largely overlooked in the environmental
management literature but which have a significant impact on HRM and organizational
efficiency. These positive effects may partly account for the positive relationship found in
many studies between environmental actions and economic performance (Russo and Fouts
1997; Roy et al. 2001; Christmann 2000; Ambec and Lanoie 2008). Therefore, EMPs may
contribute to improving economic performance because practices are based on
environmental values that are shared by employees, thus increasing their commitment,
motivation and adherence to the objectives of the organization (see Hoffman 1993).
However, in order for these positive effects to be manifested, it seems reasonable to
assume that EMP must result in a substantive (as opposed to a purely symbolic)
commitment to the environment. Many studies have shown that EMPs are often
implemented superficially in response to external pressures or stakeholder expectations
rather than to improve environmental performance (Crane 2000; Jiang and Bansal 2003;
Springett 2003; Boiral 2007). As shown by neo-institutional theory, organizations often
implement new practices with a view to increasing their social legitimacy rather than
improving their performance (Meyer and Rowan 1977; Townley 2002). The frequently
blatant gap between stated practices and the environmental actions that are effectively
taken by organizations could be negatively perceived by employees and contribute to
reducing their EC rather than increasing it. Therefore, managers who want to improve EC
by implementing EMPs must ensure that environmental practices are perceived as a
substantial effort in favour of a concern that is likely to generate significant internal
mobilization, and not as a marketing strategy aimed at meeting stakeholder expectations.
The managerial implications of the study also concern the role of the supervisor in an
environmental management context, even if an unexpected negative impact of supervisor
support on OCBE was found. Having been described from a theoretical perspective (Daily
et al. 2009), this role is beginning to be well documented empirically, particularly in
The International Journal of Human Resource Management 19
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ite L
aval
] at
06:
28 1
5 A
pril
2013
research by Ramus and Steger (2000), Ramus (2001, 2002) and Harris and Tregidga
(2012). The supervisor is generally described as a particularly useful agent for promoting
the implementation of decisions linked to environmental management issues and for
inciting subordinates to make efforts to become eco-innovators (Ramus 2001). In the
absence of any visible effort on the part of supervisors, subordinates may feel that
supervisors have little interest in environmental matters. The situation highlighted by the
results of this study is consistent with the analysis by Govindarajulu and Daily (2004) who
found that the environmental efforts of the organization can be fruitless if employees are
not encouraged to do what is expected of them. However, this study produced significantly
different findings. Even if employees perceive that their supervisor is supported by the
organization, the results indicate that this appears to affect their willingness to engage in
OCBE. Therefore, the results suggest a possible counter-effect on employee willingness to
make extra efforts in the form of pro-environmental behaviours. Even if employees feel
that their supervisor is supported by the organization but that the latter does not give the
supervisor the necessary resources to enable them to develop a range of pro-environmental
actions autonomously, employees may not feel concerned by the need to make extra
efforts to help and support the actions of their supervisor. This suggests the emergence of a
process of cannibalization whereby too much POS may harm PSS. Similarly, employees
must also be careful not to involuntarily reduce the latitude of supervisors in the eyes of
their subordinates. From this perspective, and consistent with Harris and Tregidga (2012),
the role of supervisors needs to be reaffirmed. Another possibility noted by Ramus and
Steger (2000) involves reinforcing the portfolio of supervisor skills linked to the
environmental expectations of the employer by using an appropriate form of
communication to explain the role of the supervisor to subordinates. Finally, following
Govindarajulu and Daily (2004), employers must provide supervisors with the tools and
resources needed to motivate and reward their subordinates.
Limitations and future research
Despite its contributions, the study has some limitations. First, although a number of
methodological precautions were taken to limit the effects of common variance bias and to
ensure the validity of the research model, it is important to recognize that the data were
collected in a single stage. Therefore, future studies could extend the findings by collecting
data based on a longitudinal research design. Second, at the time of the study, contrary to
other measures linked to the research variables, there was no existing research that had
used the measurement of OCBEs giving a basis for comparison. Although the
psychometric properties of the measurement scale used in this study were excellent,
further research is required to pursue the validation of the OCBE measurement scale.
Third, though supported by the organization in the eyes of subordinates, the data showed
that PSS and OCBE are negatively related, suggesting that the greater the perception of
supervisor support among subordinates, the lower the likelihood of OCBE. It is impossible
to account for this paradox based on the collected data. Further research is required to
explain this result.
References
Allen, N.J., and Meyer, J.P. (1990), ‘The Measurement and Antecedents of Affective, Continuanceand Normative Commitment to the Organization,’ Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63,1–18.
P. Paille et al.20
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ite L
aval
] at
06:
28 1
5 A
pril
2013
Allen, D.G., Shore, L.M., and Griffeth, R.W. (2003), ‘The Role of Perceived Organizational Supportand Supportive Human Resource Practices in the Turnover Process,’ Journal of Management,29, 99–118.
Ambec, S., and Lanoie, P. (2008), ‘Does It Pay to Be Green? A Systematic Overview,’ Academy ofManagement Perspectives, 22, 4, 45–62.
Anderson, J.C., and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), ‘Structural Equation Modeling in Practice: A Review andRecommended Two-Step Approach,’ Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411–423.
Andersson, L., and Bateman, T. (2000), ‘Individual Environmental Initiative: Championing NaturalEnvironmental Issues in U.S. Business Organizations,’ Academy of Management Journal, 43, 4,548–570.
Andrews, M.C., Kacmar, K.M., Blakely, G.L., and Blucklew, N.S. (2008), ‘Group Cohesion as anEnhancement to the Justice-Affective Commitment Relationship,’ Group & OrganizationManagement, 33, 736–755.
Aselage, J., and Eisenberger, R. (2003), ‘Perceived Organizational Support and PsychologicalContracts: A Theoretical Integration,’ Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 491–509.
Bansal, P. (2003), ‘From Issues to Actions: The Importance of Individual Concerns andOrganizational Values in Responding to Natural Environmental Issues,’ Organizational Science,14, 5, 510–527.
Bansal, P., and Bogner, W.C. (2002), ‘Deciding on ISO 14001: Economics, Institutions, andContext,’ Long Range Planning, 35, 269–290.
Bell, S., and Menguc, B. (2002), ‘The Employee-Organization Relationship, OrganizationalCitizenship Behaviors, and Superior Service Quality,’ Journal of Retailing, 78, 2, 131–146.
Bentein, K., Stinglhamber, F., and Vandenberghe, C. (2002), ‘Organization-, Supervisor-, andWorkgroup-Directed Commitments and Citizenship Behaviours: A Comparison of Models,’European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 11, 341–362.
Blau, P.M. (1964), Exchange and Power in Social Life, New York: John Wiley & Sons.Boiral, O., and Paille, P. (2012), ‘Organizational Citizenship Behaviour for the Environment:
Measurement and Validation,’ Journal of Business Ethics, 109, 4, 431–445.Boiral, O. (2007), ‘Corporate Greening Through ISO 14001: A Rational Myth?’ Organization
Science, 18, 1, 127–146.Boiral, O. (2009), ‘Greening the Corporation Through Organizational Citizenship Behaviors,’
Journal of Business Ethics, 87, 2, 221–236.Boiral, O. (2011), ‘Managing With ISO Systems: Lessons From Practice,’ Long Range Planning, 44,
3, 197–220.Brammer, S., Millington, A., and Rayton, B. (2007), ‘The Contribution of Corporate Social
Responsibility to Organizational Commitment,’ International Journal of Human ResourceManagement, 18, 1701–1719.
Byrne, B.M. (2010), Structural Equation Modeling With AMOS (2nd ed.), New York: Taylor &Francis.
Camilleri, E. (2006), ‘Towards Developing an Organisational Commitment - Public ServiceMotivation Model for the Maltese Public Service Employees,’ Public Policy andAdministration, 21, 63–83.
Cheung, G.W., and Lau, R.S. (2008), ‘Testing Mediation and Suppression Effects of LatentVariables: Bootstrapping With Structural Equation Models,’ Organizational Research Methods,11, 296–325.
Christmann, P. (2000), ‘Effects of ‘Best Practices’ of Environmental Management on CostAdvantage: The Role of Complementary Assets,’ Academy of Management Journal, 43, 4,663–680.
Christmann, P., and Taylor, G. (2006), ‘Firm Self-Regulation Through International CertifiableStandards: Determinants of Symbolic Versus Substantive Implementation,’ Journal ofInternational Business Studies, 37, 863–878.
Corbett, C.J., and Cutler, D.J. (2000), ‘Environmental Management Systems in the New ZealandPlastics Industry,’ International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 20, 2,204–224.
Crane, A. (2000), ‘Corporate Greening as Amoralization,’ Organization Studies, 21, 4, 673–696.Cropanzano, R., and Mitchell, M.S. (2005), ‘Social Exchange Theory: An Interdisciplinary Review,’
Journal of Management, 31, 6, 874–900.
The International Journal of Human Resource Management 21
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ite L
aval
] at
06:
28 1
5 A
pril
2013
Daily, B.F., and Huang, S.-C. (2001), ‘Achieving Sustainability Through Attention to HumanResource Factors in Environmental Management,’ International Journal of Operations &Production Management, 21, 12, 1539–1552.
Daily, B.F., Bishop, J.W., and Govindarajulu, N. (2009), ‘A Conceptual Model for OrganizationalCitizenship Behavior Directed Toward the Environment,’ Business & Society, 48, 2, 243–256.
Dangelico, R.M., and Pujari, D. (2010), ‘Mainstreaming Green Product Innovation: Why and HowCompanies Integrate Environmental Sustainability,’ Journal of Business Ethics, 95, 471–486.
Darnall, N., and Edwards, D. (2006), ‘Predicting the Cost of Environmental Management SystemAdoption: The Role of Capabilities, Resources and Ownership Structure,’ StrategicManagement Journal, 27, 301–320.
Delmas, M. (2001), ‘Stakeholders and Competitive Advantage: The Case of ISO 14001,’ Productionand Operations Management, 10, 3, 343–358.
Delmas, M.A., and Toffel, W.M. (2004), ‘Stakeholders and Environmental Management Practices:An Institutional Framework,’ Business Strategy and the Environment, 13, 209–222.
Eder, P., and Eisenberger, R. (2008), ‘Perceived Organizational Support: Reducing the NegativeInfluence of Coworker Withdrawal Behavior,’ Journal of Management, 34, 1, 55–68.
Egri, C., and Herman, S. (2000), ‘Leadership in the North American Environmental Sector: Values,Leadership Styles and Contexts of Environmental Leaders and Their Organizations,’ Academyof Management Journal, 43, 4, 571–604.
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., and Sowa, D. (1986), ‘Perceived OrganizationalSupport,’ Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500–507.
Fernandez, E., Junquera, B., and Ordiz, M. (2003), ‘Organizational Culture and Human Resources inthe Environmental Issue: A Review of the Literature,’ International Journal of Human ResourceManagement, 14, 634–656.
Fornell, C., and Larker, D. (1981), ‘Evaluating Structural Equation Models With UnobservableVariables and Measurement Error,’ Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50.
Global Reporting Initiative (2006), Sustainability Reporting Guidelines, Amsterdam: GRI.Gouldner, A.W. (1960), ‘The Norm of Reciprocity: A Preliminary Statement,’ American
Sociological Review, 25, 161–169.Govindarajulu, N., and Dailey, B.F. (2004), ‘Motivating Employees for Environmental
Improvement,’ Industrial Management & Data Systems, 104, 4, 364–372.Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., and Black, W.C. (1998), Multivariate Data Analysis (5th
ed.), Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Hanna, M.D., Newman, W.R., and Johnson, P. (2000), ‘Linking Operational and Environmental
Improvement Through Employee Involvement,’ International Journal of Operations andProduction Management, 30, 2, 148–165.
Harris, C., and Tregidga, H. (2012), ‘HR Manager and Environmental Sustainability: StrategicLeaders or Passive Observers?’ The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23,236–254.
Hoffman, A.J. (1993), ‘The Importance of Fit between Individual Values and Organizational Culturein the Greening of Industry,’ Business Strategy and the Environment, 2, 4, 10–18.
Hoffman, B.J., Blair, C.A., Meriac, J.P., and Woehr, D.J. (2007), ‘Expanding the Criterion Domain?A Quantitative Review of the OCB Literature,’ Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 2, 555–566.
Holmbeck, G.N. (1997), ‘Toward Terminological, Conceptual, and Statistical Clarity in the Study ofMediators and Moderators: Examples From the Child-Clinical and Pediatric PsychologyLiteratures,’ Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 599–610.
Hu, L.T., and Bentler, P.M. (1999), ‘Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indices in Covariance Structure Analysis:Conventional Criteria Versus New Alternatives,’ Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.
Jiang, R.J., and Bansal, P. (2003), ‘Seeing the Need for ISO 14001,’ Journal of Management Studies,40, 4, 1047–1067.
Kaufman, J.D., Stamper, C.L., and Tesluk, P.E. (2001), ‘Do Supportive Organizations Make forGood Corporate Citizens?’ Journal of Managerial Issues, 13, 4, 436–449.
Konovsky, M.A., and Pugh, S.D. (1994), ‘Citizenship Behaviour and Social Exchange,’ Academy ofManagement Journal, 37, 656–669.
Kottke, J.L., and Sharafinski, C.E. (1988), ‘Measuring Perceived Supervisory and OrganizationalSupport,’ Educational and Psychological Measurement, 48, 1075–1079.
P. Paille et al.22
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ite L
aval
] at
06:
28 1
5 A
pril
2013
Lavelle, J., Rupp, D., and Brockner, J. (2007), ‘Taking a Multifoci Approach to the Study of Justice,Commitment, and Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Target Similarity Model,’ Journalof Management, 33, 841–866.
LePine, J., Erez, A., and Johnson, D. (2002), ‘The Nature and Dimensionality of OrganizationalCitizenship Behavior: A Critical Review and Meta-Analysis,’ Journal of Applied Psychology,87, 1, 52–65.
Maertz, P.C., Griffeth, R., Campbell, N.S., and Allen, D.G. (2007), ‘The Effects of PerceivedOrganizational Support and Perceived Supervisor Support on Employee Turnover,’ Journal ofOrganizational Behavior, 8, 1059–1075.
Marler, J.H., Fisher, S.L., and Ke, W. (2009), ‘Employee Self-Service Technology Acceptance: AComparison of Pre-Implementation and Post-Implementation Relationships,’ PersonnelPsychology, 62, 327–358.
Marshall, R.S., Cordano, M., and Silverman, M. (2005), ‘Exploring Individual and InstitutionalDrivers of Proactive Environmentalism in the US Wine Industry,’ Business Strategy and theEnvironment, 14, 2, 92–109.
Mathieu, J.E., and Zajac, D.M. (1990), ‘A Review and Meta-Analysis of the Antecedents, Correlatesand Consequences of Organizational Commitment,’ Psychological Bulletin, 2, 171–194.
Mesmer-Magnus, J., Viwsevaran, C., and Wiernik, B.M. (2012), ‘The Role of Commitment inBridging the Gap Between Organizational Sustainability and Environmental Sustainability,’ inManaging Human Resources for Environmental Sustainability, eds. S.E. Jackson, D.S. Ones,and S. Dilchert, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, pp. 155–186.
Meyer, J., Stanley, D., Herscovitch, L., and Topolnytsky, L. (2002), ‘Affective, Continuance, andNormative Commitment to the Organization: A Meta-Analysis of Antecedents, Correlates andConsequences,’ Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59, 1–33.
Meyer, J.W., and Rowan, B. (1977), ‘Institutional Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth andCeremony,’ American Journal of Sociology, 83, 2, 340–363.
Mowday, R., Steers, R., and Porter, L. (1979), ‘The Measurement of Organizational Commitment,’Journal of Vocational Behavior, 2, 224–247.
O’Reilly, C.A., and Chatman, J. (1986), ‘Organizational Commitment and PsychologicalAttachment: The Effects of Compliance, Identification, and Internalization on ProsocialBehavior,’ Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 492–499.
Ones, D., and Dilchert, S. (2012), ‘Employee Green Behaviors,’ in Managing Human Resources forEnvironmental Sustainability, eds. S.E. Jackson, D.S. Ones, and S. Dilchert, San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass, pp. 85–116.
Ones, D., Dilchert, S., and Biga, A. (2010, November), ‘Perceceptions of Organizational Support andEmployee Sustainability,’ paper presented at the annual international conference on businessand sustainability, Portland, OR.
Organ, D., Podsakoff, P., and MacKenzie, S. (2006), Organizational Citizenship Behavior: ItsNature, Antecedents, and Consequences, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Organ, D.W., and Ryan, K. (1995), ‘A Meta-Analytic Review of Attitudinal and DispositionalPredictors of Organizational Citizenship Behavior,’ Personnel Psychology, 48, 775–802.
Paille, P., Bourdeau, L., and Galois, I. (2010), ‘Support, Trust, Satisfaction, Intent to Leave andCitizenship at Organizational Level: A Social Exchange Approach,’ International Journal ofOrganizational Analysis, 18, 1, 41–58.
Perez, O., Amichai-Hamburger, Y., and Shterental, T. (2009), ‘The Dynamic of Corporate Self-Regulation: ISO 14001, Environmental Commitment, and Organizational CitizenshipBehaviour,’ Law & Society Review, 43, 3, 593–629.
Peterson, D.K. (2004), ‘The Relationship Between Perceptions of Corporate Citizenship andOrganizational Commitment,’ Business & Society, 43, 296–319.
Podsakoff, P., and MacKenzie, S.M. (1994), ‘Organizational Citizenship Behaviors and Sales UnitEffectiveness,’ Journal of Marketing Research, 31, 351–363.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.-Y., and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), ‘Common Method Biasesin Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies,’Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.
Ramus, C.A. (2001), ‘Organizational Support for Employees: Encouraging Creative Ideas forEnvironmental Sustainability,’ California Management Review, 43, 3, 85–105.
Ramus, C.A. (2002), ‘Encouraging Innovative Environmental Actions: What Companies andManagers Must Do,’ Journal of World Business, 37, 151–164.
The International Journal of Human Resource Management 23
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ite L
aval
] at
06:
28 1
5 A
pril
2013
Ramus, C.A., and Killmer, A.B. (2007), ‘Corporate Greening Through Prosocial ExtraroleBehaviours – A Conceptual Framework for Employee Motivation,’ Business Strategy and theEnvironment, 16, 8, 554–570.
Ramus, C.A., and Montiel, I. (2005), ‘When Are Corporate Environmental Policies a Form ofGreenwashing?’ Business & Society, 44, 4, 377–415.
Ramus, C.A., and Steger, U. (2000), ‘The Roles of Supervisory Support Behaviors andEnvironmental Policy in Employees Ecoinitiatives at Leading-Edge European Companies,’Academy of Management Journal, 43, 4, 605–626.
Rhoades, L., and Eisenberger, R. (2002), ‘Perceived Organizational Support: A Review of theLiterature,’ Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 4, 698–714.
Riggle, R.J., Edmondson, D.R., and Hansen, J.D. (2009), ‘A Meta-Analysis of the RelationshipBetween Perceived Organizational Support and Job Outcomes: 20 Years of Research,’ Journalof Business Research, 62, 1027–1030.
Roadhes, L., Eisenberger, R., and Armeli, S. (2001), ‘Affective Commitment to the Organization:The Contribution of Perceived Organizational Support,’ Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 5,825–836.
Roadhes-Shanock, L., and Eisenberger, R. (2006), ‘When Supervisors Feel Supported: RelationshipsWith Subordinates’ Perceived Supervisor Support, Perceived Organizational Support, andPerformance,’ Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 3, 689–695.
Roy, M.J., Boiral, O., and Lagace, D. (2001), ‘Environmental Commitment and ManufacturingExcellence: A Comparative Study Within Canadian Industry,’ Business Strategy and theEnvironment, 10, 5, 257–268.
Russo, M.V., and Fouts, P.A. (1997), ‘A Resource-Based Perspective on Corporate EnvironmentalPerformance and Profitability,’ Academy of Management Journal, 40, 3, 534–560.
Schaninger, W.S., and Turnipssed, D.L. (2005), ‘The Workplace Social Exchange Network: ItsEffect on Organizational Citizenship Behavior, Contextual Performance, Job,’ in Handbook ofOrganizational Citizenship Behavior: A Review of ‘Good Solder’ Activity in Organizations, ed.D.L. Turnipseed, New York: Novasciences.
Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., and Muller, H. (2003), ‘Evaluating the Fit of StructuralEquation Models: Tests of Significance and Descriptive Goodness-of-Fit Measures,’ Methods ofPsychological Research Online, 8, 23–74.
Schwartz, M.S., and Carroll, A.B. (2008), ‘Integrating and Unifying Competing and ComplementaryFrameworks: The Search for a Common Core in the Business and Society Field,’ Business &Society, 47, 2, 148–186.
Springett, D. (2003), ‘Business Conceptions of Sustainable Development: A Perspective FromCritical Theory,’ Business Strategy and the Environment, 12, 2, 71–86.
Stinglhamber, F., De Cremer, D., and Mercken, L. (2006), ‘Perceived Support as a Mediator of theRelationship Between Justice and Trust,’ Group & Organization Management, 31, 442–468.
Stinglhamber, F., and Vandenberghe, C. (2003), ‘Organizations and Supervisors as Sources ofSupport and Targets of Commitment: A Longitudinal Study,’ Journal of OrganizationalBehavior, 24, 251–270.
Stites, J.P., and Michael, J.H. (2011), ‘Organizational Commitment in Manufacturing Employees:Relationships With Corporate Social Performance,’ Business & Society, 50, 1, 50–70.
Tepper, B.J., and Taylor, E.C. (2003), ‘Relationships Among Supervisors’ and Subordinates’Procedural Justice Perceptions and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors,’ Academy ofManagement Journal, 46, 1, 97–105.
Townley, B. (2002), ‘The Role of Competing Rationalities in Institutional Change,’ Academy ofManagement Journal, 45, 1, 163–179.
Turker, D. (2009), ‘Measuring Corporate Social Responsibility: A Scale Development Study,’Journal of Business Ethics, 85, 4, 411–427.
Walley, L., and Stubbs, M. (2000), ‘Termites and Champions: Case Comparisons by Metaphor,’Greener Management International, 29, 41–54.
P. Paille et al.24
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ite L
aval
] at
06:
28 1
5 A
pril
2013