Next Article in Journal
The Effect of Green Credit on Enterprises’ Green Transformation under Sustainable Development: Evidence from Green Innovation in High-Pollution Enterprises in China
Previous Article in Journal
Reviewing the Cost–Benefit Analysis and Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods for Evaluating the Effectiveness of Lithium-Ion Batteries in Electric Vehicles
Previous Article in Special Issue
Employees’ Perceptions of Corporate Social Responsibility and Their Extra-Role Behaviors: A Psychological Mechanism
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 16
Issue 1
10.3390/su16010234
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Exploring How and When Environmental Corporate Social Responsibility Impacts Employees’ Green Innovative Work Behavior: The Mediating Role of Creative Self-Efficacy and Environmental Commitment

by
Jiali Chen
1,2 and
Aiqing Zhang
1,*
1
School of Business, Central University of Finance and Economics, Beijing 100081, China
2
School of Business, Guizhou University of Finance and Economics, Guiyang 550025, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(1), 234; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16010234
Submission received: 18 November 2023 / Revised: 24 December 2023 / Accepted: 25 December 2023 / Published: 26 December 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Extra-Role Behaviors for Sustainable Organization Management)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
While prior research has recognized the significance of employees’ green innovative work behavior (GIWB) for organizational sustainability, few studies have explored how to effectively promote such behavior. Following the stimulus-organism-response (S-O-R) framework, we investigate how and when environmental corporate social responsibility (ECSR) drives employees’ GIWB. We conducted a two-wave lagged data analysis with 300 Chinese manufacturing employees. Our results reveal that creative self-efficacy and environmental commitment mediate the relationship between ECSR and employees’ GIWB. Additionally, we observe that person-organization (P-O) fit strengthens the indirect influence of ECSR on employees’ GIWB through creative self-efficacy. Conversely, P-O fit weakens the impact of ECSR on environmental commitment; however, it does not moderate the indirect influence of ECSR on employees’ GIWB through environmental commitment. These findings indicate that ECSR can effectively promote employees’ GIWB through multiple psychological mechanisms, and its impact varies depending on different levels of P-O fit. Our study offers novel theoretical insights and practical evidence to enhance employees’ GIWB, thereby contributing to sustainability in the Chinese manufacturing industry.

1. Introduction

Green innovation has emerged as a viable approach for mitigating environmental pressures while maintaining economic competitiveness in environmental stewardship [1,2]. Initially, the green innovation literature predominantly focused on the organizational level, emphasizing its crucial role in enhancing corporate competitive advantage and ensuring long-term survival [3,4,5]. However, with the deepening of research, scholars have increasingly turned their attention to the indispensable role of employees in corporate green innovation [6], recognizing employees’ green innovative work behavior (GIWB) as a driving force for corporate green innovation. They integrate green principles into innovative work behavior (IWB), defining employees’ GIWB as “employees generating, introducing, and implementing unique environmental ideas or solutions” [7,8,9,10]. Considering that innovative thinking typically transcends the routine aspects of employees’ daily work, IWB is often regarded as an extra-role behavior [11,12,13]. Extra-role behavior is characterized by discretionary actions that extend beyond formal job descriptions [14]. Despite being voluntary and not explicitly outlined in employment contracts, this behavior provides essential resources for organizations, contributing to the smooth functioning of organizations as intricate social systems [15]. Perceived as a proactive and voluntary initiative, employees’ GIWB benefits organizations and teams by leveraging their creativity to identify potential issues and opportunities [16]. Therefore, GIWB can also be categorized as one of the extra-role behaviors, actively contributing to organizations by exercising varying degrees of discretionary power within the environmental context. Given the significance of GIWB, how to promote employees’ GIWB is emerging as a focal topic in academia, capturing increasing interest [1,7,8,9,17,18].
Several factors have been identified in previous studies that influence employees’ GIWB. At the individual level, Li et al. (2019) [1] find that employees’ attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control positively impact their GIWB through green innovation intentions, grounded in the theory of planned behavior (TPB). Additionally, Wang et al. (2021) [18] indicate that employees experiencing negative emotions, such as emotional exhaustion, may suppress their GIWB due to dissatisfaction with the current situation. In the organizational context, green leadership [8,9,19], green human resource management (HRM) practices [7], and organizational support toward the environment [16] are positively associated with employees’ GIWB, whereas exploitative leadership [18] exhibits a negative association with such behavior. Despite the valuable insights gained from these findings, it is recognized that individual attitudes and behaviors are primarily shaped by their immediate work environment [20]. Employees tend to carefully scrutinize information in their work environment to determine the most appropriate attitudes and behaviors [21]. According to this viewpoint, scholars argue that perceptions of corporate ethical behavior, such as corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives, can fundamentally influence employees’ moral concerns, consequently shaping the actions they undertake for the well-being of others [20]. In comparison to other factors, the execution of CSR transcends the mere ethical and societal commitments of the enterprise; it intricately molds the conduct and perspectives of its workforce. Building on this foundation, recent research has further revealed that when organizations anticipate employees to develop green mindsets and conduct, environmental corporate social responsibility (ECSR) is more likely to achieve this objective compared to the broader framework of CSR initiatives [22,23]. Hence, our investigation is centered on identifying the key determinants influencing employees’ GIWB, with a specific focus on ECSR.
While extant research affirms ECSR as a crucial predictor of employees’ GIWB, an imperative for further investigation remains to unravel the nuanced interplay and underlying rationale connecting these phenomena. Considering the potential directions for current research, we have proposed two pivotal questions that warrant further investigation. Firstly, prior studies have predominantly concentrated on scrutinizing this correlation from a singular perspective, overlooking the existence of multiple psychological mechanisms. Secondly, the boundary conditions that could either reinforce or diminish this association remain ambiguous. This finding has piqued our interest, suggesting the existence of a “black box” concealing more complex mechanisms. Our objective is to address this gap by conducting an in-depth exploration of how and when ECSR triggers employees’ GIWB, providing additional insights into the underlying drivers of this behavior. Consequently, we put forth the present theoretical model.
Following the stimulus-organism-response (S-O-R) framework [24], we posit ECSR as an environmental stimulus capable of inducing creative self-efficacy and environmental commitment. Creative self-efficacy reflects employees’ confidence in their own innovative potential [25], while environmental commitment signifies their identification with and commitment to the organization’s green values [26]. Together, these two aspects form a crucial psychological pathway through which ECSR guides employees’ GIWB. In this context, ECSR represents the stimulus (S), while creative self-efficacy and environmental commitment constitute organisms (O), and employees’ GIWB serves as the response (R). Additionally, building on the person-organization (P-O) fit theory, the organizational work environment synergistically interacts with employees’ values, knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors [27,28]. Previous research has emphasized that P-O fit can moderate the impact of ECSR on employees’ psychological and behavioral responses [29]. Therefore, we anticipate that different levels of P-O fit may either strengthen or weaken the impact of ECSR on employees’ GIWB via creative self-efficacy and environmental commitment. Figure 1 illustrates the conceptual model.
Our contributions to the research are as follows. Firstly, through a comprehensive exploration of the relationship between ECSR and employees’ GIWB, we have advanced the research on the potential impact of ECSR on employees’ extra-role behaviors, thereby adding a new dimension to the breadth and depth of green literature. Secondly, utilizing the S-O-R framework, we have constructed a dual mediation pathway that encompasses both creative self-efficacy and environmental commitment. This not only strengthens our understanding of how ECSR influences employees’ GIWB but also lays a robust theoretical foundation for future research endeavors. Thirdly, by examining the moderating role of P-O fit, we have offered a detailed exposition of the conditions under which ECSR influences employees’ GIWB. This meticulous analysis aids organizations in formulating more precise and effective strategies to encourage employees’ extra-role behaviors in sustainable innovation.

2. Theoretical Background and Hypotheses Development

2.1. S-O-R Framework

The S-O-R framework, a prominent theoretical model that originated in environmental psychology, provides insight into how the stimuli shape an individual’s internal state within human contexts, subsequently influencing their behaviors, represented as responses [24]. As research progresses, the S-O-R framework has been widely applied in the study of organizational behavior. Within the organizational context, environmental stimuli encompass a range of factors that may induce changes in employees, such as management policies, managerial philosophies, and daily activities [22,30]. Organisms pertain to the internal states of individuals after exposure to these stimuli, encompassing both the internal structures and the dynamic processes that occur between the initial stimulus and the ultimate response [31]. In research, cognitive and affective states are frequently used to represent organisms [32,33,34]. The cognitive state illustrates individuals’ conceptual information processing, whereas the affective state conveys their emotions and feelings [35,36]. Responses, representing the ultimate outcomes, encompass both positive behaviors and avoidance behaviors [24].
Based on the S-O-R framework, we define ECSR as an environmental stimulus that elicits positive cognitive and affective states in employees, thereby motivating them to exhibit behaviors beneficial to the organization. Creative self-efficacy, as a cognitive state, compared to other cognitive constructs related to GIWB such as perceived meaningfulness at work [17] and perceived climate for creativity [8], emphasizes more intrinsic motivation and beliefs and is a better predictor for work outcomes in the realm of innovation [25,37]. Furthermore, creative self-efficacy emerges as an essential prerequisite for uncovering novel knowledge [25], establishing a more intimate connection with innovative behavior. Within the realm of environmental literature, Luu (2020) [38] also underscores the critical mediating role of green creative self-efficacy between leadership’s green entrepreneurial orientation and employees’ green creative behavior. Similarly, environmental commitment, as an affective state, in comparison to other environmentally-related affective constructs such as environmental passion and environmental empathy [22,39], exhibits greater stability and sustainability and can better predict work outcomes in the environmental aspects [26,39]. For example, Song et al. (2023) [40] and Zhu et al. (2022) [19] independently identify environmental commitment as a direct predictor of employees’ green creativity and GIWB at the individual level. Meanwhile, Chang and Chen (2013) [41] recognize environmental commitment as a mediator between green organizational identity and corporate green innovation performance at the organizational level.
Green innovation seamlessly integrates innovation and environmental sustainability, with its success depending on these pivotal psychological states of employees [42]. Consequently, our research posits that creative self-efficacy and environmental commitment emerge as particularly effective mediators, representing two indispensable paths for promoting employees’ GIWB. Subsequently, we attempt to clarify their logical relationship.

2.2. Environmental Corporate Social Responsibility (ECSR)

ECSR is often defined as “environmentally friendly initiatives that maximize productivity while concurrently minimizing consumptive use of resources to mitigate impacts upon future generations” [43]. ECSR has garnered considerable attention in academic research. Chang and Huang (2018) identify ECSR as a strategic organizational guideline for achieving the objectives of sustainable development [44]. Wei et al. (2015) [45] contend that ECSR reflects intricate environmental conservation initiatives undertaken by businesses, including resource and energy conservation, pollution reduction, and product recycling. Flammer (2013) [46] argues that ECSR has the potential to yield innovative and competitive resources for businesses. In practical terms, an escalating number of enterprises are directing their CSR endeavors toward addressing environmental issues and promoting green production practices [2]. For instance, the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP, 2021) reveals that over 90% of the global Fortune 500 companies have explicitly integrated climate change and sustainability considerations into their overarching business strategies. Furthermore, the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC, 2022) emphasizes that more than 80% of surveyed companies consider the implementation of environmental protection measures paramount in the context of the global economy. These surveys robustly underscore the paramount importance of ECSR within the broader landscape of global business.
Conventional research has predominantly regarded ECSR as a crucial dimension of CSR [20,47]. However, Baughn et al. (2007) [48] and Rahman and Post (2012) [49] argue that the extent of CSR does not always correspond to an equivalent level of ECSR. García-Piqueres and García-Ramos (2020) [50] also demonstrate that, despite a positive link between CSR and innovation, distinctions emerge concerning the categories of innovation and dimensions of CSR. Consequently, ECSR should be distinguished from economic and social responsibilities [50]. In response to this viewpoint, an increasing number of scholars have initiated independent studies on ECSR from various perspectives. For example, at the organizational level, ECSR demonstrates positive correlations with firm performance [44,45,51], innovativeness [52], stock performance [46], and community environmental well-being [53]. At the individual level, ECSR shows a significant association with employees’ organizational identification [54], green performance [55], pro-environmental behavior [29,56,57,58], environmental citizenship behavior [22], social responsibility behavior [20], and GIWB [17].
Our research primarily focuses on the impact of ECSR on employees’ GIWB. Pro-environmental behavior, environmental citizenship behavior, social responsibility behavior, and GIWB are all voluntary and non-coercive discretionary actions exhibited by employees within an organization. Pro-environmental behavior and environmental citizenship behavior encompass a range of positive and spontaneous actions aimed at organizational and societal well-being, such as recycling, taking the stairs, double-sided printing, and more [29,56]. Social responsibility behavior, including green and societal behavior, signifies employees fulfilling their responsibilities in an environmentally friendly manner and actively supporting the well-being of the broader community beyond the workplace [20]. Nevertheless, GIWB seeks to incorporate environmental and innovative concepts into the design, production, and processing of products to alleviate environmental burdens and achieve goals of ecological sustainability [18]. Compared to other employees’ behaviors, GIWB represents a variety of innovative and unconventional environmentally friendly activities, carrying both risks and values; it is often a critical driving force for enhancing a company’s competitive advantage [16]. Thus, amidst numerous employee work outcomes, GIWB is gradually capturing the interest of scholars.

2.3. ECSR and Employees’ Green Innovative Work Behavior (GIWB) in the Chinese Manufacturing Sector

Developing countries need to focus on and implement ECSR due to institutional limitations and a lack of environmental awareness [56]. As a representative example, China has gained renown in recent years for the rapid development of its manufacturing sector. However, this growth not only propels the nation’s economic prosperity but also triggers a series of adverse environmental impacts, emerging as a significant factor constraining the sustainable development of the Chinese manufacturing industry [22]. In response to this challenge, the Chinese government has embarked on an initiative to encourage corporate adherence to ECSR, emphasizing the adoption of clean production practices as a strategic approach to achieving a harmonious balance between economic advancement and environmental conservation. Simultaneously, the government has formulated the “Made in China 2025” strategic policy, with the objective of advancing the manufacturing industry through the incorporation of green innovation. Within the Chinese manufacturing sector, there is a shared consensus among government entities and entrepreneurs regarding the imperative to invest in the development of green factories [16].
Employees play an indispensable role in corporate green innovation strategy [6]. Their commitment to green innovation not only represents a crucial dimension of environmental governance but also serves as a catalyst for enhancing the efficacy of corporate green innovation initiatives. Existing literature suggests that ECSR functions as a primary motivator, propelling employees to manifest GIWB [17]. In turn, the contributions made by employees in the realm of sustainable development contribute to the ongoing evolution of ECSR. Therefore, in the context of the Chinese manufacturing industry, conducting a thorough investigation into the relationship between ECSR and employees’ GIWB holds significant theoretical and practical importance for promoting corporate green transformation and environmental protection.

2.4. ECSR, Creative Self-Efficacy, and Employees’ GIWB

Creative self-efficacy, defined as “belief in one’s ability to generate creative results,” is a prerequisite for creative productivity and the generation of “new knowledge” [25]. Bandura (1997) [59] and Gist and Mitchell (1992) [60] have highlighted that individuals’ efficacy perceptions are shaped by their judgments of various task-related and interpersonal environmental factors. Interpersonal environmental factors include the presence of role models and feedback (resources), while task environmental factors involve potential distractions (e.g., noise) and the physical setting. Assessing these resources and constraints at various levels enables individuals to enhance their creative self-efficacy [60]. Building on the S-O-R framework and the above views, we contend that ECSR, as an environmental stimulus, can enhance employees’ assessment of available resources from task and interpersonal environmental perspectives, thus stimulating their creative self-efficacy.
Initially, employees develop self-efficacy by interpreting cues related to their tasks [60]. ECSR initiatives typically go beyond supporting environmental conservation by encouraging and assisting employees in innovative endeavors [61]. When employees perceive that ECSR provides the necessary resources for generating creative ideas, it leads them to allocate more time to identify problems and solutions. Furthermore, with the backing of the organization, they can confidently and adeptly navigate challenges, even in the face of potential failures and uncertainties [62]. These abilities are essential prerequisites for cultivating creative self-efficacy.
Additionally, the implementation of ECSR may influence and reshape interpersonal dynamics within the workplace by fostering interaction and information sharing among employees [63], which can aid employees in tackling challenging and novel tasks while reducing adverse physiological responses [64]. Simultaneously, employees benefit from the shared insights of their colleagues, which bolsters their confidence in generating and carrying out creative solutions in the workplace [65]. Thus, their creative self-efficacy consequently grows. Building on these foundations, our hypothesis is as follows:
H1a. 
ECSR is positively associated with creative self-efficacy.
The S-O-R framework further suggests that organisms typically act as mediators between stimuli and responses [24,66]. Following this logic, we predict that creative self-efficacy has a positive effect on employees’ GIWB and serves as a mediator between ECSR and employees’ GIWB. Firstly, employees characterized by high creative self-efficacy establish ambitious personal goals. They actively utilize cognitive resources, including knowledge, memory, and analytical skills, to generate innovative ideas and adaptive behaviors [25,64,67]. Moreover, despite the uncertainties and risks of green innovation, employees with high creative self-efficacy, as indicated by their resilience in the face of failure, tend to achieve GIWB [16]. Conversely, employees with insufficient creative self-efficacy will encounter difficulties in generating innovative outcomes, even if they have a strong passion for their job and focus on novel ideas that benefit others [59].
Considering the previously discussed positive impact of ECSR on creative self-efficacy, we expect that ECSR indirectly influences employees’ GIWB through creative self-efficacy. Building on these foundations, our hypothesis is as follows:
H1b. 
Creative self-efficacy mediates the positive relationship between ECSR and employees’ GIWB.

2.5. ECSR, Environmental Commitment, and Employees’ GIWB

Commitment is a psychological state that signifies personal attachment to the organization [68,69]. Environmental commitment has been a prevalent topic in the corporate greening literature ever since Polonsky’s (1998) [70] pioneering work [71,72,73]. Up to now, the definition of environmental commitment is multifaceted and lacks consistency in the literature [74]. Cantor et al. (2012) [26] describe environmental commitment from the perspective of affective commitment as “emotional attachment, identification, and involvement with environmental behaviors” (p. 599). Subsequently, Raineri and Paillé (2016) [72] refine it as “a frame of mind that reflects a sense of attachment and responsibility toward workplace environmental issues”, while Afsar and Umrani (2019) [74] further summarize it as an internal disposition and psychological state. In this study, we align with prior literature by considering environmental commitment as an affective state.
Previous research has revealed a positive correlation between CSR and environmental commitment [74,75,76]. Moreover, Yin et al. (2021) [22] further propose that when organizations aim to foster environmentally related attitudes and behaviors among employees, ECSR is more effective than CSR. Next, our study extends this logic by proposing that employees who perceive ECSR within organizations tend to demonstrate environmental commitment. First, ECSR often conveys ecological values to employees in environmental stewardship. This not only deepens their comprehension of corporate environmental goals and policies but also ignites their curiosity and involvement [72]. Second, it nurtures employees’ environmental sensitivity, enhancing their consciousness and knowledge of ecological issues [77]. Together, these factors contribute to the development of environmental commitment. Building on these foundations, our hypothesis is as follows:
H2a. 
ECSR is positively associated with environmental commitment.
Drawing upon the S-O-R framework, employees’ affective states act as catalysts for their work outcomes [24]. Therefore, we predict that environmental commitment positively influences employees’ GIWB and serves as a mediator between ECSR and employees’ GIWB. To elaborate further, employee commitment plays a crucial role in the innovation initiative, especially within the sustainability domain [78]. This initiative often encompasses advancements in products and processes designed to reduce pollution, conserve energy, and foster the development of eco-friendly materials and clean production techniques [6]. Employees who are committed to the environment usually perceive an alignment between their personal environmental goals and those of the organization [74]. Consequently, they actively engage in eco-environmental governance and contribute innovative ideas to tackle environmental concerns within the workplace, which, in turn, enhances their GIWB. Conversely, without this commitment, employees may struggle to deliver the anticipated outcomes in green innovation projects [79].
Furthermore, as suggested by Gladwin et al. (1995) [80], employees could contribute most to organizational sustainability when their environmental commitment is rooted in values that harmonize “meeting human needs” with “protecting nature.” This underscores the pivotal role of environmental commitment in linking corporate environmental responsibility orientation with employees’ green work outcomes [26,39,72,74]. Building on these foundations, our hypothesis is as follows:
H2b. 
Environmental commitment mediates the positive relationship between ECSR and employees’ GIWB.

2.6. Moderating Role of P-O Fit

So far, we have elucidated the psychological mechanisms through which ECSR stimulates employees’ creative self-efficacy and environmental commitment, thereby further promoting their GIWB. Nonetheless, there are reasons to think that the strength of these psychological states may differ across employees. Drawing upon the P-O fit theory, we identify that P-O fit represents a synergistic process between organizational context and individual attributes [81,82], which can account for these variances.
P-O fit, denoting the congruence between employees’ beliefs, norms, values, and goals with those of the organization [27,81], is a critical factor influencing organizational dynamics. Greater alignment leads to increased employee identification with the organization’s goals and vision [83]. Organizations usually shape employees’ behaviors at work by P-O fit [84,85]. In turn, employees assess the P-O fit to determine their involvement in organizational activities, which subsequently impacts their inner states and responses [29]. Therefore, we argue that the P-O fit moderates the impact of ECSR on employees’ GIWB via creative self-efficacy and environmental commitment in different ways.
As mentioned earlier, ECSR can stimulate employees’ creative self-efficacy, especially having a stronger effect on those characterized by higher P-O fit. Employees with high P-O fit demonstrate a heightened awareness of potential organizational policies, such as ECSR, and are committed to acting in the best interest of the organization [85]. Consequently, they are often inclined to persistently engage in ECSR activities, thus amplifying the impact of ECSR on their creative self-efficacy. Conversely, employees with low P-O fit, lacking motivation to benefit the organization, and showing little interest in ECSR initiatives, experience a comparatively weaker impact of ECSR on their creative self-efficacy. Building upon these arguments, we propose the notion that ECSR has a more significant impact on creative self-efficacy for employees when their P-O fit is high rather than low. Thus, our hypothesis is as follows:
H3a. 
P-O fit strengthens the positive relationship between ECSR and creative self-efficacy.
H3a proposes that P-O fit positively moderates the association between ECSR and creative self-efficacy. Additionally, H1b suggests that creative self-efficacy acts as a mediator in the relationship between ECSR and employees’ GIWB. Considering that creative self-efficacy can channel the constructive influence of ECSR into employees’ GIWB, it is plausible to deduce that P-O fit further positively moderates the indirect relationship of ECSR on employees’ GIWB through creative self-efficacy. Building on these considerations, our hypothesis is as follows:
H3b. 
P-O fit strengthens the indirect effect of ECSR on employees’ GIWB through creative self-efficacy, such that the indirect effect is stronger for employees when their P-O fit is high rather than low.
On the contrary, we anticipate that P-O fit weakens the impact of ECSR on environmental commitment. Prior meta-analyses have consistently revealed the positive influence of P-O fit on employee commitment [86]. Similarly, within the realm of sustainable development, P-O fit may serve as a potential motivator for employee commitment to environmental causes. Employees with a high level of P-O fit are capable of spontaneously generating a strong sense of responsibility and passion to participate in environmentally friendly initiatives at work [29]. In such instances, the external stimulus of ECSR on environmental commitment may take a back seat, as employees are intrinsically driven by their commitment to environmental sustainability. Conversely, employees with lower P-O fit could encounter challenges in aligning themselves with their organization’s values and goals, potentially leading to a decrease in their commitment to environmental issues. This is when the role of ECSR, symbolizing the company’s reputation and image, becomes essential in nurturing employees’ sense of environmental responsibility and attachment. In this scenario, the anticipated impact of ECSR on environmental commitment is expected to be more pronounced.
Hence, we posit that P-O fit has the potential to partially substitute for the positive influence of ECSR on environmental commitment. Similar substitution effects have also been observed, where internal factors replace external factors in individuals or organizations. For instance, individuals with a strong internal locus of control exhibit reduced susceptibility to external motivational factors such as leadership influence [87,88], and organizational unlearning diminishes the relationship between eco-control systems and supplier low-carbon collaboration [89]. These findings indirectly support our study, implying that a higher P-O fit corresponds to a weaker influence of ECSR on environmental commitment. Thus, our hypothesis is as follows:
H4a. 
P-O fit weakens the positive relationship between ECSR and environmental commitment.
H4a proposes that P-O fit negatively moderates the relationship between ECSR and environmental commitment. H2b posits that environmental commitment acts as a mediator in the relationship between ECSR and employees’ GIWB. Considering that environmental commitment can transmit the positive influence of ECSR to employees’ GIWB, we also propose that P-O fit negatively moderates the indirect relationship of ECSR on employees’ GIWB through environmental commitment. Building on these foundations, our hypothesis is as follows:
H4b. 
P-O fit weakens the indirect effect of ECSR on employees’ GIWB through environmental commitment, such that the indirect effect is stronger for employees when their P-O fit is low rather than high.

3. Methods

3.1. Participants and Procedures

To test our hypotheses, we gathered data from employees in the Chinese manufacturing sector, which provides a suitable environment for investigating ECSR for two reasons. First, China’s rapid economic growth in recent years has resulted in substantial pollution from its manufacturing industry [89,90]. Consequently, compared to other sectors, ECSR holds greater significance in the manufacturing industry, with a higher level of implementation. Second, the Chinese manufacturing sector is undergoing a green transformation, which has led to a substantial demand for green innovation [1]. Furthermore, we adopted subjective approaches to measure ECSR, as employees’ attitudes and behaviors are primarily shaped by their perception of ECSR, rather than the specific policies actually formulated by the organization [91,92].
To mitigate common method bias (CMB) [93], we utilized the “Credamo” survey platform to recruit participants nationwide. This platform is similar to MTurk and has received recognition from reputable journals [94], such as “the Journal of Vocational Behavior” and “the Journal of Management.” In adhering to the procedures recommended by Aguinis et al. (2020) [95], we ensured the reliability and validity of the online data collected through several measures. Firstly, we constructed the questionnaire based on existing literature and refined it through on-site interviews with manufacturing industry employees. Secondly, to ensure the participant pool comprised frontline employees and supervisors, we implemented screening criteria, intentionally excluding top management teams who typically oversee the development and implementation of ECSR strategies [96]. Thirdly, we incorporated disruptive questions within the questionnaire to effectively segregate the variables. Lastly, we rejected questionnaires completed in less than 5 min and compensated each participant $1 per survey.
The questionnaires were collected in two waves, spaced roughly two to three weeks apart. During the first wave, participants completed measures encompassing ECSR, P-O fit, creative self-efficacy, and environmental commitment. In the second wave, participants reported their GIWB. All items were self-reported. In total, 500 participants consented to take part in the study, with 300 of them completing both waves of surveys (response rate = 60%). As shown in Table 1, among the participants, 51.33% were male, while 48.67% were female. The majority (93%) were under the age of 40, and 78.33% held undergraduate degrees or higher. In addition, 63.67% were from private-owned enterprises, with frontline employees comprising 49.33%.

3.2. Measures

We evaluated all variables using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). ECSR was assessed using four items from Wei et al. (2015) [45], with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.72. P-O fit was measured utilizing three items from Cable and DeRue (2002) [97], with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.76. Creative self-efficacy was evaluated using four items from Tierney and Farmer (2002) [25], with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.76. Environmental commitment was measured using seven items from Raineri and Paillé (2016) [72], with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.83. GIWB was assessed utilizing six items proposed by Aboramadan et al. (2022) [9], with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.83. Appendix A (Table A1) reports these survey items.

3.3. Control Variables

Based on previous literature, demographic variables have been associated with employees’ GIWB [7,8,9,10]. We controlled for several factors in our analysis, including employees’ gender, age, education, and grade. We also considered the ownership of the firms where the employees were employed, as there is significant variation in ECSR performance among companies with different ownership structures in China [98].

3.4. Common Method Bias (CMB)

Before testing the hypotheses, we utilized two approaches to assess the potential influence of CMB in our study. To start with, we conducted an exploratory factor analysis of all scale items using the Harman single-factor method. This analysis revealed four principal component factors with eigenvalues exceeding one, with the largest factor explaining 34.84% of the variance, which fell below the 40% threshold. Next, we assessed multicollinearity following the guidance by Kock (2015) [99]. The presence of CMB is typically identified when variance inflation factor (VIF) values surpass 3.3. Our results indicated that all VIF values ranged from 1.02 to 1.89. These findings suggested that CMB had minimal interference in our study.

3.5. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

We conducted a series of confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) to assess the discriminant validity and convergent validity of our model. The results, presented in Table 2, indicated that the 5-factor model fit reasonably well (χ2(242) = 415.93, CFI = 0.93, TLI = 0.92, RMSEA = 0.05). Furthermore, it significantly outperformed other models, including the 4-factor models (Δχ2(4) = 116.53, p < 0.001), the 3-factor model (Δχ2(7) = 209.83, p < 0.001), the 2-factor model (Δχ2(9) = 361.84, p < 0.001), and the 1-factor model (Δχ2(10) = 424, p < 0.001). These results not only confirm the robustness of our model but also highlight its superiority in distinguishing between constructs in the study.

4. Results

4.1. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations

Table 3 provides the mean values, standard deviations, and correlation coefficients among the variables. The correlation among key variables aligns with theoretical expectations, providing preliminary support for the research hypothesis. ECSR is significantly positively associated with creative self-efficacy (r = 0.46, p < 0.01) and environmental commitment (r = 0.53, p < 0.01). Additionally, creative self-efficacy (r = 0.56, p < 0.01) and environmental commitment (r = 0.56, p < 0.01) demonstrate a positive association with employees’ GIWB.

4.2. Hypotheses Testing

The results of the regression analysis are shown in Table 4. For H1a, which proposes a positive relationship between ECSR and creative self-efficacy, Model 1 illustrates a significant positive path coefficient (β = 0.44, p < 0.001). Similarly, for H2a, which proposes a positive association between ECSR and environmental commitment, Model 3 shows a significant positive path coefficient (β = 0.52, p < 0.001). Consequently, both H1a and H2a are supported.
Following Hayes (2019) [100], we used the PROCESS Macro program in SPSS 22.0 to examine the mediating effects. In Table 5, we present the results regarding the mediating effects of creative self-efficacy and environmental commitment proposed by H1b and H2b. The findings suggest that ECSR positively impacts employees’ GIWB, mediated by creative self-efficacy (indirect effect = 0.14, 95% CI = [0.08, 0.22]) and environmental commitment (indirect effect = 0.16, 95% CI = [0.07, 0.27]). Thus, H1b and H2b are supported. Moreover, the contrast of indirect effects via creative self-efficacy and environmental commitment is not significant (indirect effect = −0.02, 95% CI = [−0.15, 0.10]). This indicates that there is no significant variation in the indirect influence of ECSR on employees’ GIWB via creative self-efficacy and environmental commitment.
H3a and H3b posit that P-O fit strengthens the positive relationship between ECSR and creative self-efficacy, as well as the indirect influence of ECSR on employees’ GIWB via creative self-efficacy. As illustrated in Model 2 (Table 4), there is a positive significant interaction between ECSR and P-O fit (β = 0.19, p < 0.01). The results from simple slope tests, depicted in Figure 2, highlight that the effect of ECSR on creative self-efficacy is stronger when the P-O fit is high (β = 0.43, p < 0.001) rather than low (β = 0.19, p < 0.01), supporting H3a. As shown in Table 6, we also examined the indirect path using the PROCESS Mac program. The indirect pathway from ECSR to employees’ GIWB through creative self-efficacy is stronger when the P-O fit is high (indirect effect = 0.13, 95% CI = [0.06, 0.24]) rather than low (indirect effect = 0.06, 95% CI = [0.01, 0.12]). Moreover, the confidence interval (CI) for the difference in the indirect effect between high and low P-O fit excludes zero (difference in indirect effect = 0.07, 95% CI = [0.01, 0.16]). This indicates that P-O fit indeed moderates the indirect influence of ECSR on employees’ GIWB through creative self-efficacy, supporting H3b.
We followed a similar procedure to test H4a and H4b, which posit that P-O fit moderates the association between ECSR and environmental commitment, as well as the indirect influence of ECSR on employees’ GIWB through environmental commitment. As illustrated in Model 4 (Table 4), there is a negative significant interaction between ECSR and P-O fit (β = −0.12, p < 0.05). The subsequent simple slope tests, as depicted in Figure 3, demonstrate that the effect of ECSR on environmental commitment is stronger when P-O fit is low (β = 0.32, p < 0.001) rather than high (β = 0.20, p < 0.05), supporting H4a. As shown in Table 6, the indirect pathway from ECSR to employees’ GIWB through environmental commitment is stronger when the P-O fit is low (indirect effect = 0.11, 95% CI = [0.04, 0.21]) rather than high (indirect effect = 0.07, 95% CI = [0.02, 0.14]). Importantly, the CI for the difference in the indirect effect between high and low P-O fit includes zero (difference in indirect effect = −0.04, 95% CI = [−0.12, 0.03]). This indicates that P-O fit does not play a moderating role in the indirect influence of ECSR on employees’ GIWB through environmental commitment, thus not supporting H4b.

5. Discussion

Across a two-wave field study in China, we explored how and when ECSR impacts employees’ GIWB. Following the S-O-R model, we found that ECSR has a positive influence on employees’ GIWB through a dual pathway involving creative self-efficacy and environmental commitment. Furthermore, the results indicated that P-O fit strengthens the indirect influence of ECSR on employees’ GIWB via creative self-efficacy. Surprisingly, while the P-O fit weakens the impact of ECSR on environmental commitment, it does not moderate the indirect influence of ECSR on employees’ GIWB via environmental commitment.
We speculate on two reasons for the variations in the moderating roles. First, employees usually encounter risks and challenges when trying to exert their creative efficacy. Fostering employees’ strong and sustained creative self-efficacy typically demands the joint influence of both internal factors (P-O fit) and external factors (ECSR), further subsequently promoting employees’ GIWB. Second, environmental commitment is an affective response originating from inner attachment and identification [29]. P-O fit can assist employees in identifying themselves with the organization’s environmentally friendly goals, partially substituting for ECSR in inducing environmental commitment, and consequently promoting employees’ GIWB. This also explains why the P-O fit does not significantly negatively moderate the mediating role of environmental commitment (H4b).
Our results align with previous studies, confirming the significant positive impact of ECSR on employees’ GIWB. As examples in previous studies, Ruan et al. (2022) [17] argue that ECSR impacts employees’ GIWB via perceived meaningfulness at work and discover that moral identification plays a moderating role in this relationship. Chang et al. (2020) [55] posit that ECSR, as a signal of the organization’s environmental commitment, directly influences employees’ green product development and environmental performance. Concurrently, our study uncovers additional insights. Firstly, compared to the descriptions of a single mechanism in other literature, we conduct a comprehensive analysis of the underlying mechanisms of ECSR on employees’ GIWB from both cognitive and affective perspectives. Secondly, we observe that P-O fit moderates the impact of ECSR on employees’ GIWB, with differential effects on the cognitive and affective pathways. These results not only deepen our comprehension of the intricate mechanisms through which ECSR operates but also offer valuable insights for future research endeavors.

5.1. Theoretical Implications

Our research makes the following noteworthy contributions. Firstly, our study deepens the understanding of the antecedents of employees’ GIWB by focusing on ECSR, while simultaneously advancing the research domain related to extra-role behavior. Previous studies have established the positive impact of ECSR on various types of extra-role behaviors, including social responsibility behavior [20], environmental citizenship behavior [22], and pro-environmental behavior [29,56,57,58]. However, the unique and crucial extra-role behavior of employees’ GIWB has not received sufficient attention. Its uniqueness stems from the amalgamation of environmental protection and innovative concepts. Through the development and design of green products and processes, it contributes to enhancing the core competitiveness of enterprises. Our research underscores the significance of GIWB, offering a novel perspective on the guiding mechanisms of ECSR on employees’ extra-role behavior. This, in turn, provides profound insights for both sustainability research and management practices. Additionally, our study responds to the need for more research on the micro-level dimensions of ECSR [29,56], contributing to the expansion of the legal network within the green literature.
Secondly, according to the S-O-R framework, we have developed a dual-path model, indicating that employees perceiving ECSR tend to cultivate creative self-efficacy and environmental commitment, subsequently promoting their GIWB. Our dual-path model not only enriches comprehension regarding the drivers behind employees’ GIWB but also provides an effective path for bolstering such behavior. This aligns with prior research, which illustrates that ECSR has the potential to stimulate positive cognitive and affective states, consequently leading to environmentally friendly behaviors among employees [22,29].
Thirdly, our study uncovers the distinct moderating roles of P-O fit in the dual-path model, which constitutes a significant additional contribution. The results demonstrate that P-O fit appears to strengthen the positive relationship between ECSR and creative self-efficacy, ultimately promoting employees’ GIWB. Interestingly, to some extent, P-O fit can substitute for ECSR in nurturing environmental commitment, and consequently enhancing employees’ GIWB. This discovery challenges the prevailing research on P-O fit [29,101]. By dissecting the causes of the varying moderating roles of P-O fit, we offer valuable theoretical support for organizations aiming to foster employees’ GIWB.
Finally, our article extends the S-O-R framework by integrating cognitive and affective states with employees within the organizational context. While previous literature has utilized the S-O-R framework to study the relationship between ECSR and employee behavior, most studies primarily have focused on affective states, such as environmental passion [22], well-being [102,103], and more, often neglecting cognitive states. However, the S-O-R framework inherently requires integrating cognitive and affective elements to comprehensively capture the impact of stimuli on organism responses [24,34]. Our study addresses this gap; notably, this marks the first instance of merging cognitive and affective states as mediators within the S-O-R framework concerning the correlation between ECSR and employees’ behavior.

5.2. Practical Implications

Our research confirms that ECSR effectively stimulates employees’ GIWB through creative self-efficacy and environmental commitment. To facilitate such behavior, managers should take the following steps. First, they ought to prioritize and implement ECSR initiatives while communicating the environmental ideals and motivations of the organization to all employees. Following Arnaud and Sekerka’s (2010) [104] perspective, organizations can promptly share their CSR practices with employees through channels such as email, newsletters, seminars, and more, ensuring that employees genuinely perceive the organization’s commitment to environmental management. Moreover, when advocating ECSR, managers should not only emphasize environmental awareness but also guide employees in harnessing their creative capabilities to address environmental issues. This could involve providing training to employees in areas such as environmental governance, the use of eco-friendly materials, recycling practices, and more, all of which contribute to fostering their GIWB.
Our findings reveal that ECSR is subject to different moderating roles based on P-O fit, yielding significant practical implications. Employees with high P-O fit not only display a heightened innate environmental commitment but also demonstrate stronger creative self-efficacy when influenced by ECSR, exhibiting a high level of GIWB. Consequently, during the recruitment process, managers need to prioritize candidates with high P-O fit, ensuring alignment of core values with the organization. Additionally, managers should concentrate on enhancing the engagement of low P-O fit groups within the organization, encouraging their involvement in ECSR initiatives. By doing so, they can generate environmental commitment and creative self-efficacy, ultimately promoting their GIWB.

5.3. Limitations and Future Directions

Our research presents several limitations. Firstly, despite implementing remedies such as adopting a two-wave time-lagged design to distinguish between dependent and independent variables, the self-reported samples may introduce the potential for CMB. To address this issue, future research can explore the possibility of gathering data from a variety of sources to alleviate this bias. Secondly, our study primarily focuses on the China manufacturing industry, potentially restricting the applicability of the results. We advise replicating these results in diverse sectors such as logistics, real estate, and services. Thirdly, our examination focuses solely on one individual-level boundary condition for the pathway from ECSR to employees’ GIWB. Future research can also explore various contextual factors, such as CSR attribution, perceived organizational support, and socially responsible HRM, which could serve as potential moderators in understanding how ECSR drives employees’ GIWB.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.Z.; methodology, J.C.; software, J.C.; validation, A.Z. and J.C.; formal analysis, J.C.; investigation, A.Z. and J.C.; resources, A.Z.; data curation, J.C.; writing—original draft preparation, J.C.; writing—review and editing, A.Z.; visualization, J.C.; supervision, A.Z.; project administration, A.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China: Research on pricing and coordination mechanism of the automotive supply chain based on the BaaS model under the dual credits policy, grant number 72161003.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1. Questionnaire.
Table A1. Questionnaire.
ConstructsItemsReferences
ECSRCompared with our major competitors:Wei et al. (2015) [45]
Our products are more environmentally friendly.
Our production process requires fewer natural resources.
Our production process decreases environmental pollution.
Our products are easier to recycle for reuse.
P-O fitMy personal values match my organization’s values and culture.Cable & DeRue (2002) [97]
The things that I value in life are very similar to the things that my organization values.
My organization’s values and culture provide a good fit with the things that I value in life.
Creative self-efficacyI have confidence in my ability to solve problems creatively.Tierney & Farmer (2002) [25]
I feel that I am good at generating novel ideas.
I have a knack for further developing the ideas of others.
I am good at finding creative ways to solve problems.
Environmental
commitment		I really care about the environmental concern of my company.Raineri & Paillé (2016) [72]
I would feel guilty about not supporting the environmental efforts of my company.
The environmental concern of my company means a lot to me.
I feel a sense of duty to support the environmental efforts of my company.
I really feel as if my company’s environmental problems are my own.
I feel personally attached to the environmental concern of my company.
I strongly value the environmental efforts of my company.
GIWBI generate green creative ideas.Aboramadan et al. (2022) [9]
I search out new environmentally-related technologies, processes, techniques and/or product ideas.
I promote and champion green ideas with others.
I Investigate and secure the funds needed to implement new green ideas.
I develop adequate plans and schedules for the implementation of new green ideas.
I am environmentally innovative.

References

  1. Li, G.P.; Wang, X.; Wu, J. How scientific researchers form green innovation behavior: An empirical analysis of China’s enterprises. Technol. Soc. 2019, 56, 134–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Li, D.; Wang, L.F. Does environmental corporate social responsibility (ECSR) promote green product and process innovation? Manag. Decis. Econ. 2022, 43, 1439–1447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Chang, C.H. The influence of corporate environmental ethics on competitive advantage: The mediation role of green innovation. J. Bus. Ethics 2011, 104, 361–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Chen, Y.; Lai, S.; Wen, C. The influence of green innovation performance on corporate advantage in Taiwan. J. Bus. Ethics 2006, 67, 331–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Chen, Y.S. The driver of green innovation and green image–green core competence. J. Bus. Ethics 2008, 81, 531–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Chen, Y.S.; Chang, C.H. The determinants of green product development performance: Green dynamic capabilities, green transformational leadership, and green creativity. J. Bus. Ethics 2012, 116, 107–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Aboramadan, M. The effect of green HRM on employee green behaviors in higher education: The mediating mechanism of green work engagement. Int. J. Organ. Anal. 2020, 30, 7–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Aboramadan, M.; Kundi, Y.M.; Farao, C. Examining the effects of environmentally-specific servant leadership on green work outcomes among hotel employees: The mediating role of climate for green creativity. J. Hosp. Market. Manag. 2021, 30, 929–956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Aboramadan, M.; Crawford, J.; Türkmenoğlu, M.A.; Farao, C. Green inclusive leadership and employee green behaviors in the hotel industry: Does perceived green organizational support matter? Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2022, 107, 103330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Scott, S.G.; Bruce, R.A. Determinants of Innovative Behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Acad. Manag. J. 1994, 37, 580–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Katz, D.; Kahn, R.L. The Social Psychology of Organizations; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 1978. [Google Scholar]
  12. Kuo, C.; Ni, Y.L.; Wu, C.; Duh, R.; Chen, M.Y.; Chang, C. When can felt accountability promote innovative work behavior? The role of transformational leadership. Pers. Rev. 2021, 51, 1807–1822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Janssen, O. Job demands, perceptions of effort-reward fairness and innovative work behavior. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 2000, 73, 287–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. O’Reilly, C.A.; Chatman, J.A. Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: The effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior. J. Appl. Psychol. 1986, 71, 492–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Afridi, S.A.; Afsar, B.; Shahjehan, A.; Khan, W.; Rehman, Z.U.; Khan, M.A.S. Impact of corporate social responsibility attributions on employee’s extra-role behaviors: Moderating role of ethical corporate identity and interpersonal trust. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2023, 30, 991–1004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Zhang, Y.; Wu, J.; Fan, Y. The effect of perceived organizational support toward the environment on team green innovative behavior: Evidence from Chinese green factories. Emerg. Mark. Financ. Trade 2022, 58, 2326–2341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Ruan, R.; Wan, C.; Zhu, Z. Research on the relationship between environmental corporate social responsibility and green innovative behavior: The moderating effect of moral identity. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 29, 52189–52203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Wang, Z.; Ren, S.; Chadee, D.; Sun, C. The influence of exploitative leadership on hospitality employees’ green innovative behavior: A moderated mediation model. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2021, 99, 103058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Zhu, J.; Tang, W.; Zhang, B.; Wang, H. Influence of Environmentally Specific Transformational Leadership on Employees’ Green Innovation Behavior—A Moderated Mediation Model. Sustainability 2022, 14, 1828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. De Roeck, K.; Farooq, O. Corporate social responsibility and ethical leadership: Investigating their interactive effect on employees’ socially responsible behaviors. J. Bus. Ethics 2018, 151, 923–939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Salancik, G.R.; Pfeffer, J. A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design. Adm. Sci. Q. 1978, 232, 224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Yin, C.; Ma, H.; Gong, Y.; Chen, Q.; Zhang, Y. Environmental CSR and environmental citizenship behavior: The role of employees’ environmental passion and empathy. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 320, 128751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Han, H.; Chua, B.; Ariza-Montes, A.; Untaru, E. Effect of environmental corporate social responsibility on green attitude and norm activation process for sustainable consumption: Airline versus restaurant. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2020, 27, 1851–1864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Mehrabian, A.; Russell, J.A. An Approach to Environmental Psychology; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1974. [Google Scholar]
  25. Tierney, P.; Farmer, S.M. Creative Self-Efficacy: Its potential antecedents and relationship to creative performance. Acad. Manag. J. 2002, 45, 1137–1148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Cantor, D.E.; Morrow, P.C.; Montabon, F. Engagement in environmental behaviors among supply chain management employees: An organizational support theoretical perspective. J. Supply Chain. Manag. 2012, 48, 33–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Chatman, J.A. Improving interactional organizational research: A model of person-organization fit. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1989, 14, 333–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Kristof, A.L. Person–organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations, measurement, and implications. Pers. Psychol. 1996, 49, 1–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Wang, D.; Wang, L.; Sun, C.; Wu, D.; Mao, W.; Hu, Y. The relationship between perceived corporate environmental responsibility and employees’ pro-environmental behavior: A moderated serial mediation model. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2023, 30, 2606–2622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Baker, J.; Grewal, D.; Parasuraman, A. The influence of store environment on quality inferences and store image. J. Acad. Market. Sci. 1994, 22, 328–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Bagozzi, R.P. Comment on “Antecedents of performance and satisfaction in a service sale force as compared to an industrial sales force”. J. Pers. Sell. Sales Manag. 1986, 6, 49–51. [Google Scholar]
  32. Ahn, J.A.; Seo, S. Consumer responses to interactive restaurant self-service technology (IRSST): The role of gadget-loving propensity. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2018, 74, 109–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Leung, X.Y.; Wen, H. Chatbot usage in restaurant takeout orders: A comparison study of three ordering methods. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2020, 45, 377–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Leung, X.Y.; Torres, B.J.V.; Fan, A. Do kiosks outperform cashiers? An S-O-R framework of restaurant ordering experiences. J. Hosp. Tour. Technol. 2021, 12, 580–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Eroğlu, S.; Machleit, K.A.; Davis, L. Atmospheric qualities of online retailing. J. Bus. Res. 2001, 54, 177–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Kuo, Y.; Chen, F. The effect of interactivity of brands’ marketing activities on Facebook fan pages on continuous participation intentions: An S–O-R framework study. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2023, 74, 103446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Gong, Y.; Huang, J.; Farh, J. Employee learning orientation, transformational leadership, and employee creativity: The mediating role of employee creative self-Efficacy. Acad. Manag. J. 2009, 52, 765–778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Tuan, L.T. Green creative behavior in the tourism industry: The role of green entrepreneurial orientation and a dual-mediation mechanism. J. Sustain. Tour. 2020, 29, 1290–1318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Wang, J.; Wang, H.; Zhang, Z.; Ru, X. Examining when and how perceived sustainability-related climate influences pro-environmental behaviors of tourism destination residents in China. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2021, 48, 357–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Song, W.; Ma, Y.; Fan, X.; Peng, X. Corporate environmental ethics and employee’s green creativity? The perspective of environmental commitment. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2023, 30, 1856–1868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Chang, C.H.; Chen, Y.S. Green organizational identity and green innovation. Manag. Decis. 2013, 51, 1056–1070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Song, W.; Yu, H.; Xu, H. Effects of green human resource management and managerial environmental concern on green innovation. Eur. J. Innov. Manag. 2020, 24, 951–967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Mazurkiewicz, P. Corporate Environmental Responsibility: Is a Common CSR Framework Possible? World Bank Working Paper; Woold Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2004; Available online: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTDEVCOMSUSDEVT/Resources/csrframework.pdf (accessed on 24 December 2023).
  44. Chuang, S.; Huang, S. The Effect of environmental corporate social responsibility on environmental performance and business competitiveness: The mediation of green information technology capital. J. Bus. Ethics 2018, 150, 991–1009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Wei, Z.; Shen, H.; Zhou, K.Z.; Li, J.J. How does environmental corporate social responsibility matter in a dysfunctional institutional environment? Evidence from China. J. Bus. Ethics 2015, 140, 209–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Flammer, C. Corporate social responsibility and shareholder reaction: The environmental awareness of investors. Acad. Manag. J. 2013, 56, 758–781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Turker, D. How corporate social responsibility influences organizational commitment. J. Bus. Ethics 2009, 89, 189–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Baughn, C.C.; Bodie, K.L.; McIntosh, J.C. Corporate social and environmental responsibility in Asian countries and other geographical regions. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2007, 14, 189–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Rahman, N.; Post, C. Measurement issues in environmental corporate social responsibility (ECSR): Toward a transparent, reliable, and construct valid instrument. J. Bus. Ethics 2012, 105, 307–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. García-Piqueres, G.; García-Ramos, R. Is the corporate social responsibility–innovation link homogeneous? Looking for sustainable innovation in the Spanish context. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2020, 27, 803–814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Xu, J.; Wei, J.; Lu, L. Strategic stakeholder management, environmental corporate social responsibility engagement, and financial performance of stigmatized firms derived from Chinese special environmental policy. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2019, 28, 1027–1044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Forcadell, F.J.; Úbeda, F.; Aracil, E. Effects of environmental corporate social responsibility on innovativeness of Spanish industrial SMEs. Technol. Forecast. Soc. 2021, 162, 120355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Rela, I.Z.; Awang, A.H.; Ramli, Z.; Sum, S.M.; Meisanti, M. Effects of environmental corporate social responsibility on environmental well-being perception and the mediation role of community resilience. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2020, 27, 2176–2187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. De Roeck, K.; Delobbe, N. Do environmental CSR initiatives serve organizations’ legitimacy in the oil industry? Exploring employees’ reactions through organizational identification theory. J. Bus. Ethics 2012, 110, 397–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Chang, T.; Yeh, Y.; Li, H. How to shape an organization’s sustainable green management performance: The mediation effect of environmental corporate social responsibility. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Latif, B.; Gunarathne, N.; Gaskin, J.; Ong, T.S.; Ali, M. Environmental corporate social responsibility and pro-environmental behavior: The effect of green shared vision and personal ties. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2022, 186, 106572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Ruepert, A.; Keizer, K.; Steg, L. The relationship between corporate environmental responsibility, employees’ biospheric values and pro-environmental behavior at work. J. Environ. Psychol. 2017, 54, 65–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Tian, Q.; Robertson, J.L. How and when does perceived CSR affect employees’ engagement in voluntary pro-environmental behavior? J. Bus. Ethics 2017, 155, 399–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Bandura, A. Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control; Macmillan: New York, NY, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  60. Gist, M.E.; Mitchell, T.R. Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its determinants and malleability. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1992, 17, 183–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Alhmoudi, R.S.; Singh, S.K.; Caputo, F.; Riso, T.; Iandolo, F. Corporate social responsibility and innovative work behavior: Is it a matter of perceptions? Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2022, 29, 2030–2037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Fu, Q.; Ghardallou, W.; Comite, U.; Siddique, I.; Han, H.; Arjona-Fuentes, J.M.; Ariza-Montes, A. The Role of CSR in Promoting Energy-Specific Pro-Environmental Behavior among Hotel Employees. Sustainability 2022, 14, 6574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Ren, S.; Jiang, K.; Tang, G. Leveraging green HRM for firm performance: The joint effects of CEO environmental belief and external pollution severity and the mediating role of employee environmental commitment. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2021, 61, 75–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Wan, J.; Gu, Q. Leader creativity expectations motivate employee creativity: A moderated mediation examination. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2015, 28, 724–749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Jaiswal, N.K.; Dhar, R.L. Transformational leadership, innovation climate, creative self-efficacy and employee creativity: A multilevel study. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2015, 51, 30–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Bigné, E.; Andreu, L.; Pérez, C.; Ruiz, C. Brand love is all around: Loyalty behavior, active and passive social media users. Curr. Issues Tour. 2020, 23, 1613–1630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Liu, D.; Jiang, K.; Shalley, C.E.; Keem, S.; Zhou, J. Motivational mechanisms of employee creativity: A meta-analytic examination and theoretical extension of the creativity literature. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 2016, 137, 236–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Herscovitch, L.; Meyer, J.P. Commitment to organizational change: Extension of a three-component model. J. Appl. Psychol. 2002, 87, 474–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Meyer, J.P.; Allen, N.J. A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 1991, 1, 61–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Polonsky, M.J. Incorporating ethics into business students’ research projects: A process approach. J. Bus. Ethics 1998, 17, 1227–1241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Keogh, P.D.; Polonsky, M.J. Environmental commitment: A basis for environmental entrepreneurship? J. Organ. Chang. Manag. 1998, 11, 38–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Raineri, N.; Paillé, P. Linking corporate policy and supervisory support with environmental citizenship behaviors: The role of employee environmental beliefs and commitment. J. Bus. Ethics 2016, 137, 129–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Reverte, C. The impact of better corporate social responsibility disclosure on the cost of equity capital. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2011, 19, 253–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Afsar, B.; Umrani, W.A. Corporate social responsibility and pro-environmental behavior at workplace: The role of moral reflectiveness, coworker advocacy, and environmental commitment. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2019, 27, 109–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Zientara, P.; Zamojska, A. Green organizational climates and employee pro-environmental behavior in the hotel industry. J. Sustain. Tour. 2018, 26, 1142–1159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Shah, S.H.A.; Al-Ghazali, B.M.; Bhatti, S.; Aman, N.; Fahlevi, M.; Aljuaid, M.; Hasan, F. The Impact of Perceived CSR on Employees’ Pro-Environmental Behaviors: The Mediating Effects of Environmental Consciousness and Environmental Commitment. Sustainability 2023, 15, 4350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Paillé, P.; Valéau, P. “I don’t owe you, but I am committed”: Does felt obligation matter on the effect of green training on employee environmental commitment? Organ. Environ. 2020, 34, 123–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Sharma, S.; Prakash, G.; Kumar, A.; Mussada, E.K.; Antony, J.; Luthra, S. Analysing the relationship of adaption of green culture, innovation, green performance for achieving sustainability: Mediating role of employee commitment. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 303, 127039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Paillé, P.; Morelos, J.H.M.; Raineri, N.; Stinglhamber, F. The influence of the immediate manager on the avoidance of non-green behaviors in the workplace: A three-wave moderated-mediation model. J. Bus. Ethics 2017, 155, 723–740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Gladwin, T.N.; Kennelly, J.J.; Krause, T. Shifting paradigms for sustainable development: Implications for management theory and research. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1995, 20, 874–907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Kristof-Brown, A.L.; Zimmerman, R.D.; Johnson, E.C. Consequences of individuals’ fit at work: A meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-group, and person supervisor fit. Pers. Psychol. 2005, 58, 281–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Verquer, M.L.; Beehr, T.A.; Wagner, S.H. A meta-analysis of relations between person-organization fit and work attitudes. J. Vocat. Behav. 2003, 63, 473–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Chen, P.; Sparrow, P.; Cooper, C.L. The relationship between person-organization fit and job satisfaction. J. Manag. Psychol. 2016, 31, 946–959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Zhao, H.; Zhou, Q.; He, P.; Jiang, C. How and when does socially responsible HRM affect employees’ organizational citizenship behaviors toward the environment? J. Bus. Ethics 2019, 169, 371–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Sørlie, H.O.; Hetland, J.; Bakker, A.B.; Espevik, R.; Olsen, O.K. Daily autonomy and job performance: Does person-organization fit act as a key resource? J. Vocat. Behav. 2022, 133, 103691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Valentine, S.; Godkin, L.; Lucero, M. Ethical context, organizational commitment, and person-organization fit. J. Bus. Ethics 2002, 41, 349–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Chen, M.; Lyu, Y.; Li, Y.; Xing, Z.; Li, W. The impact of high-commitment HR practices on hotel employees’ proactive customer service performance. Cornell Hosp. Q. 2016, 58, 94–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. De Hoogh, A.H.B.; Hartog, D.N.D. Neuroticism and locus of control as moderators of the relationships of charismatic and autocratic leadership with burnout. J. Appl. Psychol. 2009, 94, 1058–1067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Wei, S.; Wang, L.; Jiang, W.; Feng, L.; Feng, T. How eco-control systems enhance carbon performance via low-carbon supply chain collaboration? The moderating role of organizational unlearning. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2023, 30, 2536–2554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Guo, Y.; Wang, L.; Yang, Q. Do corporate environmental ethics influence firms’ green practice? The mediating role of green innovation and the moderating role of personal ties. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 266, 122054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Glavas, A.; Kelley, K. The effects of perceived corporate social responsibility on employee attitudes. Bus. Ethics Q. 2014, 24, 165–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Onkila, T. Pride or embarrassment? Employees’ emotions and corporate social responsibility. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2013, 22, 222–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Lee, J.Y.; Podsakoff, N.P. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 2003, 88, 879–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Wang, Z.; Jiang, F. It is not only what you do, but why you do it: The role of attribution in employees’ emotional and behavioral responses to illegitimate tasks. J. Vocat. Behav. 2023, 142, 103860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Aguinis, H.; Villamor, I.; Ramani, R.S. MTurk research: Review and recommendations. J. Manag. 2020, 47, 823–837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Rupp, D.E.; Ganapathi, J.; Aguilera, R.V.; Williams, C.A. Employee reactions to corporate social responsibility: An organizational justice framework. J. Organ. Behav. 2006, 27, 537–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Cable, D.M.; DeRue, D.S. The convergent and discriminant validity of subjective fit perceptions. J. Appl. Psychol. 2002, 87, 875–884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Zhou, P.; Arndt, F.; Jiang, K.; Dai, W. Looking backward and forward: Political links and environmental corporate social responsibility in China. J. Bus. Ethics 2020, 169, 631–649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Kock, N. Common method bias in PLS-SEM: A full collinearity assessment approach. Int. J. e-Collab. 2015, 11, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Hayes, A.F. PROCESS macro (Version 3.3). 2019. Available online: https://processmacro.org (accessed on 24 December 2023).
  101. Kim, S.; Park, H.J. Corporate social responsibility as an organizational attractiveness for prospective public relations practitioners. J. Bus. Ethics 2011, 103, 639–653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Ahmed, M.; Sun, Z.; Raza, S.A.; Qureshi, M.A.; Yousufi, S.Q. Impact of CSR and environmental triggers on employee green behavior: The mediating effect of employee well-being. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2020, 27, 2225–2239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Su, L.; Swanson, S.R. Perceived corporate social responsibility’s impact on the well-being and supportive green behaviors of hotel employees: The mediating role of the employee-corporate relationship. Tour. Manag. 2019, 72, 437–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Arnaud, A.; Sekerka, L.E. Positively ethical: The establishment of innovation in support of sustainability. Int. J. Sustain. Strateg. Manag. 2010, 2, 121–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 16 00234 g001
Figure 1. Conceptual model.
Figure 1. Conceptual model.
Sustainability 16 00234 g001
Sustainability 16 00234 g002
Figure 2. The moderating effect of P-O fit between ECSR and creative self-efficacy.
Figure 2. The moderating effect of P-O fit between ECSR and creative self-efficacy.
Sustainability 16 00234 g002
Sustainability 16 00234 g003
Figure 3. The moderating effect of P-O fit between ECSR and environmental commitment.
Figure 3. The moderating effect of P-O fit between ECSR and environmental commitment.
Sustainability 16 00234 g003
Table 1. Demographic profile.
Table 1. Demographic profile.
Demographics Sample No. (%) (N = 300)
Gender
Female146 (48.67%)
Male154 (51.33%)
Age
Under 30 years123 (41%)
31–40 years156 (52%)
Over 40 years21 (7%)
Ownership
State-owned enterprise80 (26.67%)
Private-owned enterprise191 (63.67%)
Foreign-invested enterprise29 (9.66%)
Education
Junior college or below65 (21.67%)
Undergraduate203 (67.67%)
Postgraduate or above32 (10.66%)
Grade
Frontline employee148 (49.33%)
Supervisor152 (50.67)
Table 2. Results of confirmatory factor analysis.
Table 2. Results of confirmatory factor analysis.
ModelsFactor Loadedχ2DfΔχ2(Δdf) CFITLIRMSEA
5-factor modelECSR, POF, EC, CSE, GIWB415.93242-0.930.920.05
4-factor modelECSR, POF, EC + CSE, GIWB532.46246116.53(4)0.890.880.06
3-factor modelECSR, POF, EC + CSE + GIWB625.76249209.83(7)0.860.840.07
2-factor modelECSR, POF + EC + CSE + GIWB777.77251361.84(9)0.800.780.08
1-factor modelECSR + OC + POF + JI + EGIB839.93252424(10)0.780.750.09
Notes: ECSR, Environmental corporate social responsibility; POF, Person-organization fit; EC, Environmental commitment; CSE, Creative self-efficacy; GIWB, Green innovative work behavior.
Table 3. Descriptive statistics and correlations (N = 300).
Table 3. Descriptive statistics and correlations (N = 300).
VariablesMSD12345
1. ECSR4.140.581
2. P-O fit 4.090.600.55 **1
3. Creative self-efficacy 4.010.620.46 **0.56 **1
4. Environmental commitment4.320.520.53 **0.54 **0.52 ** 1
5. GIWB4.100.600.48 **0.46 **0.56 **0.56 **1
Notes: ** p < 0.01.
Table 4. Hierarchical regression results.
Table 4. Hierarchical regression results.
Creative Self-EfficacyEnvironmental CommitmentGIWB
VariablesModel1Model2Model3Model4Model5Model6Model7Model8
Gender0.00−0.000.030.030.020.020.010.01
Age−0.11 *−0.10 *−0.04−0.04−0.05−0.00−0.03−0.00
Ownership−0.09−0.080.050.060.020.060.000.04
Education0.060.030.00−0.030.050.020.050.03
Grade0.16 **0.10 *0.080.020.05−0.020.01−0.03
ECSR0.44 ***0.29 ***0.52 ***0.29 ***0.47 ***0.28 ***0.25 ***0.18 **
Creative self-efficacy 0.43 *** 0.33 ***
Environmental commitment 0.42 ***0.30 ***
P-O fit 0.47 *** 0.31 ***
ECSR×P-O fit 0.19 ** −0.12 *
R20.260.400.290.380.240.380.360.43
ΔR20.190.020.270.010.220.140.120.05
Adjusted R20.250.380.270.360.220.360.350.41
F17.38 ***23.74 ***19.80 ***22.25 ***15.21 ***25.10 ***23.67 ***27.40 ***
Notes: Coefficients are standardized. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Table 5. Bootstrapping for mediation analyses.
Table 5. Bootstrapping for mediation analyses.
MediationEffectSE95% CI
Creative self-efficacy 0.140.04[0.08, 0.22]
Environmental commitment0.160.05[0.07, 0.27]
Total indirect0.300.58[0.20, 0.43]
Contrasts (Creative self-efficacy vs. Environmental commitment)−0.010.06[−0.15, 0.10]
Notes: Bootstrapping sample = 5000; CI, Confidence interval; SE, Standard Error.
Table 6. Bootstrapping for moderated mediation analyses.
Table 6. Bootstrapping for moderated mediation analyses.
PathLevels of Moderator (P-O Fit)Conditional
Indirect Effect		SE95%CIIndexPass or Not
ECSR-Creative self-efficacy-GIWB−1SD0.060.03[0.01, 0.12]0.06 [0.01, 0.14]Pass
+1SD0.130.04[0.06, 0.24]
Contrasts0.070.04[0.01, 0.16]
ECSR- Environmental commitment -GIWB −1SD0.110.04[0.04, 0.21]−0.03
[−0.11, 0.02]		Not
+1SD0.070.03[0.02, 0.14]
Contrasts−0.040.04[−0.12, 0.03]
Notes: Bootstrapping sample = 5000; CI, Confidence interval; SE, Standard Error.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Chen, J.; Zhang, A. Exploring How and When Environmental Corporate Social Responsibility Impacts Employees’ Green Innovative Work Behavior: The Mediating Role of Creative Self-Efficacy and Environmental Commitment. Sustainability 2024, 16, 234. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16010234

AMA Style

Chen J, Zhang A. Exploring How and When Environmental Corporate Social Responsibility Impacts Employees’ Green Innovative Work Behavior: The Mediating Role of Creative Self-Efficacy and Environmental Commitment. Sustainability. 2024; 16(1):234. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16010234

Chicago/Turabian Style

Chen, Jiali, and Aiqing Zhang. 2024. "Exploring How and When Environmental Corporate Social Responsibility Impacts Employees’ Green Innovative Work Behavior: The Mediating Role of Creative Self-Efficacy and Environmental Commitment" Sustainability 16, no. 1: 234. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16010234

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop