Translating Corporate Sustainability Policies into Employee Pro-Environmental Behaviors: Evidence from Thai Organizations

Abstract

In Thailand, companies are facing increasing pressure from investors, consumers, customers, and regulators to integrate sustainability into business policies and practices. Achieving corporate sustainable development requires incorporating environmental attitudes and work environments into employee behaviors. This study examines how perceived sustainability policies (PSP) influence pro-environmental behaviors (PEB) in the workplace. A total of 589 respondents from four Thai companies in diverse sectors—rubber, consumer products, B2B industrials, and garments—participated in the study. Grounded in the Focus Theory of Normative Conduct, the research extends individual-level psychological frameworks by incorporating the mediating roles of organizational-level descriptive norms—green shared vision (GSV) and green work climate (GWC)—and the moderating role of individual green value (IGV). Structural equation modeling was conducted using AMOS. The findings supported both a direct effect of PSP on PEB and a sequential mediation pathway through GSV and GWC, while the individual mediation roles of GSV and GWC were not significant. These results reflected strong institutional and in-group collectivist culture of Thailand. Moreover, IGV was found to have a significantly negative moderating effect, suggesting that employees with high IGV may rely less on formal perceived sustainability policies in shaping their pro-environmental behaviors.

1. Introduction

Sustainability policy currently becomes a national agenda for several countries, increasingly transferring to organizational level [1]. The global landscape is progressively shifting towards a sustainability-oriented approach. For example, the circular economy has converted into a critical alternative economic system maximizing the value of resources at every step of the product life cycle, from production to distribution and consumption, through the principle of reduction, reuse, recycle, and recovery materials [1,2]. Companies now face increasing pressure from investors, consumers, customers, and regulators to integrate sustainability into core business strategies [3,4]. This growing focus is often guided by environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria, which have become important tools for evaluating long-term business performance. One of the key drivers behind this trend is the rise of sustainability-related regulations, particularly in Europe, which require companies to manage environmental and social risks more seriously. In addition, the concept of fiduciary duty is being reinterpreted to include sustainability considerations as part of responsible business conduct [3,5]. Nevertheless, this shift has not occurred uniformly or linearly across regions or industries. The adoption of ESG practices still varies depending on local regulations, cultural norms, and stakeholder expectations. Globally, about 3500 companies are invited annually to be considered for the Dow Jones Sustainability Index [6], reflecting the expanding but varied adoption of sustainability standards.

In Thailand, corporate engagement with sustainability initiatives has been growing significantly in recent years. In 2023, about 23% of all Thai listed companies, or 193 out of 841 companies, were identified as eligible based on SET ESG rating qualification standards, whereas the ratio was only 10.9% or 76 out of 700 listed companies in 2018 [7]. Moreover, over 400 Thai listed companies participated in global warming reduction projects, presenting their accomplishments to international audiences at the APEC 2022 conference in Thailand [8]. Notably, environmental care management practices are not only limited to large companies. Small- and medium-sized enterprises also actively volunteer to engage in sustainability policies [9]. Within mixed sizes of Thai organization, there is a high increment in the adoption of ISO 14001 [10], which is specifically issued to certify organizations with the qualified standard of environmental management systems. The annual growth rate was 45.8% between 2015 and 2023 [10]. Despite this growing commitment to environmental standards and higher sustainability adoption in the Thai workplace context, empirical studies assessing the multilevel managerial process and the impact of corporate sustainability policy in Thai organizations remain limited.

This study was motivated by the frequently observed disconnect between well-intentioned corporate-level sustainability policies and their consistent translation into employees’ individual-level pro-environmental behaviors (PEB), defined as individual actions in the workplace that contribute to environmental sustainability in daily practices [11,12]. While many organizations have adopted sustainability policies and frameworks, a persistent challenge remains in effectively embedding these top-down commitments into bottom-up behavioral change [13,14]. Prior research emphasized the importance of examining the normative and contextual mechanisms that contribute to this policy–behavior gap within organizational settings [15,16]. As a result, the present study investigates how perceived sustainability policies (PSP) influence PEB through both group-level normative mechanisms, namely green shared vision (GSV), defined as a collectively held understanding of environmental goals [17], and green work climate (GWC), the perceived reinforcement of corporate sustainability values through day-to-day practices [11]. In addition, this study examines the moderating role of individual green value (IGV), which represents employees’ individual-level intrinsic environmental orientation [15].

To implement sustainability policy effectively, the important issue is to understand how environmental responsibility is embedded into individual thoughts and behaviors [9,18]. While organizations worldwide were increasingly committing sustainability goals, they not only promote environmentally responsible practices at the organizational level but also incorporate employees’ attitudes and PEB within the organization [16,19,20]. Fostering PEB in the workplace requires formal managerial systems and normative mechanisms that can drive individual behaviors towards sustainability [21].

While several researchers have demonstrated that leadership and green human resource management practices are critical in promoting corporate sustainability policy [22,23,24], relatively less attention has been paid to how PSP are embedded to form organizational GSV and GWC that, in turn, influence employee PEB [11,25]. This study underlines a notable gap in understanding how formal corporate sustainability policies and organizational mechanisms, especially mediation roles of GSV and GWC, with the moderation role of IGV, can influence employees’ PEB [26,27]. The research framework is grounded in the Focus Theory of Normative Conduct (FTNC), which posits how behavior is shaped by the salience of social norms, especially injunctive norms (what is socially approved) and descriptive norms (what others typically do) within a given context [28].

The main objective of this research is to understand how PSP could be systematically managed at a company level to achieve PEB among employees within the workplace context. This research explains how PSP affects employee PEB directly and indirectly, with two main contributions provided. Firstly, the comprehensive model provides advanced knowledge combining organizational-level variables (e.g., managerial practices and corporate policy) and group-level variables (e.g., social norms and work climate), based on the FTNC framework. In addition, IGV represents an intrinsic motivation, which is an individual-level variable, moderating the influence of PSP on PEB. Secondly, the research offers insights for business practitioners and policy makers on prioritizing and developing effective mechanisms to shape PEB in Thai organizations. To achieve these aims, this study employed a structured survey of 589 employees from Thai listed and private companies. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test the proposed model. The results confirmed that PSP significantly influenced PEB, both directly and indirectly, through the sequential mediators GSV and GWC. In addition, the moderating effect of IGV on the PSP–PEB relationship was also supported. These findings provide both theoretical and practical contributions to sustainability implementation within organizational contexts.

The following sections are organized as follows: Section 2 explains the theoretical background. Section 3 provides the hypothesis development and literature support. Section 4 describes the research methodology. Section 5 demonstrates the research results. Section 6 discusses the findings and implications. And Section 7 is the conclusion.

2. Theoretical Background

2.1. Focus Theory of Normative Conduct (FTNC)

The Focus Theory of Normative Conduct (FTNC), developed within the field of social psychology, explains how salient social norms guide individual behavior by making certain cues more prominent in a given context [28]. It has been widely applied in environmental psychology and sustainability research to understand how injunctive and descriptive norms influence pro-environmental behaviors (PEB) [29]. Injunctive norms refer to perceptions of what behaviors are socially approved, whereas descriptive norms reflect perceptions of what others typically do. In this study, perceived sustainability policy (PSP) is conceptualized as an injunctive norm, signaling organizational expectations, while green shared vision (GSV) and green work climate (GWC) are treated as descriptive norms, reflecting shared environmental goals and daily behavioral practices within the workplace [28]. This study examines the organizational pathways through how corporate sustainability policy influences employee PEB. When the behavior of others is made visible (descriptive norms) and social pressure or awareness of others’ actions (injunctive norms) is emphasized, these salient social norms in a specific context can serve as a powerful tool for promoting environmental behaviors [28,30]. Two critical normative mechanisms included in this study are green shared vision (GSV) and green work climate (GWC), which help translate corporate policy into meaningful daily behaviors of employees [11,17]. These mechanisms are conceptualized as descriptive norms at the center of this research, representing multiple normative influences that highlight the core concept of normative focus in FTNC [31]. Through this lens, FTNC offers a suitable theoretical foundation to understand how both collective organizational signals and personal values jointly influence behaviors.

2.2. Perceived Sustainability Policy (PSP)

In organizational settings, corporate sustainability policy demonstrates employee perception about the organizational contribution for the well-being of society, such as waste reduction, environmental protection, and ethical business practices [32,33]. Therefore, perceived sustainability policy (PSP) among employees is considered as top-down normative cues guiding employees in what the company values and how to perform organization’s social and environmental activities, either task-related or proactive environmental behaviors in relation to these values [11,33]. Previous studies have operationalized PSP using employee-reported perceptions of formal environmental commitments and top management’s engagement with sustainability [11,33]. The measurement items used in this study follow these prior approaches and are detailed in

Table A1. Measurement scales of main constructs.

Construct	Source	Item Code	Statement
Perceived Sustainability Policy (PSP)	Wesselink et al. [45]	PSP1	My company uses eco-friendly technologies to reduce environmental impact.
		PSP2	My company ensures sustainable use of natural resources.
		PSP3	My company has a waste reduction and management policy.
		PSP4	My company follows the requirements of environmental management to identify areas for improvement.
Green Shared Vision (GSV)	Chen et al. [17]	GSV1	The corporate environmental goals are commonly recognized and shared among employees.
		GSV2	There is a consensus on the company’s strategic environmental direction.
		GSV3	All of us (employees) are committed to the environmental strategies of the company.
		GSV4	All of us (employees) feel highly motivated about the collective environmental mission of the company.
Green Work Climate (GWC)	Luu [40]	GWC1	Our team thinks that engaging in and supporting sustainable initiatives are important.
		GWC2	Our team is interested in supporting environmental policies.
		GWC3	Our team believes it is important to protect the environment.
		GWC4	Our team emphasizes the use of less paper, reduced energy, and disposable products.
Individual Green Values (IGV)	Al-Swidi et al. [43]	IGV1	To protect the environment, I feel a personal responsibility to do everything that I can.
		IGV2	I feel it is the right thing to be considerate of the environment and not to harm the nature.
		IGV3	It is my personal responsibility to do everything in my power to reduce energy consumption.
Pro-environmental Behaviors (PEB)	Robertson and Barling [12]	PEB1	I print double sided whenever possible.
		PEB2	I put recyclable material in the recycling bins.
		PEB3	I bring reusable eating utensils to work.
		PEB4	I turn lights off when not in use.
		PEB5	I make suggestions about environmental protection to managers and/or environmental committees, to increase my organization’s environmental performance.
	Norton et al. [11]; Dumont et al. [19]; Bissing-Olson et al. [56]	PEB6	I effectively complete any job assignments (either in-role or extra-role) in environmentally friendly ways.
		PEB7	I complete my responsibilities specified in my job description (in-role tasks) in environmentally friendly ways.

(Appendix A).

2.3. Green Shared Vision (GSV)

Green shared vision (GSV) not only provides a sense of strategic goal among employees, but it also reinforces a collective vision within the organization aiming for environmental sustainability and sustainable development [32,34,35]. A shared vision enables employees to perceive their work in a broader view, motivate them to overcome challenges, and encourage their performance to exceed expectations [36]. With the green shared vision, an organization can manage resource exchange effectively to encourage employees’ contributions on green initiatives and to achieve organizational initiatives such as green products, services, processes, and practices [34]. GSV is commonly measured using items that capture employees’ shared understanding of environmental goals and alignment with the organization’s green direction [34,36]. The operationalization of this construct in the current study is based on validated scales and is shown in Table A1 (Appendix A).

2.4. Green Work Climate (GWC)

GWC reflects the employee perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors towards the work environment, including physical, social, and psychological aspects of the workplace [11,19,20]. Even though GWC is similar with green culture, highlighting the importance of sustainability promotion in the organizational context, they have some differences. While green culture focuses on values and beliefs commonly understood by employees [37,38], the green work culture instead looks at the immediate perceptions and experiences of employees concerning the organization’s environmental policies and practices [39,40] and how they share these green attitudes and behaviors with co-workers [11,19,22]. Thus, it implies descriptive norms (what company is focusing on and how co-workers behave) and injunctive norms (what behaviors are expected and accepted) in the workplace [41]. Prior studies have used employee assessments of day-to-day support for sustainability, peer behaviors, and green communication practices to measure GWC [11,19,42]. The current study follows this operational tradition, with full items presented in Table A1 (Appendix A).

2.5. Individual Green Value (IGV)

Moreover, while organizational norms are important, individual-level variables like individual green value (IGV) also play a critical role in shaping individual behaviors in responses to corporate sustainability initiatives. IGV takes place in personal beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors that are prioritized to support environmental protection and sustainability [23,43,44]. Employees with high individual green values are more likely to support and participate in corporate green initiatives, while anyone else with lower values may require stronger organizational practices to take actions [23]. When individual values of employees align with corporate values, the impact would be favorable on their work attitudes and personal behaviors [23,43]. Accordingly, the individual green value is expected to moderate on how strong corporate sustainability policy influences pro-environmental behaviors in the workplace [22,25]; however, its moderation role here has rarely been studied especially when it is integrated into an FTNC-based organizational framework. IGV has typically been measured using value-based environmental scales that reflect individual concern for nature, ecological beliefs, and green attitudes [23,44]. The items used in this study are consistent with this approach and are shown in Table A1 (Appendix A).

3. Hypotheses Development

Grounded in Focus Theory of Normative Conduct (FTNC), this study proposes a systematic theory-based model of perceived sustainability policy (PSP) as the antecedent, along with sequential mediators like green shared vision (GSV) and green work climate (GWC), as well as the moderation role of individual green value (IGV), in shaping pro-environmental behaviors (PEB) in the workplace. Figure 1 illustrates the proposed research model and hypotheses of this study.

3.1. Perceived Sustainability Policy (PSP) and Pro-Environmental Behaviors (PEB)

Corporate sustainability policy informs employees of the formal environmental practices and normative signals, expecting them to follow them and conduct sustainable behavior in the organizations [16,28]. With the sustainability policy embedded in the company, employees are more likely to perceive corporate environmental initiatives, such as waste reduction, environmental protection, and ethical business practices [32,33], which employees tend to adopt and participate in further [32,33,45]. Therefore, PSP is important for promoting PEB among employees [11,45]. If employees perceive their organization as environmentally and socially responsible, they will tend to behave pro-environmentally in the workplace [11,32,33]. In line with the Focus Theory of Normative Conduct (FTNC), PSP is conceptualized as an injunctive norm, signaling to employees what is expected and the approved behavior in the organization’s sustainability agenda [28,41]. Employees who perceive a strong sustainability policy of their organization are assumed to highly engage in behaviors. According to the given literature support and research evidence, this study proposes the first hypothesis as follows:

Hypothesis 1 (H1). 

PSP positively affects PEB in the workplace.

3.2. Mediating Role of Green Shared Vision (GSV)

A GSV represents a collective understanding of organizational commitment to sustainability goals [17,34]. When sustainability policies are well communicated and clearly perceived as genuine by employees, they are encouraged to engage in the corporate green values and promote collective obligation towards environmental goals [11,32,46,47]. From the FTNC perspective, GSV can be understood as a descriptive norm, where shared understanding of sustainability goals reflects what others in the organization value aim to achieve [48,49]. PSP is served as guidance promoting the development of GSV and aligning employee behaviors with the corporate sustainability objectives [27], or PEB, in the workplace. With this evidence and support, this study proposes the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 2 (H2). 

Green shared vision (GSV) positively mediates the relationship between perceived sustainability policy (PSP) and pro-environmental behaviors (PEB).

Hypothesis 2a (H2a). 

PSP positively affects GSV.

Hypothesis 2b (H2b). 

GSV positively affects PEB.

3.3. Mediating Role of Green Work Climate (GWC)

A strong work climate supports employees to have a common understanding of how colleagues perceive corporate policies and practices and what behaviors are generally seen in the organization [19,22,24]. Furthermore, the work climate also takes a role of injunctive norms emphasizing employees’ do and don’t behaviors [41] and further emphasize similarity in employee behaviors [50].

For GWC, it is important to capture employee perceptions towards organizational support and expectations regarding sustainability, which significantly impact their engagement in PEB [11]. Engaging PEB could be considered as doing the right thing in GWC, which is a sense of obligation to these norms [41]. In other words, the GWC signals to employees that certain PEB are expected and valued by the organization. And then it influences individual employees to be obligated and to partake in PEB likewise [41]. Thus, GWC can bring out voluntary green behaviors [11]. In this study, GWC is also framed as a descriptive norm under the FTNC framework, as it reinforces employees’ perception of what behaviors are typical and appropriate in their organizational environment [28,41,49]. With this evidence and literature support, this research proposes the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 3 (H3). 

Green work climate (GWC) positively mediates the relationship between perceived sustainability policy (PSP) and pro-environmental behaviors (PEB).

Hypothesis 3a (H3a). 

PSP positively affects GWC.

Hypothesis 3b (H3b). 

GWC positively affects PEB.

3.4. Sequential Mediation via Green Shared Vision (GSV) and Green Work Climate (GWC)

GSV and GWC are proposed to sequentially mediate the relationship between PSP of the organization and PEB among employees. In the workplace, when the GSV is strong and the GWC is positive, employees do not only feel an obligation for personal environmental protection behaviors, but they also encourage colleagues to behave the same. While GSV fosters employees to understand corporate goals and frame individual perceived sustainability policy (PSP) [17], GWC further provides collective signals reinforcing day-to-day behavioral obligation considered as doing the right things for sustainable environment [11,41]. Strong positive GWC drives employees to engage in both task-related and proactive PEB for shared environmental goals [11].

Even though the influence of GSV and GWC on PEB has been examined by several researchers, studies investigating their combined and sequential mediation roles—particularly with GSV preceding GWC—remain limited. In most prior research, GSV and GWC have been analyzed independently. For example, GSV significantly supported the organization to manage resource exchange effectively and encourage employee contributions on green initiatives [34], whereas GWC was examined in its central mediation role between PSP and PEB [11,51].

Grounded in the FTNC framework, this study conceptualizes GSV and GWC as two organizational-level descriptive norms, reflecting the collective understanding of what is commonly done and valued in the organization [28]. These norms operate in sequence, where GSV provides shared vision and meaning, and GWC translates that vision into collective behavioral expectations. Hypothesis 4 focuses specifically on this sequential mediation pathway, as shown in the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 4 (H4). 

Green shared vision (GSV) and green work climate (GWC) provide a positive sequential mediation effect between perceived sustainability policy (PSP) and pro-environmental behaviors (PEB).

Hypothesis 4a (H4a). 

GSV positively affects GWC.

3.5. Moderating Role of Individual Green Value (IGV)

IGV reflects a personal orientation towards environmental responsibility and influences individuals in how they respond to green social norms and transfer these into PEB in both public and private contexts [52]. Previous research indicated IGV could intensify the impact of perceived sustainable policies on employee commitments for green initiatives and sustainable workplace behaviors [43]. Employees with strong IGV are more likely to perceive organizational support and participate more in environmental care behaviors [45]. Particularly once employees align their IGV with corporate environmental values, their attitudes and behaviors would become environmentally friendly [23,43]. Thus, IGV plays an important role in shaping employee responsiveness to organizational sustainability goals [21,44,53].

In the context of the Focus Theory of Normative Conduct (FTNC), IGV reflects the internal value orientation that may amplify or buffer the influence of injunctive norms (e.g., PSP) on behavioral outcomes such as PEB [28,41]. This perspective is further supported by Self-Determination Theory (SDT), which suggests that individuals are more likely to engage in consistent and sustained behaviors when those behaviors align with their intrinsic values and sense of self. In this view, IGV represents an internalized form of motivation: individuals act not merely due to external cues but because such actions reflect who they are [54,55].

At the same time, we acknowledge that employees with strong IGV may also act on their internal motivation regardless of external cues. This may reduce the effect of perceived sustainability policy, as previously observed in research suggesting a negative moderation effect [15]. Nevertheless, this study adopts a positive moderation hypothesis in line with SDT’s notion of motivational synergy between internal values and supportive organizational signals. To maintain model parsimony, IGV is examined only as a single moderator on the direct PSP–PEB path. This approach allows us to explore how individual-level value orientation and internalized motivation may influence the translation of sustainability policy into behavioral outcomes in the workplace.

Hypothesis 5 (H5). 

Individual green value (IGV) positively moderates the relationship between perceived sustainability policy (PSP) and pro-environmental behaviors (PEB).

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Measures

Originally, the questionnaire was developed by integrating existing scales from previous research articles published in English. Then, it was translated and distributed only in the Thai language to be well understood across research samples, who are Thai employees and managers. There are 22 questions included in the first part of the questionnaire, including five scales for five main constructs: perceived sustainability policy (PSP), green shared vision (GSV), green work climate (GWC), pro-environmental behaviors (PEB), and individual green value (IGV). All statements were measured using a five-point Likert scale, where “1” means “Strongly Disagree” and “5” represents “Strongly Agree”, unless otherwise specified. Each scale of PSP, GSV, and GWC contains four statement items modified from previous research [17,39,40], while IGV uses three-item scale [43]. For PEB, the scale is more comprehensive, consisting of seven items breaking down into two items of task-related behaviors [11,19,56] and five items of pro-active behaviors [12]. The second part of the questionnaire is personal data, control variables in this study, consisting of six questions covering age group, gender identification, education level, monthly income, years of service, and position level [12,48,53,57,58]. These variables were selected based on theoretical relevance and empirical support suggesting their association with environmental awareness, attitudes, and behavior in the workplace [12,48,53]. In the structural equation model, these control variables were entered as exogenic controls predicting PEB. This approach allowed the model to statistically control demographic and contextual influences while preserving the interpretability of the hypothesized normative pathways. Full details of measures are presented in Appendix A, with the main constructs shown in Table A1 and measures of control factors listed in

Table A2. Measurement of control variables.

Construct	Item Statement
Age Group	Please indicate your age group: Options: 20–27 yrs old, 28–43 yrs old, 44–59 yrs old
Gender Identity	What is your gender identity? Options: (1) Male, (2) Female, (3) Non-binary
Education Level	Please indicate your highest level of education: Options: (1) Less than a Bachelor’s degree, (2) Bachelor’s degree, (3) Master’s degree, (4) Doctoral degree.
Monthly Income	Please indicate your average monthly income (in Thai Baht): Options: (1) Less than 20,000, (2) 20,001–40,000, (3) 40,001–60,000, (4) 60,001–80,000, (5) 80,001–100,000, (6) More than 100,000.
Years of Service	How long have you been employed at your current organization? Options: (1) Less than 1 year, (2) 1–3 years, (3) >3–5 years, (4) >5–10 years, (5) More than 10 years.
Position Level	What is your current job level? Options: (1) Entry-level, (2) Supervisor, (3) Middle management, (4) Senior management, (5) Top executive.

.

4.2. Data Collection and Sample Profile

Purposive sampling was employed to approach and invite only organizations with well-established corporate sustainability policies across sectors, including both listed and private companies, with two companies in each group. This yielded a reasonably balanced sample of 377 and 212 respondents, respectively. While Thai listed companies generally have well-structured management systems, Thai private firms are typically managed within less formalized managerial mechanisms. Nevertheless, these contextual differences were carefully considered during sample selection to ensure alignment with the study’s focus on organizations actively implementing sustainability policies. These participating companies distribute online questionnaires directly to their employees across job levels and varied departments for voluntary responses collected from anyone who selected to engage in this research due to data access constraints. Voluntary response sampling is advantageous in organizational contexts where it may be impractical to obtain a random sample due to access limitations [55]. It allows us to reach a board base of potential participants with minimal disruption to the organization’s operations and with the use of corporate email for survey distribution increasing accessibility and response rates.

In this study, a total of 589 employees from four organizations in Thailand participated. These organizations, encompassing both listed and privately held companies, represented four distinct industrial sectors: rubber (n = 189), consumer products (n = 188), B2B industrials (n = 102), and garments (n = 110). This sample size is considered statistically adequate for structural equation modeling. Kline [59] suggests that a sample of over 200 is sufficient for most SEM applications, and a sample exceeding 500 offers strong statistical power. To ensure adequate statistical power for SEM analysis, this study followed Kline’s guideline [59], which suggests that a sample of over 200 is sufficient for most SEM applications, and over 500 is considered strong. Furthermore, this aligns with other SEM-based studies in the environmental behavior literature, such as Norton, Zacher, and Ashkanasy [11] (N = 168, multiple companies); Dumont, Shen, and Deng [19] (N = 388, one company); and Saeed et al. [60] (N = 347, five business sectors). Therefore, with 589 participants from four companies, the current sample exceeds the general SEM and aligns with relevant studies, supporting the robustness of the findings.

Demographic data of the total sample size are demonstrated in

Table 1. Demographic statistics (N = 589).

Descriptions	Range	No. of Respondents	%
Age Group	20–27 years old	91	15.4%
	28 to 43 years old	342	58.1%
	44 to 60 years old	156	26.5%
Gender Identity	Male	169	28.7%
	Female	410	69.6%
	Non-binary	10	1.7%
Highest Education Level	Below bachelor’s degree	288	48.9%
	Bachelor’s degree	275	46.7%
	Master’s degree	26	4.4%
	Doctoral degree	0	0.0%
Personal Monthly Income	THB < 20,000	313	53.1%
	THB 20,001–40,000	197	33.4%
	THB 40,001–60,000	40	6.8%
	THB 60,001–80,000	14	2.4%
	THB 80,001–100,000	13	2.2%
	THB > 100,001	12	2.0%
Years of Service	<1 year	109	18.5%
	1–3 years	155	26.3%
	>3–5 years	63	10.7%
	>5–10 years	143	24.3%
	>10 years	119	20.2%
Position Level	Entry level	413	70.1%
	Supervisor	108	18.3%
	Middle management	55	9.3%
	Senior management	13	2.2%

. Mainly, the age group distribution of the respondents (58.1%) was between 28 and 43 years old, while younger participants (20–27 years) represented 15.4%, and older participants (44–60 years) were 26.5%. Concerning gender identity, it was assessed using three response options: male, female, and non-binary (for gender-diverse group), consistent with APA guidelines as shown in Table A2, Appendix A. Most of gender proportion was female (69.6%), followed by male (28.7%) and non-binary respondents (1.7%). For the highest educational level, half of the respondents (50%) held qualifications below a bachelor’s degree. Approximately 43% of the participants had completed a bachelor’s degree, while a smaller proportion (6%) held a master’s degree. None of the respondents possessed a doctoral degree. Personal monthly income levels were considerably varied, most respondents earned less than THB 40,000 per month. For years of service or tenure, it was relatively well distributed, with 24% having more than 10 years of service and another 24% in the range of 1–3 years. Job position was heavily shifted toward non-managerial roles: 64% of respondents identified as entry-level employees, followed by supervisors (19%) and middle management (14%). Senior and top executives together weighed only 4% of the total samples. This demographic data reflects a diverse workforce across different organizational types and sectors, offering a rich foundation for analyzing how corporate structural and cultural variables shape PEB in the workplace.

4.3. Data Analysis Methods

The validity and reliability of constructs were calculated by using Cronbach’s alpha(α), composite reliability (CR), and average variance extracted (AVE). Cronbach’s alpha, computed using IBM SPSS version 19, assessed the internal consistency of each scale, with a threshold of 0.70 required as acceptable [61]. Pearson Correlation analysis was also conducted in SPSS to examine the bivariate relationships among variables. CR and AVE were calculated using the standard SEM formulas, AVE = (Σλ²)/n and CR = (Σλ)²/[(Σλ)² + Σ(1 − λ²)], where λ represents standardized factor loadings and n means the number of items, with threshold values of CR ≥ 0.70 and AVE ≥ 0.50 indicating adequate reliability and convergent validity [62]. The confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was then applied to validate the FTNC theory-based model by assessing the model fit, factor loadings, and construct inter-relationships. For hypothesis testing, this study employs covariance-based structural equation modeling (CB-SEM) using IBM SPSS AMOS version 23. CB-SEM is widely used in organizational and behavioral research for testing complex theoretical models, latent constructs, mediation, and moderation [59,62,63]. CB-SEM is particularly suitable for this study as it allows for the simultaneous testing of latent constructs, direct and indirect effects, and model fit within a single integrated framework [59]. Mediation effects, including the sequential pathway involving green shared vision (GSV) and green work climate (GWC), were tested using bias-corrected bootstrapping with 2000 resamples, a recommended approach for robust estimation of indirect effects in CB-SEM [59,62].

5. Results

5.1. Correlation Analysis

Pearson Correlation analysis was conducted to provide the relationship among constructs and to assess potential issues of multicollinearity.

Table 2. Correlation statistics.

Variables	PSP	GSV	GWC	IGV	PEB	AGE	GEND	EDU	INC	YOS	TITLE
Perceived Sustainability Policy (PSP)		0.736 **	0.671 **	0.479 **	0.603 **	0.134 **	0.107 **	(0.134) **	(0.156) **	0.171 **	(0.119) **
Green Shared Vision (GSV)			0.804 **	0.485 **	0.647 **	0.059	0.031	(0.121) **	(0.196) **	0.050	(0.162) **
Green Work Climate (GWC)				0.604 **	0.704 **	0.073	0.048	(0.055)	(0.131) **	0.038	(0.114) **
Individual Green Value (IGV)					0.687 **	0.101 *	0.046	0.079	0.018	0.115 **	0.045
Pro-Environmental Behaviors (PEB)						0.067	0.062	0.025	(0.073)	0.058	(0.050)
Age Group (AGE)							(0.025)	(0.092) *	0.184 **	0.403 **	0.235 **
Gender Identity (GEND)								0.032	(0.136) **	0.018	(0.160) **
Education Level (EDU)									0.616 **	(0.021)	0.524 **
Monthly Income (INC)										0.105 *	0.796 **
Years of Service (YOS)											0.205 **
Position Level (TITLE)

Notes: * p < 0.05, and ** p < 0.01. Any coefficient value with a significant level is shown in bold.

demonstrates the Pearson Correlation coefficients among the main constructs and control variables of this study. Perceived sustainability policy (PSP) is positively and significantly associated with green shared vision (GSV) (r = 0.736, p < 0.01), green work climate (GWC) (r = 0.671, p < 0.01), individual green value (IGV) (r = 0.479, p < 0.01), and pro-environmental behaviors (PEB) (r = 0.603, p < 0.01), which align with hypothesized normative pathways. Notably, the relationship between GSV and GWC is particularly strong (r = 0.804, p < 0.01), highlighting a solid conceptual linkage. Moreover, IGV shows a robust correlation with PEB (r = 0.687, p < 0.01), supporting its moderation role in shaping individual green behaviors.

These results provide preliminary empirical support for the hypothesized model and suggest coherent relationships between organizational-level signals and individual behavioral responses. In particular, the strong intercorrelations among GSV, GWC, and PEB reinforce the sequential mediation logic proposed in the theoretical framework. Such findings also affirm the relevance of integrating descriptive and injunctive norms to explain workplace sustainability behaviors

Among control variables, education level is negatively related to PEB (r = −0.134, p < 0.01), a finding consistent with the structural equation model results. Age group indicates positive correlations with PSP (r = 0.134, p < 0.01), IGV (r = 0.101, p < 0.05), monthly income range (r = 0.403, p < 0.01), and years of service or tenure (r = 0.184, p < 0.01), reflecting typical patterns of seniority and career advancement. Likewise, personal monthly income range is highly correlated with position level (r = 0.796, p < 0.01), and both are positively related to education level. Given that gender identity was measured as a categorical variable with three response options, its correlation coefficients should be interpreted cautiously. All bivariate correlations among variables remained below the commonly accepted threshold of 0.85, indicating acceptable discriminant validity and supporting suitability of constructs for structural equation modeling.

5.2. Construct Validity and Reliability

Table 3. Cronbach’s alpha, CR, and AVE (N = 589).

Constructs	Mean	SD	α (≥0.7)	CR (≥0.7)	AVE (≥0.5)
Perceived Sustainability Policy (PSP)	4.326	0.579	0.842	0.879	0.645
Green Shared Vision (GSV)	4.195	0.576	0.892	0.923	0.749
Green Work Climate (GWC)	4.221	0.553	0.883	0.912	0.722
Pro-Environmental Behaviors (PEB)	4.254	0.497	0.827	0.864	0.477

summarizes the reliability indices for key constructs, including PSP, GSV, GWC, and PEB. The results demonstrated high internal consistency with Cronbach’s alpha values ranging from 0.871 to 0.943, exceeding the minimum acceptable threshold of 0.70 [64]. CR values for all constructs in the full samples exceeded the 0.70 threshold [64] ranging from 0.864 to 0.932. AVE was used to evaluate convergent validity. Mostly AVE values exceeded the minimum standard of 0.5, except the PEB construct. Although the AVE value of PEB was only 0.477, its CR value exceeded the recommended 0.50 threshold (0.864) in addition to strong model fit. Thus, the construct was still considered as maintaining adequate internal consistency [62]. However, the result requires interpretation with cautious.

The consistency of these metrics across constructs reflects satisfactory measurement model quality and supports the validity of further structural analysis. Establishing construct reliability and validity ensures that the latent variables are measured consistently and accurately, providing a solid foundation for the structural equation modeling conducted in the subsequent analysis.

5.3. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Model Fit

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to ensure the validity of the measurement model that latent constructs are appropriately represented by observed variables. The model fit was assessed with various goodness-of-fit indices including the chi-square statistic (X²), degrees of freedom (df), comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker–Lewis index (TLI), and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) [62]. The model fit was considered acceptable if CFI and TFI values were over 0.90, the RMSEA was below 0.08, and X²/df was below 3, with small flexibility of acceptance for large-sample studies [23,65].

In this study, the model is based on FTNC consisting of PSP, with GSV and GWC as mediators and PEB as the expected outcomes in the workplace. In addition, the interaction effect of PSP × IGV was incorporated using mean-centered interactions to handle with multicollinearity [62,65]. The full model indicated an overall reasonable acceptability, providing a good balance between complexity and fit for the samples (CFI = 0.943, TLI = 0.932, and RMSEA = 0.059), as shown in

Table 4. Results of confirmatory factor analysis.

Model	X2	df	p-Values (>0.05)	X2/df (≤3)	CFI (≥0.90)	TLI (≥0.90)	RMSEA (<0.08)
FTNC based	822.257	274	0.000	3.001	0.943	0.932	0.059

.

5.4. Hypothesis Testing

As shown in

Table 5. Hypothesis testing.

	Paths	Standardized Coefficient (β)	Results
H1	PSP positively affects PEB in the workplace.	0.320 ***	H1 was supported.
H2	GSV positively mediates the relationship between PSP and PEB.	−0.085 Not Significant [−0.223, 0.053]	H2 was rejected.
H2a	PSP positively affects GSV.	0.826 ***	H2a was supported.
H2b	GSV positively affects PEB.	−0.103	H2b was rejected.
H3	GWC positively mediates the relationship between PSP and PEB.	0.045 Not Significant [−0.034, 0.123]	H3 was rejected.
H3a	PSP positively affects GWC.	0.070	H3a was rejected.
H3b	GWC positively affects PEB.	0.639 ***	H3b was supported.
H4	GSV and GWC provide a positive sequential mediation effect between the relationship of PSP and PEB.	0.432 * Significant [0.298, 0.566]	H4 was supported.
H4a	GSV positively affects GWC.	0.818 ***	H4a was supported.
H5	IGV positively moderates the relationship between PSP and PEB.	−0.099 **	H5 was rejected.

Notes: CI = confidence interval. An indirect effect is considered significant and marked with * p < 0.05 if the 95% CI does not include zero. ** p < 0.01, and *** p < 0.001. Any supported hypotheses are shown in bold.

and illustrated in Figure 2, standardized path coefficients (β) and significance levels are reported across direct and indirect pathways across constructs, including PSP, GSV, GWC, PEB, and PSP × IGV. Results were interpreted regarding statistical significance (p-values), standardized coefficients (β), and bootstrapped confidence intervals (with 2000 bootstrap runs) [62].

In Table 5, the results show that five direct path hypotheses were supported with proven positive correlations, including H1 (PSP→PEB), H2a (PSP→GSV), H3b (GWC→PEB), and H4a (GSV→GWC). However, the other two direct path hypotheses were found insignificant, comprising H2b (GSV→PEB) and H3a (PSP→GWC). With the testing results of these direct path hypotheses, H2 (PSP→GSV→PEB) and H3 (PSP→GWC→PEB) were found insignificant.

On the other hand, H4 (PSP→GSV→GWC→PEB), which incorporated both GSV and GWC as a sequential mediation path between PSP and PEB, became the only indirect path hypothesis found significantly supported (β = 0.432, 95% CI [0.298, 0.566]). It highlighted the co-contribution of GSV and GWC in jointly transferring PSP into PEB in the workplace. This significant effect confirms that the FTNC-based model in this study could amplify salient social norms, which effectively transferred corporate sustainability policy and promoted environmental behaviors in the workplace.

As shown in Figure 3, even though the moderating role of IGV in H5 (PSP × IGV →PEB) was significant (p < 0.01) but with a negative coefficient value (β = −0.099), H5 was rejected since the positive influence of PSP on PEB was diminished as IGV increased. The significant negative moderation effect of IGV on the relationship between PSP and PEB (H5) can be interpreted as a substitution effect, where employees with strong intrinsic green values are less influenced by external factors such as corporate sustainability policy. Since PSP and PEB were assessed at the individual level and IGV reflects personal values, this moderation effect occurred within the same level of analysis. The negative result of H5 was consistent with the prior research [15], showing that the positive relationship between perceived corporate environmental responsibility and pro-environmental behaviors (PEB) was weaker for employees with strong individual biospheric values. The internal values influenced how employees respond to sustainability policies). In contrast, constructs like GSV and GWC involve collective-level social norms formed through group communication and organizational reinforcement ([11,17]. Therefore, IGV moderates the direct paths between PSP and PEB, but the indirect pathways through GSV and GWC (H2a and H3) remain valid normative mechanisms.

The testing results of direct-path hypotheses were illustrated in the proposed FTNC-based model, as shown in Figure 2. In addition, Figure 2 also showed the influence of demographic and job-related control variables. Among the six control variables included, education level was the only variable that had a significant effect on PEB (β = −0.110, p < 0.01). More highly educated employees reported stronger engagement in green behaviors. The result aligns with the prior literature indicating the role of education in fostering environmental awareness and sustainability practices [12,16]. Other control variables—including age group, gender identity, monthly income level, years of service, and position level—did not show statistically significant effects in the final model. These non-significant results may reflect the broader strength of normative and organizational influences over demographic variability.

6. Discussion

As this quantitative research relied on self-reported questionnaires for all variables, which may introduce the common method bias (CMB) such as social desirability and consistency motives, distorting observed relationships. A single-factor confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to assess the threat of common method bias [66]. The model, in which all measurement items were constrained to load onto a single latent factor, demonstrated very poor fit (CMIN/df = 43.32, CFI = 0.000, TLI = 0.000, and RMSEA = 0.286), indicating that a single latent factor does not account for the majority of variance in the data. The results suggested that common method bias was unlikely to substantially threaten the validity of the study’s findings. The findings were not influenced by a single source of variance, such as method bias, mood, and response style, but rather reflect distinct constructs as theorized.

The inclusion of individual demographic and contextual characteristics as control variables in the structural model enabled us to examine whether they significantly influenced pro-environmental behaviors, beyond the normative mechanisms proposed. Only education level was a significant predictor, among six control variables, supporting prior findings that more highly educated individuals tend to report greater environmental awareness and behavioral engagement [12,16].

Interestingly, other factors such as age group, gender identity, monthly income, years of service, and position level did not show significant influence in this model. This may indicate that normative forces—such as perceived sustainability policy, green shared vision, and green work climate—play a more substantial role in shaping employee behavior than personal demographic background. Future studies may explore possible interaction effects or multilevel approaches to further investigate the contextual relevance of these control variables.

Moreover, although the study incorporated different organizational ownership types, industry sectors, and sizes, these firm-level characteristics were not included as control variables in the analysis. This omission was due to the individual-level design of the survey instrument, which did not directly capture organizational attributes such as firm size, managerial structure, or governance model. While this approach aligns with the study’s focus on employee perceptions and normative processes, it limits the ability to account for contextual influences at the organizational level. Future research should consider incorporating firm-level controls or adopting a multilevel modeling framework to explore how organizational context may shape pro-environmental behaviors.

According to the findings, the Focus Theory of Normative Conduct (FTNC) framework was extended beyond individual-level social psychology [28] by operationalizing perceived sustainability policy, green shared vision, and green work climate as organizational-level indicators of injunctive and descriptive norms. This research confirmed that corporate policies were perceived as injunctive norms framing collective goals and guiding employees to engage in environmentally responsible behaviors [28]. Notably, green work climate was not influenced by perceived sustainability policy directly (β = 0.070, n.s.), whereas the green shared vision was proven to be the key mediator transferring perceived sustainability policy to green work climate (β = 0.676, 95% CI [0.547, 0.804]). The main reason for these results is that green shared vision represents a collective understanding of organizational commitment to sustainability goals [17,34], increasing clarity about organizational expectations among employees [14] beyond corporate policy alone; it could guide direction and encourage a climate of cooperative efforts among employees aiming to achieve the expected goals [34,36]. Additionally, the only control variable that had a significant impact on pro-environmental behaviors was “education level”, the result being (β = −0.110, p < 0.01), implying employees with higher education are more likely to engage in PEB.

Not only did the indirect path (perceived sustainability policy → green shared vision → green work climate → pro-environmental behaviors) support the theoretical systems of the Focus Theory of Normative Conduct (β = 0.432, 95% CI [0.298, 0.566]), but its significant effect in Thai workplace context also demonstrated the alignment with GLOBE’s study cultural dimension. Thailand’s culture is high in-group collectivism [67]. Therefore, Thai employees are more likely to adopt and engage in green behaviors when they feel a strong sense of loyalty, unity, and collective obligations within their immediate workgroups. Likewise, the significant direct path (perceived sustainability policy → pro-environmental behaviors) reflected the high institutional collectivism culture of Thailand [67,68] in the sense that corporate sustainability policy can integrate Thai employees strongly by framing it as a set of collective environmental goals and responsibilities. Particularly, green shared vision and green work climate played critical roles, sequentially mediating the relationship between perceived sustainability policy and pro-environmental behaviors. Aligning with the FTNC, the path integrated injunctive norms (e.g., perceived sustainability policy) and multiple descriptive norms (e.g., green shared vision and green work climate) in shaping employees’ pro-environmental behaviors [11,28,30,41].

While this study underscored mediation through green shared vision and green work climate and the moderation role of individual green value, future research should explore additional mediators, such as environmental self-efficacy, moral obligation, or perceived organizational support, and new moderators, including leadership style and ethical climate. Notably, even though the sequential mediation roles of green shared vision and green work climate extended the knowledge of the FTNC framework in term of organizational norms, additional theory-based models (e.g., leader–member exchange theory and ability–motivation–opportunity theory) might be integrated for comparative studies and broadened knowledge about organizational management, especially sustainability behaviors in the workplace.

The negative moderation effect of individual green value on the relationship of perceived sustainability policy and pro-environmental behaviors highlights an important value–behavior mechanism at the individual level. This result aligns with prior research suggesting that employees with strong personal biospheric or green values are intrinsically motivated to behave in environmentally responsible ways, independent of organizational policy cues [15]. From the perspective of Self-Determination Theory (SDT) [54], these employees act with greater autonomy; thus, external policy signals may have a diminished marginal effect. Importantly, this individual-level aspect does not contradict with the normative mechanisms observed in the mediation model such as perceived sustainability policy → green shared vision → green work climate → pro-environmental behaviors. The social norm constructs like green shared vision and green work climate are shaped through social interaction and collective meaning-making processes [11,17]. Therefore, they reflect group-level norms rather than individual value differences. The conceptual model of this study intentionally distinguishes between these mechanisms to preserve conceptual clarity.

Since this study limited the moderation role of individual green value to the direct pathway between perceived sustainability policy and pro-environmental behaviors, future research could explore whether IGV may also moderate the relationship between other value–behavior relationships or the pathway between shared norms and individual behaviors. For example, Younas, Hossain [69] demonstrated that individual green value moderated the impact of GSV on employee green behaviors, suggesting that alignment between personal values and collective vision may enhance behavioral engagement. However, extending the moderating role of individual green value to relationships between two norm-based constructs (e.g., perceived sustainability policy → green shared vision or green shared vision → green work climate) may encounter conceptual challenges, as both constructs reflect shared, socially constructed perceptions shaped primarily through organizational accumulated communication over time and collective meaning-making [11,34]. Individual values are less likely to moderate the formation of such collective norms, which emerge through group-level interaction processes rather than personal-level variance. Future research could employ longitudinal or multilevel designs to explore individual green value and its interaction with collective norms over time. Such approaches may clarify whether individual green value influences not only behavioral outcomes but also the evolution or internalization of social norms within the workplace, offering deeper insight into the dynamic interplay between personal intrinsic motivation and normative organizational context.

Moreover, while this study aligns with prior research suggesting that green work climate plays a role in reinforcing consistent pro-environmental behaviors [19,26,38,53], the central mediating role of green work climate between perceived sustainability policy and pro-environmental behaviors was rather not statistically significant. In the case of green shared vision, previous studies have pinpointed its importance in fostering green creativity, organizational innovation, and sustainability-driven initiatives [28,29]; however, its direct influence on individual behavioral outcomes, such as pro-environmental behaviors, has received limited empirical attention. This study found that green shared vision had neither a significant direct effect on pro-environmental behaviors nor a significant mediating role in between the perceived sustainability policy and pro-environmental behavior relationship. These findings suggest that while green shared vision and green work climate may contribute meaningfully to shaping the broader organizational sustainability culture, their influence on individual behaviors may be more complex and indirect. Future studies could employ multilevel or longitudinal designs, within more various respondents, to explore how these collective constructs evolve over time and interact with other personal and contextual variables to influence pro-environmental behaviors more robustly.

The current study extends existing research in several dimensions. While prior studies have explored the influence of perceived sustainability policy on task-related behaviors and pro-environmental behaviors through channels such as environmental concern, personal norms, and social values [33,69,70], this study contributes a novel perspective by integrating green shared vision and green work climate as sequential mediators. Future studies could employ multilevel or longitudinal research designs, incorporating more diverse respondent groups, to investigate how these collective constructs evolve over time and interact with individual and contextual factors to more robustly influence pro-environmental behaviors.

Importantly, from a practical standpoint, these insights underscore the importance of developing a clear and inclusive green vision that is consistently communicated and reinforced across all organizational levels. Practitioners should not rely on policy mandates alone but should also invest in internal communication strategies, leadership modeling, and supportive work climates that collectively shape how sustainability norms are internalized by employees. Embedding green goals into team culture, facilitating peer reinforcement, and aligning vision with daily work practices may help ensure the long-term success of sustainability initiatives. Future research can build on these insights to examine how different types of vision framing or climate interventions affect behavioral outcomes across various organizational contexts.

7. Conclusions

This study provides valuable contributions for academic scholars and organizational practitioners by illustrating how perceived sustainability policies can be effectively translated into pro-environmental behaviors among employees. By surveying 589 employees from four diverse Thai companies, including rubber, consumer products, business-to-business industrials, and garment sectors, the study offers insights tailored to the Thai workplace context while also yielding contributions applicable to other settings with similarly high institutional collectivism and strong in-group social norms.

Grounded in the Focus Theory of Normative Conduct, this study extended the theoretical knowledge beyond individual-level approaches and incorporated organizational-level normative mechanisms. The findings from structural equation modeling confirmed both the direct and indirect influence of sustainability policies on employee behaviors. Notably, while neither green shared vision nor green work climate alone significantly mediated between the policy–behavior relationship, their sequential mediation illustrated a significant pathway. This highlights the importance of cultivating both a collective environmental vision and a supportive green work climate to effectively drive behavioral change in the workplace, particularly in countries with strong institutional and in-group social norms, such as Thailand, which is the focus of this study.

Moreover, the finding that employees with strong personal environmental values showed less reliance on formal sustainability policies points to an important practical insight. Organizations should recognize that not all employees respond to external policy signals in the same way. For individuals who are already deeply committed to environmental values, corporate policies may have limited additional influence. Therefore, companies should consider offering flexible or personalized approaches to engage these employees, such as empowering them to lead green initiatives and contribute ideas. These strategies can help harness their internal motivation and drive broader cultural change. At the same time, building a shared sustainability mindset and supportive workplace climate remains essential to engage employees who may not have a strong internal commitment.

For Thai organizations, fostering a shared environmental vision and nurturing a supportive green work climate are critical to strengthen the translation of sustainability policies into employee behaviors. Clear and consistent communication of sustainability goals is essential to reinforcing these efforts. In addition, recognizing and accommodating individual differences in green values allows for higher personalized strategies that enhance collective ownership. These approaches can embed sustainability more deeply into the organizational sustainability culture and empower employees as active participants in achieving environmental goals.

In summary, this study provides both theoretical advancement and practical guidance for promoting pro-environmental behaviors, offering a foundation for future research and more effective sustainability management in organizational contexts. While this study offers important contributions, its scope is limited to certain sectors and organizational types in Thailand. Future research should examine these relationships across a boarder range of industries, cultural settings, and organization types—including public or non-profit sectors—to improve generalizability. Collecting organizational-level data and conducting multi-source assessments would reduce reliance on self-reports and strengthen the validity of future findings.