Environmental Workplace Behaviors

Abstract

In response to recent calls for more micro-foundation research in corporate social responsibility, this article approaches environmental sustainability from an organizational behavior/human resource perspective. Specifically, this article refines the concept of the environmental workplace behaviors (EWBs), defined here as “work behaviors directed toward the protection or improvement of the natural environment, which may or may not generate value for the organization; these behaviors may be performed by employees situated at any organizational level.” EWBs include organization citizenship behaviors for the environment (OCBEs), environmental in-role behaviors (EIRBs), and environmental counterproductive workplace behaviors (ECWBs). Furthermore, the article distinguishes between low-intensity and high-intensity EWBs and discusses the importance of constructs such as trust and power for green employee engagement in EWBs. The article concludes with recommendations for future research and practice in the area of environmental behaviors in organizations.

Keywords

environmental workplace behaviors EWBs organizational citizenship behaviors for the environment OCBEs environmental in-role behaviors (EIRBs)environmental counterproductive workplace behaviors (ECWBs)environmental whistleblowing green employees environmental identity referent power expert power trust

Introduction

In the past few years, research on individual behaviors performed with a concern for the natural environment at work has burgeoned (Boiral, 2009; Ciocirlan & Pettersson, 2012; Daily, Bishop, & Govindarajulu, 2009; DuBois, Astakhova, & DuBois, 2013; Lamm, Tosti-Kharas, & Williams, 2013; Lo, Peters, & Kok, 2012; Manika, Wells, Gregory-Smith, & Gentry, 2013; McDonald, 2014; Ones & Dilchert, 2012a, 2012b, 2013; Paillé & Boiral, 2013; Robertson & Barling, 2013). However, the number of environmentally focused articles is still trailing other areas of corporate social responsibility and this growing field lacks a common terminology (Morgeson et al., 2013). The field also lacks agreement regarding the appropriate model of antecedents and the relative importance of variables in explaining engagement in environmental workplace behaviors (EWBs) (Lo et al., 2012). Moreover, the concept of the “green employee,” while often used, is obscure.

This article contributes to theory development in the area of environmental behaviors in several ways. First, it defines the concept of green employees. While previous literature often referred to the “green employee” (Mandip, 2012; Renwick, Redman, & Maguire, 2013), the concept was never formally defined or thoroughly tested. This article proposes that a green employee has an environmental identity, an intrinsic motivation to protect the environment through work, and aims for consistency between home and work environmental behaviors. The concept of environmental identity, while extensively studied in the private and public environmentalism literatures (Clayton, 2003), has been given insufficient attention in the organizational sustainability literature.

Second, the article refines the concept of EWBs and it expands them from a subcategory of behaviors under the umbrella of organization citizenship behaviors (OCBs) to a category of its own. My definition of EWBs includes organizational citizenship behaviors directed toward the environment (OCBEs), environmental in-role behaviors (EIRBs), and environmental counterproductive work behaviors (ECWBs). Most of the existing literature on proenvironmental behaviors in organizations equates them with OCBEs only (Boiral & Paillé, 2012; Manika et al., 2013; Paillé & Boiral, 2013; Paillé, Boiral, & Chen, 2013; Ramus & Killmer, 2007; Ramus & Steger, 2000; Temminck, Mearns, & Fruhen, 2013), although recent taxonomies include EIRBs as well (Ones & Dilchert, 2012a).

Previous definitions of environmental or corporate citizenship behaviors in organizations focus on the value of these behaviors to the organization in which employees are embedded (Boiral, 2009; Ciocirlan & Pettersson, 2012; Daily et al., 2009; Glavas & Piderit, 2009). Some literature on proenvironmental behaviors in organizations is grounded in the social exchange theory (SET), whose major tenet is reciprocity between the employee and the organization (Paillé & Mejía-Morelos, 2014; Paillé et al., 2013). According to SET, if the employee knows that environmental protection is an essential objective of the employer, and if she feels supported by their organization, she is more likely to engage in proenvironmental behaviors in order to reciprocate the benefits that she receives (Paillé & Mejía-Morelos, 2014). If the employee’s environmental values are congruent with those of the organization, reciprocity may play a role, since an employee’s EWB might also help the organization’s environmental efforts. However, the SET does not address the situation when employees have a negative perception of an organization’s environmental record or if they perceive their organization’s stated green goals as “just talk and no action,” that is, greenwashing (Delmas & Burbano, 2011). Indeed, sometimes an employee’s commitment to the natural environment may be stronger than her organization’s commitment to the environment. In this article, a green employee’s actions are motivated by an intrinsic desire to help protect the environment. That is, a green employee engages in EWBs not to get something in return from the organization (although that may be a positive side effect), but has an intrinsic motivation to protect the environment. For green employees who happen to function in nongreen or less green organizations, the SET would break down and an alternative model needs to be developed.

As will be explained later, environmental behaviors might not always create value for the organization, but create value for the natural environment. My definition goes beyond existing definitions (Daily et al., 2009; Lamm et al., 2013; Ones & Dilchert, 2012a), by including behaviors that may occur in situations where individual and organizational values are out of sync, or when employees’ commitment to the natural environment exceeds the organization’s commitment to the natural environment. While most of the environmental literature recognizes the benefits of encouraging employees to “express” themselves at work by translating their environmental attitudes into action (Muster & Schrader, 2011), it does not extensively discuss, however, situations in which green employees might be “stuck” in nongreen jobs or organizations. Thus, in contrast with previous literature, this article accounts for situations when an employee’s environmental values are stronger than their organization’s environmental values.

Third, the article categorizes EWBs into high-intensity and low-intensity behaviors. A high-intensity EWB is characterized by one or more of the following: uncertainty regarding outcomes, high visibility, high organizational or individual costs, such as loss of reputation, demotion, or firing (named “good soldier costs” by Organ, 1988). Conversely, a low-intensity EWB is characterized by opposite characteristics: low uncertainty, low organizational or individual costs, and low visibility. While this dimension was previously applied to OCBs, it was not thoroughly discussed in relation to environmental behaviors in organizations. Each of the three subcategories of EWBs (OCBEs, EIRBs, and ECWBs) can have a low-intensity and high-intensity dimension.

Fourth, this article makes an important contribution to the literature by focusing on employees situated at any organizational level: Green employees can make a positive impact on the environment no matter where they are situated, given the right combination of individual traits and organizational characteristics. Much of the environmental management literature focused on managerial commitment to the natural environment (Branzei, Vertinsky, & Zietsma, 2000; Egri & Herman, 2000; Runhaar, Tigchelaar, & Vermeulen, 2008), with some exceptions (Andersson & Bateman, 2000; Boiral & Paillé, 2012; Lamm et al., 2013; Ones & Dilchert, 2012a). This article discusses the role of power and trust in the context of environmental behaviors performed by green employees situated at any organizational level.

The article has three sections. The first section sketches the profile of a green employee. The second section refines the concept of EWB, differentiates it from other organizational behaviors, and distinguishes between low-intensity and high-intensity EWBs. It also discusses the role of power and trust in enabling or constraining EWBs. The last section presents conclusions and directions for future research.

The Research Model of Environmental Workplace Behaviors (EWBs)

Green Employees

While all employees may perform EWBs, the focus of this article is on green employees, who represent a subset of all employees (see Figure 1).¹

Figure 1.

Green employees as a subset of all employees.

First, it is proposed that green employees hold an environmental identity, characterized by strong prominence, salience, and commitment. Environmental identity has been given insufficient attention in the sustainable management literature. A meta-analysis of determinants of engagement in environmental behaviors in organizations did not find any study that included environmental identity in their pool of antecedents (Lo et al., 2012). Environmental identity is also largely absent from some conceptual models, but included in others as a factor that influences behavior via intention (McDonald, 2014).

The concept of environmental identity has been defined an “experienced social understanding of who we are in relation to, and how we interact with, the natural environment” (Weigert, 1997, p. 159). Since individuals play multiple roles in society, they will have multiple identities, which can be arranged in a hierarchy, depending on their prominence and salience.² Green employees might differ in the extent of their commitment to their environmental identity; they may also differ in the degree of salience and prominence of their environmental identity in their hierarchy of identities (Stets & Biga, 2003). In studies of private environmentalism, environmental identity has been positively linked to engagement in proenvironmental action (Clayton, 2003) and environmental activists scored higher on measures of environmental identity than other individuals (Matsuba et al., 2012). It has been conceptualized in the literature using the bipolar scale of anthropocentrism versus ecocentrism (Chang & Opotow, 2009). The anthropocentric value orientation is based on the idea that humans are the center of the universe. In this view, the environment should be protected so that it continues to provide value to humans. In the ecocentric view, the environment should be protected for its own sake, regardless of whether nature is useful to humans or not; in this mind-set, individuals tend to act in proenvironmental ways even if doing so is uncomfortable, expensive, or inconvenient. By contrast, in the anthropocentric view, individuals are not prepared to act in a proenvironmental fashion if they have to experience discomfort, inconvenience, or expense in the process (Thompson & Barton, 1994). As Chang and Opotow (2009) explain, for people with a strong environmental identity, “environmental issues are immediate and personal. For people with weak environmental identities, conservation issues can seem less salient” (p. 80). In Stets and Biga’s (2003) research, environmental identity had the strongest effect on environmental behavior; furthermore, identity prominence, salience, and commitment had significant positive effects on engagement in environmental behaviors. Prominence, in particular, had significant positive effects on environmental attitudes, as well.³ Thus,

Proposition 1: Green employees are more likely than other employees to report a (a) prominent, (b) salient, and (c) committed environmental identity.

Second, green employees are motivated by an intrinsic desire to improve the environment, and not by reactive factors such as manager or shareholder pressures or recent environmental disasters. Such desire is “naturally present in those individuals who are the ‘true believers’ in environmental sustainability” (DuBois et al., 2013, p. 196). While an environmental catastrophe such as the 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico or the release of a documentary such as “An Inconvenient Truth” (2006) might act as triggers for environmental behaviors at work, my model is concerned with factors that are stable and fairly consistent over time. Green employees, like other human beings, have a pluralistic concept of “self” (Perez, Amichai-Hamburger, & Shterental, 2009), and thus, their motivations to behave at work are complex. Employees’ work decisions are driven not only by a simplistic economic motive but by other motives as well, such as concern toward others and obligations toward a variety of stakeholders, including the natural environment. Given their intrinsic motivation, green employees have a desire to make a significant impact on the natural environment through their work. This desire is a specific aspect of the broader concept of desire to have a significant impact through work defined as a “preference to do work that has a substantial influence on society and the lives of others” (Gully, Phillips, Castellano, Han, & Kim, 2013, p. 936). Certainly, the natural environment is an important stakeholder of the society, broadly defined. Thus,

Proposition 2: Green employees have an intrinsic motivation to protect the environment at work.

Third, individuals aim for consistency between their cognitive beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors (Audia, Locke, & Smith, 2000; Festinger, 1957). Green employees are also private citizens who hold environmental values, beliefs, and attitudes. As private citizens, they might make a special effort to purchase fruits and vegetables grown without pesticides, drive less, or buy products packaged in recycled materials (Barr, 2007; Hjelmar, 2011; Kahn & Morris, 2009). They might be willing to pay higher taxes to protect the environment, donate money to environmental groups, or write letters to government officials urging them to take proenvironmental actions (Farrell, 2013; Levy & Zint, 2013; Shaheen, 2012). Employees form their environmental attitudes in their private life (Temminck et al., 2013), as well as in their working life (Andersson, Eriksson, & von Borgstede, 2012); their private environmental attitudes and values influence work attitudes and behaviors and vice versa, in a holistic cycle of “green work–life balance” (Muster & Schrader, 2011). Little empirical research has been conducted on the consistency between home and work behaviors, although initial research is promising. A study conducted in Sweden, for instance, found positive and significant spillover effects between work and home: Employees who engaged in source separation at work were more likely to do it at home as well (Andersson et al., 2012).

By encouraging employees to bring their private environmental self into the workplace, positive spillover effects for the individual and the organization can occur. Since the two spheres of work and private lives are not separate (Muster & Schrader, 2011; Pfeffer & Sutton, 2006), it is expected that the employees who engage in environmental behaviors in their private lives would also aim to behave in an environmentally friendly manner at work and vice versa, assuming that the behaviors are comparable (e.g., recycling at home, recycling in the workplace). As DuBois et al. (2013) find, employees who have an intrinsic motivation to help the environment “recycle spontaneously, out of habit” (p. 198).

Suppose that green employees are not able to engage in EWBs at work, because of a lack of autonomy, lack of management support (Zibarras & Ballinger, 2011), bureaucratic impediments (DuBois et al., 2013), or other reasons. In these cases, they are likely to experience an inconsistency between two components of attitudes toward environmental protection: In particular, their cognitive (“I believe nature should be protected”) and behavioral (“I can’t perform my tasks in an environmental manner at work”) components are out of sync. This inconsistency was generally defined as “cognitive dissonance,” and it creates an internal tension within the individual, prompting her to reduce it (Festinger, 1957). Conversely, if employees have the opportunity to execute their tasks in an environmentally friendly manner, or engage in voluntary environmental behaviors at work, their cognitive dissonance would be reduced. Thus,

Proposition 3: Green employees display similar levels of comparable environmental behaviors between home and work settings.

The next section provides more theoretical clarity to the construct of EWB and differentiates it from other types of behaviors, such as OCBs, counterproductive workplace behaviors (CWBs), or in-role behaviors (IRBs).

Definition and Types of Environmental Behaviors in Organizations

Defining Environmental Workplace Behaviors (EWBs): Conceptual Distinctiveness

To define EWBs, it is important first to review the definition of OCB: “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, & MacKenzie, 2006, p. 3). Previous literature views environmental behaviors at work as simply another category within the broader category of OCBs (Paillé & Mejía-Morelos, 2014).⁴ For example, Boiral (2009) defines environmental OCBs (OCBEs) as “individual and discretionary social behaviours that are not explicitly recognized by the formal reward system and that contribute to a more effective environmental management by organizations” (Boiral, 2009, p. 223).

An important difference between my definition and previous definitions of environmental behaviors in organizations refers to the role of organizational commitment as an antecedent to environmental behaviors. In the definition of OCBEs proposed by Daily et al. (2009) and Boiral (2009), and the literature based on psychological contract theory (Paillé & Mejía-Morelos, 2014), organizational commitment is viewed an important antecedent of proenvironmental behaviors. Commitment has been defined as the degree to which employees share the same values as their organization, accept organizational goals, and make significant effort at work (Cooper-Hakim & Viswesvaran, 2005). This literature suggests that, if there is a breach in the psychological contract between employees and organization, employees will reduce their engagement in proenvironmental behaviors (Paillé & Mejía-Morelos, 2014). Conversely, the more committed employees are to their organization, the more they engage in proenvironmental behaviors at work. However, this literature does not make a distinction between green employees, less green, or nongreen employees, and thus assumes that all shades of green employees behave in a similar manner. Furthermore, empirical research is mixed with respect to the role of organizational commitment: for instance, Paillé et al. (2013) found no relationship between organizational commitment and OCBEs, while Temminck et al. (2013) found a positive relationship between the two variables.

The literature is silent, however, regarding situations in which conflicts between individual and organizational values occur, or situations in which green employees perceive that the “psychological contract” between the organization and the environment has been broken. In these situations, I argue, given the right conditions, green employees might “go the extra mile” for the environment, continue to act green out of habit (Verplanken & Orbell, 2003), or even engage in ECWBs. That is, in extreme situations, green employees might intentionally disobey or speak out against certain organizational rules and policies that they perceive as harmful to the environment. To account for these situations, I define EWBs broadly, as work behaviors directed toward the protection or improvement of the natural environment, which may or may not generate value for the organization; these behaviors may be performed by employees situated at any organizational level. Deliberately, the name ascribed to these behaviors avoids the word organizational.⁵ Steering away from the word “organizational” ensures that EWBs are not perceived as simply a category within the broader umbrella of OCBs, and avoids the implication that the employees’ motives to engage in EWBs stem from a strong commitment to the organization. As proposed in Green Employees section, green employees have an intrinsic motivation to protect the environment. Conversely, when a strong commitment to the organization exists, it can reasonably be expected that green employees feel supported in their EWB engagement (see When Individual and Organizational Values Are in Sync: EWBs and Trust section, for a discussion of value congruence).

Thus, in contrast to previous literature (Boiral, 2009; Daily et al., 2009; Paillé & Mejía-Morelos, 2014), I do not see environmental behaviors in organizations as a subset of OCBs, but as behaviors that sometimes overlap with, and other times, are different from them. As I will show later, some green behaviors may be perceived as counterproductive from an economic point of view, but responsible from an environmental point of view.

Figure 2 describes the relationship among OCBs, IRBs, and CWBs with the help of Venn diagrams. I will describe each overlap in turn. First, the overlap between EWBs and IRBs refers to tasks that are part of the employee’s job description and, therefore, are expected and required by the organization. Empirical research from the United States and Europe indicates that 13% to 29% of employee proenvironmental behaviors can be classified as IRBs (Ones & Dilchert, 2012a). Such required green behaviors include attending company-mandated environmental workshops, following environmental policies, or performing conservation behaviors specified by the organization. Although EIRBs are part of an employee’s job description, they can be performed in different degrees of completeness or regularity. Given the intrinsic motivation of green employees, it can be assumed that they would perform them with more passion and enthusiasm than other employees (see Table 1). For example, a company-mandated sustainability workshop might be attended with more interest by green employees than by other employees. A company announcement to embark on the 14001 global environmental standards would be received with more enthusiasm by green employees than by other employees. Moreover, green employees might develop more creative ways to execute the EIRBs and might have proactive suggestions regarding environmental practices or policies required by their organization. When it comes to these behaviors, green employees’ cognitive beliefs are in line with their attitudes and behaviors (i.e., they do not experience cognitive dissonance).

Figure 2.

Situating EWBs with respect to other organizational behaviors.

Table 1.

Examples of Low-Intensity and High-Intensity EWBs in Each Circle Overlap.

Organization citizenship behavior for the environment (OCBEs)	Low-intensity OCBEs	High-intensity OCBEs
Activism regarding a company’s decision to relocate its manufacturing facilities to a country with lax environmental standards	Raising concerns to one’s supervisor about the perils of this action and stopping here if the talk is unsuccessful	Mobilizing others using persuasion and negotiation skills, calling meetings, and forming a committee with the specific purpose of deterring the company from relocating to that country
Altruism regarding environmental certification	Taking time away from one’s daily responsibilities to complete a survey conducted by an environmental organization such as Sustainable Travel International or Rainforest International	Offering to conduct research about the feasibility of adopting environmental standards designed by these environmental organizations. The voluntary adoption of ISO 14001 standards, for instance, require continuous and significant investment of time and effort to obtain certification and respect the standards (Darnall, 2006).
Environmental in-role behaviors (EIRBs)	Low-intensity EIRBs	High-intensity EIRBs
Employees are expected to recycle, but there are no penalties for failing to recycle.	Recycling correctly, most of the time	Always recycling correctly
Employees are expected to print two-sided, but there are no penalties for failing to do so.	Printing two-sided, most of the time	Reducing printing to zero; reading and writing online
Environmental counterproductive workplace behaviors (ECWBs)	Low-intensity ECWBs	High-intensity ECWBs
Behaviors that occur in response to company intention to develop a software intended to cheat emissions tests (e.g., Volkswagen; Boston, 2015)	• Using organization resources (work time, e-mail, paper, phone, internal and external contacts) to conduct own investigation.^a This behavior, while less visible and less costly, would be counterproductive to the organization, because organizational resources are diverted from completing immediate job responsibilities to environmental purposes.	Environmental whistleblowing: alerting the press, NGOs, Environmental Protection Agency, other governmental agencies responsible.^a
	• Environmentally motivated insubordination: Delaying the developing of the software, placing barriers for the team responsible for developing the software, hiding data or resources that could help the team.^a

Hypothetical behaviors, as the Volkswagen investigation is still underway, at the time of this writing.

Second, EWBs include behaviors that have been classified as a category within the broader umbrella of OCBs (called OCBEs by Daily et al., 2009, and Lamm et al., 2013, and environmental OCBs by Boiral, 2009). These are discretionary environmental behaviors and represent the largest portion of EWBs (hence designated with a larger circle in Figure 2). An early taxonomy of OCBEs (Boiral, 2009) is built on the original OCB categories developed by Organ et al. (2006). According to this taxonomy, the activism/advocacy behavior is characterized by expressing minority or challenging views and encouraging others to voice their opinions regarding the environmental impact of organizational decisions. Examples include the following: forming an environmental affinity group, urging others to act in an environmentally friendly manner, admonishing peers for not performing a task in an environmentally friendly manner, voluntarily calling a meeting to discuss the environmental impact of company actions; arguing against relocating companies to countries with lax environmental standards and championing environmental issues (Andersson & Bateman, 2000).

Another type of behavior is altruism, which refers to volunteering one’s skills, time, and effort to improving the environmental quality of organizational decisions regarding its products, services, and processes. Examples might include the following: offering to conduct an environmental impact analysis of a project and sharing one’s knowledge of environmental protection through formal presentations or informal discussions. Perhaps the least visible type of EWB is self-development: accumulating knowledge regarding environmental phenomena in general and environmental management in particular. Examples would include the following: developing a broad understanding of the interconnections between social, economic, demographic, and environmental trends (Boiral, 2009) and voluntarily conducting research regarding the short-term and long-term impact of organizational processes, products, or services on the natural environment.

Another type of OCBE is sportsmanship, which refers to not complaining about the extra work and inconvenience that may accompany environmental practices initiated by the organization. Although choosing not to complain is actually a nonbehavior, it is a conscious act that should be recognized as a specific type of proenvironmental behavior (Boiral, 2009). Sportsmanship helps reduce the resistance generally encountered when new environmental initiatives are introduced.

Previous literature categorized OCBEs further into direct behaviors, such as recycling or energy-saving, and indirect behaviors, such as ecohelping, ecocivic engagement, and ecoinitiatives (Ones & Dilchert, 2012b; Paillé & Boiral, 2013; Paillé et al., 2013; Paillé & Mejía-Morelos, 2014). Other taxonomies of OCBEs exist in the literature (Daily et al., 2009; Ones & Dilchert, 2012a; Temminck et al., 2013). The five main categories identified by Ones and Dilchert (2012a), for example, are the following: (a) working sustainably, (b) avoiding harm, (c) conserving, (d) influencing others, and (c) taking initiative. Empirical evidence showed that these behaviors are positively and significantly correlated (Ones & Dilchert, 2012a).

Third, the overlap between EWBs and CWBs includes behaviors such as environmentally motivated insubordination or environmental whistleblowing. These behaviors might occur as a reaction to perceived greenwashing (Glavas & Godwin, 2013), or to expose the negative effects on the environment of certain organizational policies or decisions.⁶ They will be described below.

Environmentally motivated insubordination is defined here as silently or openly disobeying superior’s orders or companywide decisions because of their potential harm to the natural environment; these orders or decisions, however, may be legal or compliant with organizational policies and consistent with the economic goals of the organization. This behavior is inspired by the “evidence-based misbehavior” concept, defined in the evidence-based management literature as the tendency of employees to “drag their feet,” implement certain policies slowly, or not implement them at all when they know that the proposed policies are not based on evidence or logic (Pfeffer & Sutton, 2006).

Environmentally motivated insubordination might be subtle and almost impossible to detect. For instance, a green HR manager might give preference to a green candidate, although doing so may be inconsistent with the organization’s recruiting policies. A green marketing manager might decide to enroll her employees in an e-learning training program, framing the decision in terms of costs saved, while the real reasons may be related to the amount of carbon emissions saved by avoiding driving/flying to the event. A green PR manager might present inflated return on investment figures from supporting environmental causes as opposed to other causes, such as scouting events. Since trust is positively correlated with risk-taking behavior (Colquitt, Scott, & LePine, 2007; Premeaux & Bedeian, 2003), these situations would be possible if a reasonable amount of trust is placed in these managers or employees. While it is more realistic to expect environmentally motivated insubordination to occur in managerial positions, it can also occur, to a smaller degree, in nonmanagerial positions.

Another example of the overlap between EWBs and CWBs (see Figure 2) would be environmental whistleblowing, according to which employees alert the organization leaders, the government, or partner with NGOs to protest organizational policies or decisions that cause environmental harm. CWBs have been defined as “volitional acts that harm or are intended to harm organizations or people in organizations. Included are acts of aggression, hostility, sabotage, theft, and withdrawal” (Fox & Spector, 2005, p. 220). However, in cases of whistleblowing, “what may be counterproductive from the organization’s point of view (filing a grievance over unfair treatment) may be productive for the individual” (Fox & Spector 2005, p. 224).” Regarding environmental whistleblowing, I extend and modify the definition above to say that, “what may be perceived by the organization as counterproductive, may be productive for the environment.” The discussion that follows will provide examples that illustrate such behaviors.

A famous example is provided by Erin Brockovich, a law clerk, who exposed the polluting actions of Pacific Gas & Electric and fought to obtain a settlement for the victims in the nearby community (Esquivel, 2015). Erin’s behavior fits all the characteristics of high-intensity EWBs: It was risky and costly for the law firm and Erin herself, and there was high uncertainty regarding outcomes. Another example is that of Hellen McGill, who was hired by the University of South Carolina (USC) as the hazardous waste manager, and exposed the USC violations of the Department of Health and Environmental Control regulations regarding chemical waste (McGill v. University of South Carolina, 1992). Furthermore, when unacceptably high levels of cancer-causing chemicals (polychlorinated biphenyl) were discovered in the campus soil at the Malibu School District, a group of teachers and parents sued the school district, arguing that teachers and children have incurred negative health effects associated with the school environment. Despite the lawsuit, the school district avoided testing the soil and removing the harmful chemicals. The teachers contacted an advocacy organization (PEER) to help pressure state and federal officials to remove chemicals from campus soils (Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, 2015; Stade, 2015).⁷

In the oil industry, employees of Alyeska Pipeline Service were providing information to an oil broker, Charles Hamel, and the government, about how Alyeska and its member companies, among which British Petroleum and Exxon, violated the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, and pipeline maintenance regulations. The oil industry was trying to hide information from regulators, in order to obtain access to oil drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (Sanjour & Kohn, 1994).⁸ Environmental whistleblowing cases are too many to be reviewed here, but a quick review includes the following:

a painter who cooperated with an investigation into toxic dumping, a teacher who complained about asbestos in a school house, an engineer who filed reports regarding a shipyard’s noncompliance with hazardous waste regulations, and an employee who told a newspaper reporter about the discharge of sludge into the Cedar Rapids. (Becker, 2014, p. 80)

As explained above, ECWBs could be perceived as counterproductive to the organization, inconsistent with its short-term economic goals; they often lead to insubordination and protests against company regulations, tensions between employees and supervisors, and might have lethal consequences to an individual’s career. However, NOT performing them would be irresponsible to the environment. Indeed, CWBs are often performed by reasonable individuals, with good intentions and a strong sense of responsibility for their family and society (Fox & Spector, 2005). Given the risky nature of environmental whistleblowing or environmentally motivated insubordination, not all green employees will engage in these behaviors. Some choose to keep quiet or leave the organization, options classically defined as “loyalty” and “exit” by Hirschman (1970).

It is important to emphasize here that green employees’ commitment to the environment does not subtract from their commitment to the organization. The two identities, environmental and organizational, are not mutually exclusive, although the resulting behavior will be ultimately determined by the relative salience, prominence of, or commitment to the two identities (Stets & Biga, 2003) and other factors. A green employee can be simultaneously committed to both the natural environment and their organization. It is only when the organization engages in an environmentally harmful action that ECWBs may occur.

Low-Intensity and High-Intensity EWBs

Almost all EWBs described above could be placed on a continuum ranging from low intensity to high intensity.⁹ As shown in Figure 2, each circle overlap includes both low-intensity and high-intensity behaviors. Table 1 provides examples from each category.¹⁰

Examples of low-intensity behaviors include the following: switching the light or the computer off when leaving office, printing on both sides of paper, carpooling to work (if possible), filling out a survey about environmental matters, taking waste home to recycle, reusing food packaging, turning off lights or electrical appliances on behalf of others, or turning down heat in own office. These behaviors have been characterized as extensions of domestic behaviors (Smith & O’Sullivan, 2012). Conversely, high-intensity EWBs have short-term costs, incurred by the employee and organization, and long-term benefits, the latter dispersed among multiple stakeholders. Take, for instance, the hypothetical decision of a manufacturing company to invest in pollution prevention technologies more advanced than those required by the legislation. Adopting such technologies imposes substantial costs for the company, while the benefits of clean air are enjoyed by the surrounding community as a whole. The employee who would be championing such a decision through the organization might incur personal direct and indirect costs (see Table 1, for more examples). The idea that some OCBs exact emotional costs on the individual has been examined previously (Bolino & Turnley, 2005; C. Chang, Johnson, & Yang, 2007), but it was only sparsely related to environmental behaviors in organizations.

As shown in Figure 1, green employees are a subset of all employees. Given the characteristics of green employees proposed in Green Employees section, most green employees might perform them on a regular basis, either habitually or deliberately. Indeed, habit and environmental concern were most associated with engagement in these extensions to the domestic behaviors (Smith & O’Sullivan, 2012) which include most of the low-intensity EWBs. By contrast, since high-intensity EWBs are more visible and have higher potential costs, they are conducted by only a subset of all green employees. Further research might explain why some green employees engage in high-intensity behaviors while others do not.

When Individual and Organizational Values Are in Sync: EWBs and Trust

While a lack of fit between a green employee’s values and those of their organizations might encourage some to engage in ECWBs, environmental behaviors are expected to thrive in organizations that are strongly committed to sustainability. As explained above, when environmental objectives are communicated effectively and employees are supported by the organization, they are more likely to engage in proenvironmental behaviors (Paillé & Mejía-Morelos, 2014). Organizations that are truly committed to environmental sustainability are perceived as more trustworthy, since they “walk the talk,” at least when it comes to environmental matters. Trust has been defined as “the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of another party, [ . . . ] irrespective of the ability to monitor or control that other party” (Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995, p. 712). An employee who trusts her manager might accept the vulnerability of taking a discretionary environmental action and vice versa. By contrast, lack of trust in the immediate supervisor will lead to outcomes such as worry and stress (Pugh, Skarlicki, & Passell, 2003). Given the limited capacity of human mind and ability to focus on executing a role, the time and mental energy spent worrying subtracts from the time and mental energy that the employee might devote to performing job-related tasks (Pugh et al., 2003) or voluntary behaviors. By extension, the time and mental energy spent worrying about what the manager might do if a decision turns out negatively are not worth the benefits of engaging in an uncertain action.

A meta-analysis of trust and other research found that, when trust in coworkers and leaders increases, risk-taking behavior also increases (Colquitt et al., 2007; Premeaux & Bedeian, 2003). Interpersonal trust also increases knowledge sharing (Golden & Raghuram, 2010; McEvily, Perrone, & Zaheer, 2003) and creativity of both parties (Madjar & Ortiz-Walters, 2008), which may stimulate engagement in EWBs. Trust in leaders was positively related to engagement in OCBs (Mayer & Gavin, 2005). A meta-analysis found that trust in one’s manager was moderately and positively correlated with person–organization (P-O) fit (Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005). Conversely, when there was a strong fit between the values and goals of the leader and employees, trust was more likely to occur (Edwards & Cable, 2009). Employees whose supervisors supported environmental innovation engaged in environmental competence building and environmental communication, used rewards for environmental performance and managed environmental goals and responsibilities, and were more likely to promote ecoinitiatives (Ramus & Steger, 2000). Similarly, supervisor commitment to social responsibility in general was an important predictor to employees’ engagement in corporate social responsibility behaviors (Muller & Kolk, 2010). Not surprisingly, when the supervisors are green employees themselves, it is more likely that their subordinates engage in proenvironmental behaviors (Robertson & Barling, 2013; Young et al., 2015). Conversely, lack of management support was the most important barrier against employee engagement in environmental behaviors (Zibarras & Ballinger, 2011). Thus,

Proposition 4: Green employees who perceive their organizations as trustworthy are more likely to perform EWBs than other employees.

EWBs and Power

Some studies found that managers tend to engage in more proenvironmental behaviors than nonmanagers (Ones, Dilchert, Biga, & Gibby, 2010a, as cited in Ones & Dilchert, 2012b). Furthermore, top management commitment to sustainability can have the effect of greening the entire organization, either by creating a C-level position responsible for environmental sustainability or designing formal “green” policies (Ones & Dilchert, 2012b). Previous research on environmental behaviors focused to a large extent on environmental leadership, that is, on how ecological initiatives were championed by the top leaders of an organization or pushed through formal organizational channels (Branzei et al., 2000; Egri & Herman, 2000).

However, sometimes, ecological issues are pushed upward from lower organizational levels. I argue that green employees could be situated at any organizational level and would be able to infuse work decisions with their own environmental values, given that certain conditions exist. One way to do so is through formal structures, such as their position in the organization, appointments on work councils, boards, and so on. Another way is through informal avenues, via relationships that exist outside of formal structures (Andersson & Bateman, 2000; Ciocirlan & Pettersson, 2012). Essentially, when employees situated at any organizational level are committed to the environment, and have a clear vision of what they want to accomplish, they could use their persuasion skills to mobilize other employees and their managers around this vision. Due to their intrinsic motivation, green employees should be more likely to initiate and champion ecological innovations than other employees (DuBois et al., 2013). Indeed, techniques such as coalition building and inspirational appeal increase the effectiveness of championing an environmental issue (Andersson & Bateman, 2000). In many cases, given certain conditions (people involved, framing, timing, knowledge of the issue champion), individuals situated at various organizational levels were successful in pushing issues on the top management agenda (Dutton, Ashford, O’Neill, & Lawrence, 2001). For example, in a U.K. organization focused on document-processing products and services, a middle manager took responsibility for an environmental development issue and was able to move it quickly up the hierarchy (Bansal, 2003).

Employees can use different types of power, such as referent power or expert power, to influence their superiors or peers. Sometimes, expert power (the power that comes from one’s expertise) or referent power (the power that comes from admiration of and identification with an employee) matter more than the legitimate power that comes with one’s formal position in the organization (French & Raven, 1960). A literature review on interpersonal power reveals that power was related to higher risk-taking behavior, higher creativity, higher self-confidence, less normative behaviors, and higher liberty in behaviors, although sometimes these higher liberty behaviors were counterproductive (Sturm & Antonakis, 2015). Although little research has been conducted in the environmental area, expert and referent power are expected to be more relevant for highly visible and riskier environmental behaviors, such as the high-intensity forms of EWBs. In a change process, Lines (2007) found that task-related expert power was positively related to goal achievement and inversely related to resistance to change. If employees have a keen understanding of their manager’s goals and pressures, strengths and weaknesses, and preferred communication style, they are able to influence their superiors to a higher extent than conventionally thought (Gabarro & Kotter, 1980). Thus,

Proposition 5: Green employees who hold referent or expert power are more likely to perform EWBs than other employees.

Theoretical Implications and Directions for Future Research

Conceptualizing environmental behaviors in organizations is critical, given the climate change trends already occurring and the acute interest in environmental matters expressed by researchers and practitioners in recent years. Sustainability at the macro level starts with individual action. This article delineates the profile of a green employee, clarifies the construct of EWBs, and situates it into the context of other organizational behaviors. It also discusses constructs such as trust and power, which have been given limited attention in the organizational sustainability literature. While most green employees are expected to engage in low-intensity EWBs, only a subset of green employees might engage in high-intensity ones (see Figure 1). The amount of perceived trust in one’s organization and the amount of referent and expert power are expected to influence green employees’ engagement in EWBs. To test the propositions above in practice, empirical studies will have to be conducted.

As defined here, EWBs consist of several categories of behaviors (EIRBs, OCBEs, and ECWBs), and each category has its own, unique, set of antecedents, mediators, moderators, and outcomes. Future research might develop models that explain employee engagement in each set of behaviors; several avenues have been proposed to develop models of required (EIRBs) and voluntary (OCBEs) behaviors. Future studies might also extend the model to include specific propositions for each subtype (altruism, activism, self-development, environmentally motivated insubordination). Are the green employees who engage in altruism, for instance, different than those who engage in activism, given a similar level of intensity? What factors predict or moderate a green employee’s engagement in self-development versus activism? What factors predict or moderate an employee’s engagement in environmental whistleblowing versus environmentally motivated insubordination? Knowing what factors determine employee engagement in these behaviors would help an organization that is truly committed to environmental sustainability to determine how to stimulate them further and leverage their potential.

Additionally, future research might close the loop by exploring outcomes of engagement in EWBs. While discussing the outcomes of EWBs in organizations is beyond the scope of this article, several directions can be formulated. First, it can be reasonably expected that, when green employees engage in EWBs, they derive a higher internal satisfaction and meaning from their jobs, a concept defined as task significance (Hackman & Oldham, 1980). Second, organizations that build a positive reputation of environmental responsibility would be able to affect these employees’ sense of belongingness, their integration in the work environment (Carmeli, Gilat, & Waldman, 2007). These organizations would be able to strengthen green employees’ sense of organizational identity. Third, a positive link between green employees’ engagement in EWBs and the environmental performance of the organization as a whole can be reasonably expected. To a large extent, corporate environmental performance is affected by individual environmental actions. EWBs performed by employees situated at any level should have a positive impact on the aggregate corporate environmental performance. Fourth, researchers might examine how some OCBEs could be transformed from a set of extra-role, discretionary behaviors, to EIRBs, which would be integrated in formal structures and everyday thinking of ordinary employees. Integrating environmental sustainability in core work settings was proposed as an important objective of our field (Ones & Dilchert, 2012b).

Organizational and Managerial Implications

Knowing what EWBs are is of little value in the absence of recommendations to managers and organizations. From an HR perspective, future empirical tests of the construct formulated here will have important practical implications. Regarding green recruiting, if an organization wants to attract green employees, it must know what “makes” a green employee first. Then, the organization can adapt its recruitment messages to better attract green candidates. Research on green recruiting is only at the beginning, although recent advances have been made (Gully et al., 2013; Kane, 2011). Organizations might then incorporate screening devices in the hiring process to ensure that green candidates are hired, assuming that these devices are job-related and reliable. This type of attitudinal or motivational screening would be used in complementary fashion to the traditional job-related assessment of skills, rather than in place of it (Fodchuk, 2007). Alternatively, an organization might use a green version of the “success profile” model pioneered by Southwest Airlines (O’Reilly & Pfeffer, 1995) or Google, according to which an organization systematically identifies the main competencies of their top green employees and uses them to inform its recruitment and selection processes.

The model formulated here has useful implications for green candidates as well: A close match between employee and organizational values is important for job satisfaction. The P-O fit literature suggests that candidates are most attracted to those organizations that are consistent with their values (Judge & Cable, 1997; Lievens, Decaesteker, Coetsier, & Geirnaert, 2001). Essentially, when there is congruence between individual and organizational traits (high person–environment fit), the individual experiences higher job satisfaction and higher performance (see Holland’s [1997] career theory; Perdue, Reardon, & Peterson, 2007).

In a perfectly rational world, green candidates would make a deliberate choice to work for green organizations and there would always be a perfect P-O fit. According to Schneider’s (1987) attraction–selection–attrition framework, an employee who often experiences cognitive dissonance is more likely to quit the organization compared with an employee who rarely experiences cognitive dissonance. The idea is that people select themselves in and out of organizations; therefore, if a lack of fit develops, it would not exist for too long. However, this framework overlooks transaction costs, opportunity costs, and situational factors. People are not entirely rational, they do not always have perfect information about the organizations they target, or they may be unaware of the gap between the stated and actual values of these organizations (Ariely, 2010). Situational factors might include, for instance, geographical constraints due to a spouse’s job or children’s school location, economic motivations, or equity considerations resulting from comparisons of a nongreen job with inferior alternatives (using the premise of Adams’s [1963] equity theory). Such economic or family-related motivations might dominate a green candidate’s decision to choose one organization over another. In these situations, green employees might get stuck, unwillingly and possibly for the long term, in a “nongreen” organization: Thus, a lack of value congruence results.

If green employees decide to quit their organization due to a lack of P-O fit, the organization would experience the following direct and indirect costs: short-term or long-term apathy, presenteeism, severance and health care costs for departing employees, hiring and training costs of new employees, lower productivity of current employees who may be involved in the selection process of new employees, damage to a company’s reputation, and opportunity costs associated with a potentially better organizational environmental record and public organizational image if the employees had stayed.

To avoid this outcome, green candidates might inquire, during the selection process, about the organizational characteristics that support or impede engagement in EWBs. Do the leaders of the organization support environmental initiatives? Do existing cultural norms encourage environmentally friendly behaviors? How much autonomy does one have to engage in voluntary environmental behaviors? It is important to identify and accommodate green employees in order to ensure a strong P-O fit and increase their job satisfaction. Since green employees exhibit intrinsic motivation, a bureaucratic work environment, which limits their autonomy and poses barriers to their creativity, is likely to decrease their motivation. Organizations must identify and remove the barriers that may prevent green employees from engaging in EWBs (DuBois et al., 2013). More research is necessary to establish the influence of P-O fit on engagement in low-intensity and high-intensity EWBs.

There are different shades of green employees, as it has been shown by segmentation analyses such as the ones performed by Dubois et al. (2013), where employees are categorized into laggards, late majority, early majority, early adopters, and innovators, depending on their degree of motivation to adopt environmental innovations. More employee segmentation analyses are necessary to provide managers with useful recommendations targeted at influencing the behaviors of employees in each segment.

Moreover, the importance of green leadership for the development of a proenvironmental culture cannot be overstated. Leaders act as examples for employees, and if they themselves engage in voluntary environmental behaviors, employees are likely to emulate these behaviors as well (Bansal, 2003; Boiral, 2009; Egri & Herman, 2000; Muller & Kolk, 2010; Ramus & Steger, 2000). Green leaders would be perceived as trustworthy by green employees, who would feel encouraged to perform EWBs themselves.¹¹

Last, managers must pay particular attention to creating high-quality relationships with their employees, based on trust. As discussed in When Individual and Organizational Values Are in Sync: EWBs and Trust section, trust can generate positive outcomes in many areas, but in the environmental area in particular. When employees trust their manager, they are more confident in embarking on uncertain environmental initiatives and more likely to put up with the inconvenience and risk that characterize these initiatives. Due to space considerations, the literature on trust cannot be reviewed here, but it is extensive in its recommendations to managers regarding how to build and retain trust.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to two anonymous reviewers for their useful comments and suggestions. I am also grateful to a faculty colleague, who shall remain unnamed, for always keeping the light on when leaving his office. His non-environmental behavior has inspired this research. I am also very grateful to the U.S.-U.K. Fulbright Commission for supporting this project.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was made possible through a U.S. Fulbright Scholar grant conducted at Durham University, United Kingdom.

Notes

Author Biography

Cristina E. Ciocirlan teaches management classes at Elizabethtown College, PA. She is the recipient of a U.S. Fulbright Scholar award in the UK. Her research interests focus on environmental behaviors in organizations, family business management, and human resource management.

References

Adams

J. S.

(1963). Toward an understanding of inequity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 422-436.

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.

Andersson

Eriksson

von Borgstede

(2012). The effects of environmental management systems on source separation in the work and home settings. Sustainability, 4, 1292-1308.

Ariely

(2010). The upside of irrationality: The unexpected benefits of defying logic at work and at home. New York, NY: HarperCollins.

Audia

P. G.

Locke

E. A.

Smith

K. G.

(2000). The paradox of success: An archival and a laboratory study of strategic persistence following radical environmental change. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 837-853.

Bansal

(2003). From issues to actions: The importance of individual concerns and organizational values in responding to natural environmental issues. Organization Science, 14, 510-527.

Barr

(2007). Factors influencing environmental attitudes and behaviors: A U.K. case study of household waste management. Environment & Behavior, 39, 435-473.

Becker

(2014). Calling foul: Deficiencies in approaches to environmental whistleblowers and suggested reforms, Washington and Lee Journal of Energy, Climate and the Environment, 6(1), 65-97. Retrieved from http://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/jece/vol6/iss1/4/

Bissing-Olson

M. J.

Iyer

Fielding

K. S.

Zacher

(2013). Relationships between daily affect and pro-environmental behavior at work: The moderating role of pro-environmental attitude. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34, 156-175.

10.

Boiral

(2009). Greening the corporation through organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Business Ethics, 87, 221-236.

11.

Boiral

Paillé

(2012). Organizational citizenship behaviour for the environment: Measurement and validation. Journal of Business Ethics, 109, 431-445.

12.

Bolino

M. C.

Turnley

W. H.

(2005). The personal costs of citizenship behavior: The relationship between individual initiative and role overload, job stress, and work-family conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 740-748.

13.

Boston

(2015, November 13). VW calls on whistleblowers to step forward. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from http://www.wsj.com/articles/volkswagen-to-offer-whistleblowers-impunity-on-emissions-cheating-scandal-1447317337

14.

Branzei

Vertinsky

Zietsma

(2000). From green-blindness to the pursuit of eco-sustainability: An empirical investigation of leader cognitions and corporate environmental strategy choices. Academy of Management Proceedings, August, C1-C6.

15.

Carmeli

Gilat

Waldman

D. A.

(2007). The role of perceived organizational performance in organizational identification, adjustment and job performance. Journal of Management Studies, 44, 972-992.

16.

Chang

Johnson

R. E.

Yang

(2007). Emotional strain and organizational citizenship behaviours: A meta-analysis and review. Work & Stress, 21, 312-332.

17.

Chang

Opotow

(2009). Conservation values, environmental identity and moral inclusion in the Kunene Region, Namibia: A comparative study. Beliefs and Values, 1(1), 79-89.

18.

Ciocirlan

Pettersson

(2012). Does workforce diversity matter in the fight against climate change? An analysis of Fortune 500 companies. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 19, 47-62.

19.

Clayton

(2003). Environmental identity: A conceptual and an operational definition. In Clayton

Opotow

(Eds.), Identity and the natural environment (pp. 45-65). Cambridge: MIT Press.

20.

Colquitt

J. A.

Scott

B. A.

LePine

J. A.

(2007). Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: A meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 909-927.

21.

Cooper-Hakim

Viswesvaran

(2005). The construct of work commitment: Testing an integrative framework. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 241-259.

22.

Daily

B. F.

Bishop

J. W.

Govindarajulu

(2009). A conceptual model for organizational citizenship behavior directed toward the environment. Business & Society, 48, 243-256.

23.

Darnall

(2006). Why firms mandate ISO 14001 certification. Business & Society, 45, 354-381.

24.

Delmas

M. A.

Burbano

(2011). The drivers of greenwashing. California Management Review, 54, 64-87.

25.

DuBois

C. L. Z.

Astakhova

M. N.

DuBois

D. A.

(2013). Motivating behavior change to support organizational environmental sustainability goals. In Huffman

A. H.

Klein

S. R.

(Eds.), Green organizations: Driving change with I-O psychology (pp. 186-207). New York, NY: Routledge.

26.

Dutton

J. E.

Ashford

S. J.

O’Neill

R. M.

Lawrence

K. A.

(2001). Moves that matter: Issue selling and organizational change. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 716-736.

27.

Edwards

J. R.

Cable

D. M.

(2009). The value of value congruence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 654-677.

28.

Egri

C. P.

Herman

(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.

29.

Esquivel

(2015, April 12). 15 Years after “‘Erin Brockovich,” town still fearful of polluted water. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-hinkley-20150413-story.html

30.

Farrell

(2013). Environmental activism and moral schemas: Cultural components of differential participation. Environment & Behavior, 45, 399-423.

31.

Festinger

(1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

32.

Fodchuk

K. M.

(2007). Work environments that negate counterproductive behaviors and foster organizational citizenship: Research-based recommendations for managers. Psychologist-Manager Journal, 10(1), 27-46.

33.

Fox

Spector

P. E.

(2005). Counterproductive work behavior: Investigations of actors and targets. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

34.

French

J. P. R.

Jr. Raven

(1960). The bases of social power. In Cartwright

Zander

(Eds.), Group dynamics (pp. 607-623). New York, NY: Harper & Row.

35.

Gabarro

J. J.

Kotter

J. P.

(1980). Managing your boss. Retrieved from http://library.certh.gr/libfiles/PDF/PAPYR-623-MANAGING-by-GABARRO-in-HBR-PP-92-99-Y-2005.pdf

36.

Glavas

Godwin

L. N.

(2013). Is the perception of “goodness” good enough? Exploring the relationship between perceived corporate social responsibility and employee organizational identification. Journal of Business Ethics, 114, 15-27.

37.

Glavas

Piderit

(2009). How does doing good matter? Effects of corporate citizenship on employees. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, Winter(36), 51-70.

38.

Golden

T. D.

Raghuram

(2010). Teleworker knowledge sharing and the role of altered relational and technological interactions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 1061-1085.

39.

Gully

S. M.

Phillips

J. M.

Castellano

W. G.

Han

Kim

(2013). A mediated moderation model of recruiting socially and environmentally responsible job applicants. Personnel Psychology, 66, 935-973.

40.

Hackman

J. R.

Oldham

G. R.

(1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

41.

Hirschman

(1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms, organizations, and states. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

42.

Hjelmar

(2011). Consumers’ purchase of organic food products: A matter of convenience and reflexive practices. Appetite, 56, 336-344.

43.

Holland

J. L.

(1997). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work environments (3rd ed.). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

44.

Judge

T. A.

Cable

D. M.

(1997). Applicant personality, organizational culture and organizational attraction. Personnel Psychology, 50, 359-394.

45.

Kahn

M. E.

Morris

E. A.

(2009). Walking the walk: The association between community environmentalism and green travel behavior. Journal of the American Planning Association, 75, 389-405.

46.

Kane

(2011). Green recruitment, development and engagement. In Bartlett

(Ed.), Going green: The psychology of sustainability in the workplace (pp. 6-17). Leicester, England: British Psychological Society.

47.

Kristof-Brown

A. L.

Zimmerman

R. D.

Johnson

E. C.

(2005). Consequences of individuals’ fit at work: A meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-group and person-supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58, 281-342.

48.

Lamm

Tosti-Kharas

Williams

E. G.

(2013). Read this article, but don’t print it: Organizational citizenship behavior toward the environment. Group & Organization Management, 38, 163-197.

49.

Levy

B. M.

Zint

M. T.

(2013). Toward fostering environmental political participation: Framing an agenda for environmental education research. Environmental Education Research, 19, 553-576.

50.

Lievens

Decaesteker

Coetsier

Geirnaert

(2001). Organizational attractiveness for prospective applicants: A person-organisation fit perspective. Applied Psychology, 50, 30-51.

51.

Lines

(2007). Using power to install strategy: The relationships between expert power, position power, influence tactics and implementation success. Journal of Change Management, 7, 143-170.

52.

S. H.

Peters

G.-J.

Kok

(2012). A review of determinants of and interventions for pro-environmental behaviors in organizations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42, 2933-2967.

53.

Madjar

Ortiz-Walters

(2008). Customers as contributors and reliable evaluators of creativity in the service industry. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 949-966.

54.

Mandip

(2012). Green HRM: People management commitment to environmental sustainability. Retrieved from http://www.isca.in/rjrs/archive/iscsi/38.ISCA-ISC-2011-18CLM-Com-03.pdf

55.

Manika

Wells

V. K.

Gregory-Smith

Gentry

(2013). The impact of individual attitudinal and organisational variables on workplace environmentally friendly behaviours. Journal of Business Ethics, 126, 663-684.

56.

Matsuba

M. K.

Pratt

M. W.

Norris

J. E.

Mohle

Alisat

McAdams

D. P.

(2012). Environmentalism as a context for expressing identity and generativity: Patterns among activists and uninvolved youth and midlife adults. Journal of Personality, 80, 1091-1115.

57.

Mayer

R. C.

Gavin

M. B.

(2005). Trust in management and performance: Who minds the shop while the employees watch the boss? Academy of Management Journal, 48, 874-888.

58.

Mayer

R. C.

Davis

J. H.

Schoorman

F. D.

(1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20, 709-734.

59.

McDonald

F. V.

(2014). Developing an integrated conceptual framework of pro-environmental behavior in the workplace through synthesis of the current literature. Administrative Sciences, 4, 276-303.

60.

McEvily

Perrone

Zaheer

(2003). Trust as an organizing principle. Organization Science, 14, 91-103.

61.

McGill v. University of South Carolina, 423 S.E.2d 109, 310 S.C. 224 (1992).

62.

Morgeson

F. P.

Aguinis

Waldman

D. A.

Siegel

D. S.

(2013). Extending corporate social responsibility research to the human resource management and organizational behavior domains: A look to the future. Personnel Psychology, 66, 805-824.

63.

Muller

Kolk

(2010). Extrinsic and intrinsic drivers of corporate social performance: Evidence from foreign and domestic firms in Mexico. Journal of Management Studies, 47, 1-26.

64.

Muster

Schrader

(2011). Green work-life balance: A new perspective for green HRM. Zeitschrift Für Personalforschung, 25, 140-156.

65.

Ones

D. S.

Dilchert

(2013). Measuring, understanding, and influencing employees. In Huffman

A. H.

Klein

S. R.

(Eds.), Green organizations: Driving change with I-O psychology (pp. 115-148). New York, NY: Routledge.

66.

Ones

D. S.

Dilchert

(2012a). Employee green behaviors. In Jackson

S. E.

Ones

D. S.

Dilchert

(Eds.), Managing HR for environmental sustainability (pp. 85-116). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

67.

Ones

D. S.

Dilchert

(2012b). Environmental sustainability at work: A call to action. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 5, 444-466.

68.

Ones

D. S.

Dilchert

Biga

Gibby

R. E.

(2010a, April). Managerial level differences in eco-friendly employee behaviors. In Dilchert

(Chair), Organizational and group differences in environmentally responsible employee behaviors. Symposium at the 25th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Atlanta.

69.

O’Reilly

Pfeffer

(1995). Southwest Airlines (A). Stanford, CA: Stanford Graduate School of Business.

70.

Organ

D. W.

(1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

71.

Organ

D. W.

Podsakoff

MacKenzie

(2006). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature, antecedents and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

72.

Paillé

Boiral

(2013). Pro-environmental behavior at work: Construct validity and determinants. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 36, 118-128.

73.

Paillé

Boiral

Chen

(2013). Linking environmental management practices and organizational citizenship behaviour for the environment: A social exchange perspective. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24, 3552-3575.

74.

Paillé

Mejía-Morelos

(2014). Antecedents of pro-environmental behaviours at work: The moderating influence of psychological contract breach. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 38, 124-131.

75.

Pfeffer

Sutton

(2006). Hard facts, dangerous half-truths and total nonsense: Profiting from evidence-based management. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

76.

Perdue

Reardon

R. C.

Peterson

G. W.

(2007). Person–environment congruence, self-efficacy, and environmental identity in relation to job satisfaction: A career decision theory perspective. Journal of Employment Counseling, 44, 29-39.

77.

Perez

Amichai-Hamburger

Shterental

(2009). The dynamic of corporate self-regulation: ISO 14001, environmental commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior. Law & Society Review, 43, 593-630.

78.

Premeaux

Bedeian

A. G.

(2003). Breaking the silence: The moderating effects of self-monitoring in predicting speaking up in the workplace. Journal of Management Studies, 40, 1537-1562.

79.

Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. (2015). America’s sick schools. Retrieved on from http://www.peer.org/campaigns/public-health/toxic-schools/

80.

Pugh

Skarlicki

D. P.

Passell

B. S.

(2003). After the fall: Layoff victims’ trust and cynicism in re-employment. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76, 201-212.

81.

Ramus

C. A.

Killmer

A. C.

(2007). Corporate greening through prosocial extra-role behaviours: A conceptual framework for employee motivation. Business Strategy and the Environment, 16, 554-570.

82.

Ramus

C. A.

Steger

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

83.

Renwick

D. W. S.

Redman

Maguire

(2013). Green human resource management: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 15, 1-14.

84.

Robertson

J. L.

Barling

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

85.

Runhaar

Tigchelaar

Vermeulen

W. V.

(2008). Environmental leaders: Making a difference. Business Strategy and the Environment, 17, 160-178.

86.

Sanjour

Kohn

S. M.

(1994). Environmental whistleblowers: An endangered species. Annapolis, MD: Environmental Research Foundation.

87.

Schneider

(1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40, 437-452.

88.

Shaheen

(2012). Demand mounts for US carbon tax. International Tax Review, 23(8), 35.

89.

Smith

A. M.

O’Sullivan

(2012). Environmentally responsible behaviour in the workplace: An internal social marketing approach. Journal of Marketing Management, 28(3-4), 469-493.

90.

Solinger

O. N.

van Olffen

Roe

R. A.

(2008). Beyond the three-component model of organizational commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 70-83.

91.

Stade

(2015, June 16). Judge greenlights Malibu school PCB lawsuit. Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). Retrieved from http://www.peer.org/news/news-releases/judge-greenlights-malibu-school-pcb-lawsuit.html

92.

Stets

J. E.

Biga

C. F.

(2003). Bringing identity theory into environmental sociology. Sociological Theory, 21, 398-423.

93.

Sturm

R. E.

Antonakis

(2015). Interpersonal power: A review, critique, and research agenda. Journal of Management, 41, 136-163.

94.

Temminck

Mearns

Fruhen

(2013). Motivating employees towards sustainable behaviour. Business Strategy and the Environment, 24, 402-412. doi:10.1002/bse.1827

95.

Thompson

Barton

(1994). Ecocentric and anthropocentric attitudes toward the environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 14, 149-157.

96.

Verplanken

Orbell

(2003). Reflections on past behavior: A self-report index of habit strength. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 1313-1330.

97.

Weigert

A. J.

(1997). Self, interaction, and natural environment: Refocusing our eyesight. Albany: State University of New York Press.

98.

Young

Davis

McNeill

I. M.

Malhotra

Russell

Unsworth

Clegg

C. W.

(2015). Changing behaviour: Successful environmental programmes in the workplace. Business Strategy and the Environment, 24, 689-703.

99.

Zibarras

Ballinger

(2011). Promoting environmental behaviour in the workplace: A survey of UK organizations. In Bartlett

(Ed.), Going green: The psychology of sustainability in the workplace (pp. 84-90). Leicester, England: British Psychological Society.