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: pascal.paille@fsa.ulaval.ca

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