jscm3257

7/29/2019 jscm3257

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jscm3257 1/19

ENGAGEMENT IN ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIORS AMONG SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES:

AN ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT THEORETICAL

PERSPECTIVEDAVID E. CANTOR, PAULA C. MORROW AND FRANK MONTABON

Iowa State University

While environmental management is an important topic in supply chainmanagement, there is little theoretical understanding of how firm prac-tices (supervisory support, rewards, and training) relate to employeeengagement in environmental behaviors. Drawing upon behavioralresearch literature, the purpose of our article is to use organizationalsupport theory to develop a model of how employee perceptions of

management practices influence employee engagement in environmentalbehaviors such as participating in environmental management activities,promoting environmental initiatives, and proposing innovative environ-mental practices. The theoretical model was evaluated using a sample of supply chain management employees employed by a major retailer andsupport was found for all of the hypothesized relationships except thoseentailing rewards. Study findings demonstrate the importance of employeeperceptions in advancing employee-level involvement in environmentalbehaviors and how organizations can modify their internal infrastructuresto champion environmental behaviors through their effects on employeeperceptions of support for the environment and commitment to the envi-ronment. Additionally, the research illustrates how an extant behavioral

theory, organizational support theory, can profitably be modified andadopted to explain behavior in the field of supply chain management.

Keywords: behavioral supply management; environmental issues; sustainability;organizational support theory; supply chain management; structural equation model-ing; survey methods

INTRODUCTIONEncouraging workers to become engaged in environ-

mental behaviors has emerged as an important topicin today’s global economy. The Massachusetts Insti-

tute of Technology (MIT) Sloan Management Review

and the Boston Consulting Group conducted a busi-

ness of sustainability study which revealed that 56

percent of corporate executives and managers selected

“employee interest in sustainability” as an issue that

can have a significant impact on a company (Berns,

Townend, Khayat, Balagopal, Reeves, Hopkins and

Kruschwitz 2009). The respondents of this study also

point out that organizational policies and practices

which promote employee engagement in environmen-

tal behaviors can be used to enhance employee

recruitment and retention (Berns et al. 2009). This

contention is supported by a National Association of

Environmental Managers (NAEM 2009) report stating that 36 percent of respondents “would be more

inclined to work for green companies.” Wal-Mart, the

United States’ largest employer, has made a $30 mil-

lion commitment to encourage its employees to

engage in environmental behaviors, including promot-

ing ways that its workforce can reduce carbon emis-

sions and make greater use of environmentally

friendly materials in its supply chain (Barbaro 2007).

In so doing, Wal-Mart has a goal of improving its rep-

utation with image-conscious stakeholders (Barbaro

2007). Undoubtedly, there are many more examples

of how firms are looking to encourage their workforce

July 2012

7/29/2019 jscm3257


to become more involved in environmental behavior

that is consistent with their corporate social responsi-

bility strategy.

Environmental practices are an important concern

within supply chain management (Handfield, Walton,

Melnyk and Seegars 1997; Carter, Kale and Grimm

2000; Carter and Dresner 2001; Montabon, Sroufeand Narasimhan 2007; Gattiker and Carter 2010;

Sarkis, Gonzalez-Torre and Adenso-Diaz 2010). There

is a substantial amount of research examining the

challenges associated with implementing firm-level

environmental practices (e.g., Dobos 2005; Corbett

and Klassen 2006; Potoski and Prakash 2006). Exam-

ples of challenges that organizations face include

establishing environmental criteria when selecting

suppliers, recovering components, and disposing of

waste and pollutants (Carter and Dresner 2001; Corb-

ett and Klassen 2006). Firms have a wide variety of

environmental management practices available tothem, including reducing pollution from work-related

activities, energy conservation efforts, and replacing

materials with those that are more environmentally

friendly (for a more detailed list, see Montabon et al.

2007). After choosing one or more environmental

practices, firms are then faced with the issue of

encouraging employees to implement these initiatives.

Unfortunately, scant research exists on how to address

the human resource management challenges of

encouraging employees to exhibit environmental

behaviors in the supply chain (Fernandez, Junquera

and Ordiz 2003; Jabbour and Santos 2008).

A burgeoning amount of supply chain research is

emerging on how to promote employee participation

in environmental behaviors. Gattiker and Carter

(2010, p. 3) and others point out that employee

engagement in environmental behaviors represents a

significant challenge to organizations, “since environ-

mental initiatives frequently require changes to busi-

ness practices and reward systems” (Drumwright

1994; Carter and Dresner 2001; Carter, Ellram and

Tate 2007). In fact, several studies have found that

overcoming internal organizational resistance is of

paramount importance to the success of a firm’s envi-

ronmental management initiatives (Drumwright 1994;Handfield et al. 1997; Crane 2000; Carter and

Jennings 2004; Carter et al. 2007; Pagell and Gobeli

2009; Gattiker and Carter 2010).

Examining employee engagement in environmental

behavior is an important stream of supply chain

research. Daily and Huang (2001) created a concep-

tual model linking human resource issues such as

managerial support and training to environmental

management system implementation. Ramus and

Steger (2000) conducted an empirical examination of

factors that contribute to an employee’s willingness to

promote eco-initiatives. Adopting intra-organizational

influence theory, Gattiker and Carter (2010) examined

the determinants of an employee’s commitment to

environmental management projects. Sarkis et al.

(2010) empirically examined the importance of

environmental training efforts, and how training con-

tributes to the successful implementation of environ-

mental practices. While the above mentioned studies, among many

others, represent important contributions to the litera-

ture, we believe that further theoretical development

and empirical testing of factors that promote

employee engagement in environmental behaviors is

needed. Specifically, there is little theoretical under-

standing regarding how a firm’s environmental man-

agement practices promote employee involvement in

environmental behaviors including how frequently

employees engage in environmental behaviors, the

degree to which they promote environmental initia-

tives, and whether they engage in innovative environ-mental behaviors. This research seeks to fill that void.

The purpose of our article is to use organizational

support theory (OST) to develop a model of how

employee perceptions of management practices influ-

ence employee engagement in environmental behav-

iors. In so doing, this research seeks to fulfill a

number of interrelated objectives and thus makes

several important contributions to the field of supply

chain management. Our article contributes to the sup-

ply chain discipline by using a behavioral theory,

OST, to address a contemporary supply chain manage-

ment problem (e.g., Bendoly, Croson, Goncalves and

Schultz 2010; Gattiker and Carter 2010; Sarkis et al.

2010; Tokar 2010). Consistent with ideas advanced

by Tokar (2010) and Bendoly et al. (2010), our study

integrates theory from the management and social

psychology literatures to develop a model that pro-

vides insights into how employees are influenced by a

firm’s environmental management practices to engage

in environmental behaviors. In our study, we draw

upon OST (Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison and

Sowa 1986) to explain how organizations can signal

the importance of the environment to employees

through their management practices. To the best of

our knowledge and consistent with others’ assess-ments (e.g., Fernandez et al. 2003; Rothenberg 2003;

Jabbour and Santos 2008), scant research exists which

explicitly examines these factors in an unified manner.

Additionally, our model examines perceptions of orga-

nizational support (POS) and affective commitment

in the context of environmental behaviors which has

not been previously investigated. Thus, we build upon

prior organizational support research in the context of

environmental management. Additionally, this article

proposes three constructs of employee engagement in

environmental behaviors, a topic of concern to many

organizations today as alluded to earlier in this article.

Volume 48, Number 3

Journal of Supply Chain Management

4

7/29/2019 jscm3257


Therefore, our constructs provide a deeper under-

standing of the precise nature of employee environ-

mental behavior in organizations. In so doing, we

develop and test a causal model of how our anteced-

ents are related to employee environmental behaviors.

Lastly, our study contributes to and extends growing

literature on sustainability in supply chain manage-ment including: Reuter, Foerstl, Hartmann and

Blome’s (2010) examination of global sustainability

practices; Paulraj’s (2011) finding that internal

resources play an important role in managing sustain-

able supply practices; and Carter’s (2004) purchasing

social responsibility theoretical umbrella from which

a wide range of socially responsible supply manage-

ment activities can be understood.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ANDLITERATURE REVIEW

Underlying Theory and ResearchOrganizational support theory can be used to exam-

ine the relationships among employee attitudes and

behaviors toward organizational goals (Aselage and

Eisenberger 2003). This framework for understanding

such relationships asserts that employees will act on

behalf of an organization to the degree that the orga-

nization is perceived as willing and able to reciprocate

with appropriate leadership, training, and rewards

(i.e., willing to engage in a norm of reciprocity).

Eisenberger, his colleagues, and others (e.g., Eisenber-

ger et al. 1986; Shore and Shore 1995; Rhoades and

Eisenberger 2002) have utilized OST to explain

employee attitudes and behaviors and, as such, OST

with some modification provides a suitable theoretical

lens for this study. We now turn to how our use of

OST and selection of OST constructs is both similar to

and different from traditional applications of OST.

Organizational support theory asserts that employee

perceptions regarding the extent to which organiza-

tions demonstrate care and value for their contribu-

tions to the organization have a great deal to do with

the behavior that employees exhibit (Eisenberger et al.

1986). These employee-level behaviors include job

performance and voluntary discretionary activities that employees may choose to engage in such as, for

example, pro-environmental behaviors. These POS are

thought to arise from employees’ recall and assess-

ment of the prior treatment received by the organiza-

tion. This history of treatment is typically a function

of the organization’s human resource policies and

how agents of the organization (e.g., supervisors) have

related to the individual in the past (Aselage and

Eisenberger 2003). If the organization has provided

favorable work conditions and if agents have demon-

strated courtesy and respect, employee POS will be

high.

Our research represents an opportunity to expand

the use of OST to other spheres by shifting of the

intended “target of support” from the “individual

employee” to “organizational support of the environ-

ment,” as perceived by the employee. Thus, the selec-

tion of antecedents of POS was deliberately made to

accommodate the shift in referent in our OST research. At its most general level, OST contends that

favorable treatment by organizations should increase

POS. We extrapolate from OST to posit that organiza-

tions can not only convey favorable treatment of

employees but they can analogously convey a favor-

able orientation toward other entities; specifically,

organizations can signal favorable treatment of the

environment. Employees should attend to these sig-

nals and report higher POS for the environment.

Rhoades and Eisenberger (2002) reported three

forms of favorable treatment of employees were

strong meta-analytic predictors of POS: (1) organiza-tional rewards and job conditions, (2) supervisor

support, and (3) procedural justice. Drawing from the

first two sets of predictors, we selected three ways in

which organizations might signal favorable treatment

of the environment to employees: rewards, training,

and supervisory support. The justice element does not

apply to the environmental context because the focus

of our study is on environmental policies and prac-

tices which do not entail issues of reciprocity and fair-

ness per se. Likewise, other job conditions applicable

to employee-focused applications of OST such as job

security and autonomy were thought to be less ger-

mane to the POS of environmental behaviors because

environmental activities are not stipulated in

employee job descriptions.

Organizational support theory also addresses the

consequences of POS (Rhoades and Eisenberger

2002). Empirical tests of OST have shown that

employees strive to repay an organization for its dem-

onstrations of support by increasing their efforts to

help the organization reach its goals (Aselage and

Eisenberger 2003). For example, Eisenberger, Armeli,

Rexwinkel, Lynch and Rhoades (2001) found that

POS among postal employees was positively related to

employees’ felt obligation to care about the organiza-tion’s welfare and to help the organization reach its

objectives. This felt obligation to repay the organiza-

tion was further evident in higher levels of affective

organizational commitment, extra-role activities, and

job performance. POS has also been asserted and

empirically found to strengthen employees’ under-

standing of performance – reward expectancies; that is,

what an organization values and rewards (Rhoades

and Eisenberger 2002). In addition, empirical research

has demonstrated that POS directly contributes to

employees’ affective organizational commitment

(Rhoades, Eisenberger and Armeli 2001; Fu, Bolander

July 2012

Engagement in Environmental Behaviors

7/29/2019 jscm3257


and Jones 2009; Riggle, Edmondson and Hansen

2009). Affective organizational commitment refers to

the employee’s emotional attachment to, identifica-

tion with, and involvement in the organization

(Meyer and Allen 1997).

From this original work focusing on the extent to

which organizations support employees at a very personal, individual level, other researchers have used

OST to better understand how organizational support

for specific issues affect employee behavior. Examples

of these applications include POS for work – family

balance (Behson 2002), innovation (Yuan and Wood-

man 2010), and diversity (Triana, Garcia and Colella

2010). We now turn to how OST can advance our

understanding of employee engagement in environ-

mental behaviors.

OST in the Present Study

Organizational support theory, as formulated by Eisenberger and others and outlined above, provides a

basis for understanding how organizations might

achieve more employee engagement in environmental

behaviors. Organizations can initiate the process by

acting in ways that communicate the importance of

the environment. Stated differently, organizations can

foster stronger perceptions among employees that the

firm is genuinely supportive of the environment (i.e.,

increased POS for environmental behaviors) because

employees are influenced through an organization’s

practices and policies on environmental matters (i.e.,

the organization’s “track record” of support for the

environment). Specifically, organizational behaviors

such as providing rewards and training for environ-

mental behavior create a history of events that affect

employees’ POS for environmental behaviors.

Employees can also take into account how supervisors

have supported environmental initiatives in the past.

Together this information allows employees to form a

perception of organizational support for environmen-

tal behaviors. In our study, we specifically examine

how POS are formed through supervisory support,

rewards, and training.

Organizational support theory can also provide a

basis for examining how levels of POS for environ-mental behaviors have a bearing on employees’

affective commitment to environmental behaviors.

Traditional considerations of OST indicate that

employees with high levels of POS engage in the

norm of reciprocity in order to repay the organization

for its support and that this support can manifest

itself in the form of higher levels of affective commit-

ment. We suggest that it operates in the environmen-

tal context as follows. We contend that POS for

environmental behaviors (signaled by the amount of

rewards, training and leader behavior related to the

environment) communicates organizational desires

with respect to the environment. In other words, POS

for environmental behaviors clarifies employee under-

standing of the extent to which the organization

values the environment and seeks employee involve-

ment in pro-environmental behaviors. In addition,

providing training, rewards and manager recognition

of environmental behaviors stimulates a desire torepay the organization for benefits received. Although

not explicitly using OST, Sarkis et al. (2010) provide a

good example. In their firm-level examination of envi-

ronmental practices, they observed that employees

who received training in environmental practices were

more willing to engage in environmental behavior at

the firm. In so doing, employees were “repaying” the

organization for the investment in eco-training by

engaging in the desired behavior. Employees with

high levels of POS should thus reciprocate by increas-

ing their affective commitment to environmental

behaviors as they would feel a stronger obligation tohelp the organization achieve its objectives (i.e., fulfill

the reciprocity norm initiated by the organization).

Correspondingly, employees with lower levels of POS

would feel less pressure to increase their commitment

to the environment. Stated differently, POS for envi-

ronmental behaviors should affect employees’ emo-

tional attachment, identification, and involvement

with environmental behaviors.

Lastly, and while not expressly tied to OST, our

model specifies that affective commitment to environ-

mental behaviors should predict employee engage-

ment in environmental behaviors. Commitment

appears to influence employee behavior through its

effects on motivational processes, including goal

choice, goal regulation, and the direction and persis-

tence of effort (Meyer, Becker and Vandenberghe

2004). Environmental behaviors can be regarded as

an integral part of one’s job or as a voluntary activity,

depending on the work context. In either case, the

proposed link is empirically supported by prior stud-

ies documenting a positive relationship between affec-

tive organizational commitment and job performance

(Meyer and Allen 1997; Cooper-Hakim and Viswesva-

ran 2005) and between affective organizational

commitment and organizational citizenship behaviors(Bentein, Stinglhamber and Vandenberghe 2002;

Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch and Topolnytsky 2002).

Environmental Practices at the IndividualEmployee Level

Our goal is to use OST to shed light on how an

organization might encourage individual employees

to engage in behaviors more supportive of the natural

environment (e.g., eco-behavior, offer eco-initiatives).

Given this goal, this research is positioned at the indi-

vidual level of analysis. The impact of individuals in

promoting environmental behaviors has been recog-

Volume 48, Number 3


6

7/29/2019 jscm3257


nized but primarily in the role they play in champion-

ing environmental innovation (Andersson and

Bateman 2000) or leading organizations (Ergi and

Herman 2000). There have been only a few attempts

to gauge involvement in environmental projects and

initiatives across large cross-sections of employees.

Ramus and Steger (2000) used self-reports of whether or not employees had “tried to promote an environ-

mental initiative within the company.” As the authors

note, this was a yes/no question. Gattiker and Carter

(2010) measured commitment to environmental

projects by asking people whether or not they were

able to obtain buy-in from others. We believe that

employee engagement in environmental behaviors

entails a broader range of behaviors such as involve-

ment in specific environmental practices, thinking

about environmental improvements, and offering

suggestions to be more environmentally friendly. By

using multiple environmental behaviors and by asking the employees directly about these behaviors, we

believe we improve on the previous literature.

RESEARCH MODEL AND HYPOTHESES

ModelUsing OST, we propose that the more employees are

influenced by supervisory support for environmental

initiatives and the more environmental training and

rewards for environmental behavior are provided, the

more employees will perceive organizational support

for environmental behaviors. Higher levels of

perceived support will in turn be associated with

higher levels of affective commitment toward environ-

mental behaviors. Lastly, higher levels of commitment

will demonstrate stronger relationships with employee

engagement in environmental behaviors. The multidi-

mensional nature of environmental behaviors is theo-

rized below and outlined in Figure 1 in the context of

our overall model.

Hypotheses The first determinant in our model is supervisory

support of environmental initiatives. Consistent with

Susskind, Kacmar and Borchgrevink (2003), supervi-

sory support refers to the employee’s belief that the

supervisor provides subordinates with the resources

and feedback needed to participate in environmental

initiatives. Supervisors provide direction and social

cues regarding how employees should allocate their

time (Jung and Sosik 2003). Previous studies have

also shown that supervisors are critical enablers of risk

taking, idea generation, and experimentation on thejob (Cummings 1965; Kimberly and Evanisko 1981),

which are behaviors that reflect support for environ-

mental initiatives. Because supervisors are uniquely

positioned to influence those above and below them-

selves in the organizational hierarchy, they have the

opportunity to encourage or discourage environmen-

tal behaviors. Indirect support for this observation is

provided by meta-analytic examinations of relation-

ships between supervisory support and traditional

POS (Rhoades and Eisenberger 2002). Indeed supervi-

sory support may be even more influential than top

management support in reflecting organizational goals

in that employees attend more to the words and

actions of immediate supervisors (Larkin and Larkin

H2+

Supervisory

Support for

Environmental

Initiatives

Environmental

Training

Provided to an

Employee by

the

Organization

Rewards the

Organization

Provided for

Environmental

Behaviors

Employee

Perception of

Organizational

Support fo r

Environmental

Behaviors

Employee

Affective

Commitment

to

Environmental

Behaviors

H1+

H3+

H4+H5+

Ever Promote an

Environmental Initiative

Innovative

EnvironmentalBehaviors

Frequency of

Involvement

Employee Engagement in

Environmental Behaviors

FIGURE 1Employee Perceptions of Environmental Management Practices that Promote Employee Engagement

in Environmental Behaviors

July 2012


7/29/2019 jscm3257


1996) and because supervisors are more actively

involved with employees in developing a shared

vision, fostering consensus, and developing consensus

for new organizational practices (Beer, Eisenstat and

Spector 1990). While studies in an environmental

context on the role of supervisory support are rare,

Ramus and Steger (2000) found that support fromimmediate supervisors contributed to eco-initiatives.

Based on these arguments, we believe that because

supervisors function as agents of the organization,

their level of support for environmental initiatives

influences employee perceptions of the level of

organizational support for environmental behaviors.

H1: The higher the supervisory support for environ-mental initiatives, the higher the perception of organizational support for environmentalbehaviors.

Environmental training is an important determinant in our model for several reasons. Training is a

fundamental means by which organizations acquire

and develop human capital which in turn enhances

organizational capacity (Ahmad and Schroeder 2003)

and performance (Van Iddekinge, Ferris, Perrewe, Per-

ryman, Blass and Heetderks 2009). Training programs

vary widely and sometimes have multiple objectives,

from the conveying of technical information, to

socialization, to the acceptance of new ideas. Scott

and Meyer (1991) stress how training can help orga-

nizations increase their control by having employees

internalize commitment to organization desired objec-

tives. In other words, training signals what the organi-zation values. Training and development practices

have been found to exhibit moderately strong

relationships with perceived organizational support in

a meta-analytic examination (Rhoades and Eisenber-

ger 2002) and again more recently by Armstrong-Stas-

sen and Ursel (2009).

The success of environmental management programs

is dependent on the training of a firm’s employees

(Fernandez et al. 2003; Sammalisto and Brorson

2008). Training programs are used to reinforce the

importance of the organization’s commitment to envi-

ronmental initiatives (Brio, Fernandez and Junquera2007). Sarkis et al. (2010) present examples of envi-

ronmental training such as methodologies and tech-

niques for eco-design, life cycle assessment, recycling

and reusing of materials, and disposition of waste. For

organizations that want to promulgate environmental

initiatives, Sarkis et al. (2010) contend that environ-

mental training programs can help provide the new

mindset and focus that employees need to help gener-

ate new eco-ideas and behavior. Lastly, Sarkis and

colleagues note that training provides a powerful way

to improve the decision-making capabilities of all

employees within the organization. Therefore, prior

research indicates that providing environmental

training to employees may be another important

management practice that fosters POS for environ-

mental behaviors.

H2: The more environmental training is provided by

the organization, the higher the perception of organizational support for environmentalbehaviors.

The rewards that are provided for engaging in envi-

ronmental behaviors represent another factor in our

model. Boyt, Lusch and Naylor (2001) discuss how

rewards motivate behavior and reinforce job attitudes.

They also point out that a well-developed rewards

structure signals to the employee that the organization

values: (1) the individual’s contribution to the firm,

(2) independent decision-making, (3) professional

development activities, and (4) professional behavior.

This perspective on rewards is especially germane hereas organizations are seeking to convey that they value

employee contributions in the environmental area

and want employees to individually and voluntarily

engage in the search for innovative solutions to

environmental problems. Covin and Kilmann (1990)

queried managers, researchers, and consultants on

issues relevant to successful organizational change and

found that of the over 900 issues that were raised,

providing rewards for employee behaviors that

support the desired change was among the most

frequently mentioned. Jensen and Meckling (1995)

also argue that it is important to provide financial

incentives to employees within an organization as a way to align their self-interests with the goals of the

organization to address principal – agent problems. It

follows that employees who are rewarded for acting

in ways consistent with the firm’s environmental goals

will perceive that management supports eco-behavior.

Lastly, organizational rewards have historically dem-

onstrated strong relationships with POS (Rhoades and

Eisenberger 2002).

H3: The higher the rewards that are provided by the organization for environmental behaviors,the higher the perception of organizational sup-

port for environmental behaviors.

We now turn to how employee POS for environ-

mental behaviors can influence affective commitment

to environmental behaviors. Literature and prior

research on organizational support suggests that

when employees believe that organizations care

about them, employees are more motivated to

strengthen their affective commitment to the organi-

zation (Rhoades and Eisenberger 2002; Riggle et al.

2009). In addition, Bishop, Scott, Goldsby and

Cropanzano (2005) found that higher levels of per-

ceived support from two distinct entities (organiza-

Volume 48, Number 3


8

7/29/2019 jscm3257


tion and team) yielded higher levels of commitment

to those same entities. As articulated previously, we

suggest that organizations that convince employees

of their support for the environment will generate

employee commitment to the environment. To elab-

orate, an organization sends signals to employees

about the value of environmental behavior based onthe level of organizational support that is directed

toward environmental matters and in so doing clari-

fies performance – reward expectancies. Turban and

Greening (1997) provide empirical support that firms

do send signals of organizational values through

their social policies and programs. Specifically they

observed that independent corporate social perfor-

mance ratings (which included an environmental

component) influenced the reputation and subse-

quent attractiveness of firms to prospective employ-

ees. Research by Grant, Dutton and Rosso (2008)

further indicates that organizations which provideprogrammatic opportunities for employees to con-

tribute to a higher purpose (i.e., have a high com-

pany prosocial identity) demonstrate higher levels of

employee affective organizational commitment. Their

research suggests that when employees are given the

opportunity to demonstrate support for a meaningful

cause endorsed by the organization (e.g., charity,

the environment), they are more likely to exhibit

affective organizational commitment.

H4: The higher the perception of organizationalsupport for environmental behaviors, the higher

the affective commitment to environmentalbehaviors.

The final linkage in our model indicates that affec-

tive commitment will be predictive of employee

engagement in environmental behaviors. Employee

engagement in environmental behaviors is conceptu-

alized in three ways: frequency of involvement in

environmental behaviors (e.g., looking for opportuni-

ties to reduce pollution from work-related activities);

ever promoting an environmental initiative; and

innovative environmental behaviors (e.g., number of

eco-proposals made). Three distinct conceptualiza-

tions were used since the research on this topic isfairly recent and offers little guidance on how to

operationalize employee environmental behaviors.

Consequently, we did not devise separate hypotheses

for each dimension of employee environmental

behavior.

As previously noted, affective commitment refers to

an employee’s emotional attachment or bond to a

given target (Klein, Molloy and Cooper 2009). Exten-

sive theorizing and research has established a link

between affective organizational commitment and

employee behavior in the workplace including task

performance, employment promotions, employee

turnover intentions, and organizational citizenship

behaviors (e.g., Meyer et al. 2002, 2004; Cooper-

Hakim and Viswesvaran 2005). We borrow from this

literature to hypothesize a connection between affec-

tive commitment to environmental behaviors and

engagement in environmental behaviors. Specific to

this research, Neubert and Cady (2001) found that members of a service organization who expressed

higher commitment to a membership drive program

exhibited greater levels of observable behavior in the

form of attendance at more meetings, conducted

more recruiting calls, and enrolled more new mem-

bers as compared to those members with lower pro-

gram commitment. These results are analogous to

what we expect to find with respect to employees

who express higher levels of commitment to environ-

mental behaviors and engagement in environmental

behaviors (e.g., frequency of involvement in environ-

mental behaviors; ever promoting an environmentalinitiative; and innovative environmental behaviors).

Moreover, the connection between commitment to

environmental behaviors and these umbrella environ-

mental behaviors is crucial in that many experts have

noted that as environmental practices become more

advanced, their success will depend on employee

involvement and commitment (Fineman 1997;

Ramus 2001; Fernandez et al. 2003). Consequently,

we hypothesize:

H5: The higher the affective commitment to environ-mental behaviors, the higher the engagement in

environmental behaviors.

METHODOLOGY

Survey Development and Pilot Test We conducted a survey to examine how employees

are influenced by environmental management prac-

tices to become engaged in environmental behaviors.

Following the recommendations of Malhotra and

Grover (1998), we developed our survey by soliciting

input and feedback from five academic faculty and 12

practitioners who are actively involved in environ-

mental management initiatives. Additionally, a review of the government, academic, and industry environ-

mental management literature was conducted. On the

basis of the feedback that we received from the envi-

ronmental management experts on the constructs in

our model and a review of the environmental man-

agement literature, a preliminary version of the ques-

tionnaire was developed based upon the principles of

survey design recommended by Dillman (2000). For

example, we followed Dillman’s (2000) recommenda-

tions concerning design of question structures (e.g.,

using a mixture of open-ended and close-ended

response formats). We also heeded the advice of

July 2012


7/29/2019 jscm3257


Dillman (2000) by pretesting and pilot-testing our

questionnaire with subject matter experts before

administering our survey with the sponsoring organi-

zation. Lastly, as is the case with our study, Dillman

(2000) recommends obtaining the support of a spon-

soring organization. When possible, established items

from the literature were used (Malhotra and Grover 1998).1

Basic descriptive analysis was conducted including

an examination of normality, skewness, kurtosis,

means, standard deviations, and Cronbach alpha

values. For example, the Cronbach alphas of all items

were within acceptable limits (i.e., the Cronbach

alpha values of our items range between 0.747 and

0.938). We then proceeded to subject the data set to

confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The CFA fit indices

demonstrated excellent fit (i.e., (v2 = 461.672)/

(df = 296) = 1.560, RMSEA = 0.043, CFI = 0.971,

TLI = 0.965, IFI = 0.971). Therefore, analysis of thepilot test data did not indicate a need to revise the

measurement items.

Survey Administration We now turn to describing the process by which

we administered our survey for hypothesis testing

purposes. Because of recent calls to focus more sup-

ply chain research at the behavioral level (e.g., Bend-

oly et al. 2010; Tokar 2010), our research question

and data collection were explicitly implemented at

the individual employee level within a single organi-

zation. Stated differently, since the purpose of this

research is to determine how to get individuals to

engage in environmental behaviors, the individual

employee is the appropriate unit of analysis. In fact,

prior research points out that there can be consider-

able variability in employee perceptions and partici-

pation in environmental behaviors and that this

behavior may reflect differences in perceptions and

attitudes (Berns et al. 2009; Pagell and Gobeli 2009).

In addition, because the focus of this research is on

testing the proposed linkages articulated by our indi-

vidual level model, it is appropriate to control for

organizational effects that would be evident in a

multi-organization study. It is common in the man-agement and psychology literatures, which also typi-

cally pose research questions couched at the

individual level, to conduct studies based on samples

from single organizations (e.g., Dutton, Ashford,

O’Neill, Hayes and Wierba 1997; Tsai 2002; McKay,

Avery, Liao and Morris 2011) and this approach is

beginning to be used in the supply chain literature

to address research questions pertaining to individual

employees (e.g., Carter et al. 2007). Furthermore,

Carter et al. (2007, p. 153) point out, as is the case

in our study, that, “the resources required to gain

access to and perform similar analyses with a largenumber of informants in a firm would have been

prohibitive with multiple organizations.”

Accordingly, we selected a global retailer that places

a value on environmental management activities in

supply chain management and administered our sur-

vey to a sample of their supply chain employees.

This organization communicated the legitimacy of

our university-connected survey to the potential

respondents. The use of a sponsoring organization

can increase the legitimacy of the survey research

project (Malhotra and Grover 1998; Tourangeau,

Rips and Rasinski 2000) as it typically —

and did inthis case — assures confidentiality to the respon-

dents. As a part of the administration of the survey,

the corporate retail sponsor prenotified their supply

chain employees about the survey. As described by

Dillman (2000, p. 156), the prenotification process

improves response rates to surveys. Moreover, survey

respondents were motivated to participate in this

project because the data were collected by a third

party and that the subject matter of the survey

entailed a topic relevant to the respondent’s job. As

a token of appreciation for participating in the

research project (Dillman 2000), we offered each sur-

vey respondent a summary of the results in return

for completing the survey.

Sample The sample consists of supply chain management

employees employed by a large retailer. This specific

sample was selected in part because prior research

suggests that supply chain management professionals

do not yet think nor are they always supportive of

sustainability efforts (Pagell and Gobeli 2009).

Because of confidentiality and institutional review

board reasons, we are limited in our ability to pro-

vide detailed information about the retailer except that this organization is recognized around the world

as a leader in logistics and sustainability and is

ranked among Fortune Magazine’s 2010 most admired

companies. Our survey was distributed to 317 logis-

tics and operations management mid-level distribu-

tion center employees in the second quarter of 2010.

Our retailer demonstrated support for the project by

providing advanced notification about the survey and

hand-delivering hard copies of the questionnaire to

the potential respondents. All 317 respondents

returned the completed questionnaire, which was

completed during regular work hours, an accommo-

1Because our nomological model has not been tested previously,

we conducted a pilot test for measurement refinement purposes

(Davis-Sramek, Mentzer and Stank 2008; Fugate, Stank and

Mentzer 2009). Our pilot test was conducted on a random sam-

ple of environmental management professionals on behalf of a

U.S. environmental certification organization. A random sample

of 304 respondents completed the survey.

Volume 48, Number 3


0

7/29/2019 jscm3257


dation that further facilitated the universal response

rate. The average respondent was 41 years of age

(SD = 7.9) while 77 percent of the sample was com-

posed of males (SD = 0.421). The average respon-

dent had 13 years of work experience (SD = 5.7).

Measurement of VariablesOur dependent variable, employee engagement in

environmental behaviors, is operationalized using

three different measures. Our first construct, frequency

of involvement, is measured by asking employees on

a scale from one to nine how often they engaged in

environmental management activities during the past

12 months (i.e., 1 = never, 9 = frequently). Our sec-

ond dependent variable uses Ramus and Steger’s

(2000) one-item measure, which asks: “Independent

of any specific time frame, have you ever (not in just

the last 12 months) tried to promote an environmen-

tal initiative within your company?” Our final depen-dent variable, innovative environmental behaviors,

uses three items which capture the number of innova-

tive environmental management behaviors exhibited.

The independent variables consisted of three intra-

organizational management practices designed to

influence the above mentioned employee environ-

mental behaviors. The first, supervisory support, was

measured using a 9-point response format (i.e.,

1 = strongly agree, 9 = strongly agree). Our second

independent variable is the employee perception of

environmental training provided by the organization

and measured using a 1 – 7 response format (i.e.,

1 = very inaccurate, 7 = very accurate). Previous

research has rarely examined environmental training

except Sarkis et al. (2010). Finally, our third indepen-dent variable focused on employee perceptions of the

rewards provided by the company for involvement in

environmental behaviors and was measured using a

7-point response format (i.e., 1 = very inaccurate,

7 = very accurate). Perceived organizational support is

measured using three scale items from Eisenberger

et al. (1986), modified to refer to the organization’s

support of employees in solving environmental behav-

iors. Lastly, we measure an employee’s affective com-

mitment to environmental behaviors. We also

gathered data on age and gender to use as control

variables, a practice commonly used in studies whichexamine individual level phenomena. Age was mea-

sured as a metric variable, number of years, while a

dummy variable (1 = male, 0 = female) was used to

capture gender.

A summary of the variables along with descriptive

statistics is found in Table 1. Since we estimated our

model using structural equation modeling, we exam-

ined our variables for skewness and kurtosis. We

TABLE 1

Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Matrix

MeanStandardDeviation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Supervisorysupport

6.16 1.69 1.000

2. Environmentaltraining

5.22 1.55 0.634 1.000

3. Rewards 3.29 1.57 0.498 0.440 1.0004. Perceived

organizationalsupport

6.34 0.72 0.407 0.410 0.210 1.000

5. Commitment toenvironmentalbehaviors

5.69 0.90 0.494 0.435 0.380 0.452 1.000

6. Frequency of involvement

1.49 2.69 0.189 0.115 0.156 0.283 0.188 1.000

7. Innovativeenvironmentalbehaviors

5.76 1.69 0.391 0.250 0.244 0.099 0.503 0.314 1.000

8. Ever promotedan environmentalinitiative

0.48 0.50 0.154 0.133 0.156 0.083 0.155 0.255 0.249 1.000

Correlation coefficients significant at p < 0.05 are in bold.

July 2012


7/29/2019 jscm3257


discovered that the innovative environmental behaviors

variable suffered from high skewness and kurtosis. Fol-

lowing the recommendations of Bollen (1989), we log

transform this variable. Indeed, Bollen (1989, p. 425)

points out that when non-normality or excessive kurto-

sis threatens the validity of a measure to be used in

maximum-likelihood estimation of a structural equa-tion model, it is appropriate to transform the variable

to achieve better approximate multivariate normality.

We also checked for common method variance.

Common method is “attributable to the measurement

method rather than the construct of interest” (Podsak-

off, MacKenzie, Lee and Podsakoff 2003, p. 879). In

our study, we have taken a number of steps to reduce

common method bias, including instrument design

and validation. Following Podsakoff et al. (2003) and

Song and Zahedi (2005), we utilized a strategy of

mixing of the response formats (scales), neutral

words, multiple items for each factor, and reversecoded items to minimize common method variance.

In so doing, the respondent is required to cognitively

process each item in the questionnaire. Also following

Podsakoff et al. (2003, p. 885), as mentioned earlier,

we used 7- and 9-point response formats since it is

desirable to use response formats that are of longer

length because it requires greater cognitive processing

and hence the items are less easy to complete thereby

reducing another source of common method bias.

Additionally, we used the original response format

(scales) of the items that were derived from the litera-

ture to facilitate meta-analysis studies. Otherwise, it

would be difficult for future researchers to compare

findings of previous studies. While there are a number

of ways to check for common method variance, fol-

lowing Podsakoff et al. (2003), we applied both Har-

mon’s single factor test and a marker variable test.

First, we conducted an exploratory factor analysis of

all variables in our model to “determine whether the

majority of the variance can be accounted for by one

general factor” (Podsakoff et al. 2003, p. 890). Har-

mon’s test showed that the first factor accounted for

only 13.929 percent of variance. Next, we also per-

formed a marker variable test to detect the presence of

common method variance. Specifically, we included aglobal measure of job satisfaction because we believe

that this factor represents an employee’s overall atti-

tude toward his or her job whereas our hypothesized

constructs examine the specific environmentally

focused attitudes, behaviors, and practices. Including

the marker variable, we found that our original struc-

tural model resulted in a similar overall fit (v2 /

df = 678.753/387 = 1.754, CFI = 0.946, TLI = 0.940,

IFI = 0.947, and RMSEA = 0.049) and produced

results which were consistent to the original estimates.

Finally, as depicted in Table 1, the independent vari-

ables do not show any statistically significant correla-

tions above the 0.70 threshold (Zhu and Kraemer

2002), which indicates that these variables are dis-

tinct. Given these results, we conclude that our model

is not unduly affected by common method variance

and that we can proceed with our model.

RESULTS

Measurement Model AnalysisConfirmatory factor analysis is used to assess the

validity and adequacy of the factor structure pertain-

ing to the measurement model. This model includes

the latent factors pertaining to perceptions of super-

visory support, environmental training, reward,

perceived organizational support, commitment to

environmental behavior, frequency of involvement,

and innovative environmental behaviors. Maximum-

likelihood estimation is used to test the measurement

and structural models.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis The CFA results of the measurement model suggest

a high level of accuracy associated with the latent vari-

ables. As shown in Appendix A, the fit indices for the

overall measurement model and for each latent vari-

able suggest the CFA accurately reflected the underly-

ing variance – covariance structure tying the indicator

variables according to the criteria by Hu and Bentler

(1999). As all loadings are statistically significant

(p < 0.01) and none of the standardized residuals is

above or below ±2.0, the CFA results provide evidence

of discriminant validity, convergent validity, and uni-

dimensionality (Anderson and Gerbing 1998). Discri-

minant validity is evaluated by examining the average

variance extracted (AVE). Fornell and Larcker (1981)

recommend an average extracted variance higher than

0.50. As shown in Appendix B, all of the AVE values

meet the minimum required value. All construct reli-

ability estimates are >0.70, which suggests good

reliability. Overall, the measurement model fit was

very good (v2 = 404.151/df = 229 = 1.765, RMSEA =

0.049, CFI = 0.963, TLI = 0.956, IFI = 0.964).

To obtain further support for our model’s validity,

we compared our hypothesized (structural) model with two alternative models, which is reported in

Table 2. The independent model fails to achieve

reasonable fit on any of the indices. Similarly, the

unmediated model also demonstrates poor statistical

fit. Because these alternative models are less parsimo-

nious and achieve poorer statistical fit, we believe that

our hypothesized model is reasonable from a statisti-

cal perspective.

Structural Model Analysis The next stage of the analysis involved developing

the structural model. The structural model controlled

Volume 48, Number 3


2

7/29/2019 jscm3257


for covariation with the variables measuring the

employee’s age and gender. The structural model

demonstrated excellent fit (v2 /df = 562.01/309 =

1.819, RMSEA = 0.051, CFI = 0.947, TLI = 0.940,

IFI = 0.948). Because our control variables produced

nonsignificant results and due to space constraints,

the age and gender variable estimates are not

reported. The r 2

values are presented in Table 3.

Results of Hypothesis Testing Table 4 presents the results from our SEM structural

path model. H1 is supported at the 0.01 level. H2 is

supported the 0.01 level. H3 is not supported. H4 is

supported at the 0.01 level. H5 is supported at the

0.01 level.2

DISCUSSION

Summary of Findings We found evidence that supervisory support for

environmental initiatives is an important contributing

factor in our model. As mentioned, others (e.g.,

Larkin and Larkin 1996) have suggested that supervi-

sors may play a more visible role than top managers

in encouraging pro-environmental behaviors. Supervi-

sors serve as instrumental change agents because it is

these individuals who provide employees with the

necessary resources to facilitate environmental behav-

ior. Furthermore, supervisors can positively influence

the employee’s perception that the organization genu-

inely values environmental behavior. In our discus-

sions with a few companies, environmental behaviors

are more readily encouraged through ad hoc commit-

tees that directly create and reward behaviors for pro-

environmental behavior as compared to members of

the firm’s top management team.

Study findings supported the hypothesis proposing

that environmental training positively contributes to

perceived organizational support for environmental

behaviors. This finding is consistent with past research

that emphasized the need to provide training pro-

grams in order to reinforce the types of behavior that

the organization wants its employees to value and

exhibit. Our findings are also in line with Sarkis et al.

(2010), who provided empirical evidence that training

encourages employees to engage in environmental

management activities. Thus, our results enhance prior research by providing empirical documentation that

training increases the perception of perceived organi-

zational support of environmental behaviors.

Our results did not provide empirical support for

the argument that rewards for environmental behav-

iors would signal to employees that the organization

was supportive of environmental activities. Similar

to training programs, our thought was that rewards

would encourage and reinforce behaviors that the

organization expects it employees to value and exhibit

as a part of their job duties and responsibilities. How-

ever, the data simply do not support this line of rea-soning. The relatively low mean rating of rewards

( M = 3.29 using a 1 – 7 metric), suggests that the orga-

nization is not thought to be providing many rewards

for environmental activities, especially compared to

training ( M = 5.22), which was also assessed using

the same 1 – 7 metric. Until organizations begin to pro-

mote or more actively provide rewards to employees

for environmental behaviors, rewards will not accu-

rately serve to signal organizational intent. Indeed, the

perception of lack of rewards may indicate to employ-

ees that environmental behaviors are not truly appre-

ciated by the organization.

TABLE 2

Model Fit Statistics

Model v2 /df CFI TLI IFI RMSEA

Hypothesized model v2 = 562.010/df = 309 = 1.819 0.947 0.940 0.948 0.051

Unmediated model v2

= 315.889/df = 153 = 2.065 0.957 0.947 0.957 0.058Independent model v2 = 1,087.932/df = 275 = 3.956 0.830 0.815 0.831 0.097

TABLE 3

R2 Values

Dependent Variable R 2 Value

Perceived organizational support 0.475Commitment to environmental

behaviors0.384

Frequency of involvement 0.458Ever promoted an environmental

initiative0.060

Innovative environmental behaviors 0.073

2Because our environmental behaviors construct is multidimen-

sional in nature, we estimated our model for each of the three

environmental measures independently. Each of these relation-

ships is supported at the 0.01 level (ever promoted an environ-

mental initiative, b = 0.148; frequency of involvement,

b=

1.307; and innovative environmental behaviors, b=

1.321).

July 2012


7/29/2019 jscm3257


A key study finding was the positive relationship

between employee perception of organizational

support for environmental behaviors and employee

affective commitment to environmental management

practices. Many firms are now looking to build

commitment to environmental behaviors among their

employees and our results suggest that enhancing

employee perceptions that the organization is fully

supportive of environmentally friendly practices is a

viable way to do just this. Our study provides initial

evidence that organizations whose agents and policies

communicate support for the environment send posi-

tive signals about corporate environmental programs

and garner employees who internalize commitment to

the environment. This suggests that organizations that

are struggling to engage their employees in environ-

mental behaviors should establish clear environmental

goals, policies, and procedures and offer appropriate

training in order to facilitate the POS which in turn

will gain the commitment of their employees to pro-

environmental behaviors.3

Perhaps most importantly, we found that the greater

employee affective commitment to environmental

practices, the greater the employee’s environmentalbehavior. As highlighted earlier, there has been scant

research that has explicitly developed and measured

employee participation in environmental behaviors.

We found the relationship between commitment and

behavior using three distinct measures; specifically:

(1) frequency of involvement in environmental

behaviors, (2) promotion of an environmental prac-

tice, and (3) innovative environmental behaviors.

Thus our study, in part, extends past research by look-

ing at multiple aspects of employee environmental

behavior. Future research should continue to explore

how these and other measures, such as the amount of

time spent on environmental initiatives, could provide

important insight into how employees are engaged in

pro-environmental behavior. In any case, our study

suggests that for employees to engage in more

environmentally conscious behaviors, they need to

develop a sense of emotional commitment to such

environmental causes. Stated differently, employees

will engage in more environmental behaviors, if they

“want” to do so.

Theoretical and Practical Implications There has been a recent call for greater attention to

behavioral aspects of supply chain management

(Boudreau, Hopp, McClain and Thomas 2003; Carter,

Kaufmann and Michel 2007; Bendoly et al. 2010;

Tokar 2010; among many others). This research inves-

tigation, based on a behavioral theory and employing individuals as the unit of analysis, seeks to heed this

call. Specifically, our research developed and tested a

model of employee perceptions of environmental

management practices which contribute to employee-

level engagement in environmental behaviors. We

have provided statistical evidence that two specific

employee perceptions of environmental management

practices (supervisory support and training) contribute

to employee-level engagement in environmental

behaviors through the perceptions and attitudes they

foster. Our results can help firms understand the

impact of their management practices on gaining sup-

TABLE 4

SEM Structural Path Results

Structural Path Path Coefficient Hypothesis Finding

Supervisory support→POS 0.202*** (0.036) H1 Supported

Environmental training→POS 0.124***

(0.034) H2 SupportedRewards→POS 0.003 (0.031) H3 Not supportedPOS→commitment to environmental behaviors 0.630*** (0.079) H4 SupportedCommitment to environmental behaviors→frequency of

involvement1.547*** (0.379) H5 Supported

Commitment to environmental behaviors→everpromoted an environmental initiative

0.165*** (0.044) H5 Supported

Commitment to environmental behaviors→innovativeenvironmental behaviors

1.343*** (0.161) H5 Supported

Standard errors are reported in parentheses.***Significant at p = 0.01 level.

3 The average frequency of involvement in environmental activi-

ties measures was quite low. Future research is needed to under-

stand how long it is before such efforts bear the benefits desired

by the firm. Future research should also investigate why a firm’s

top management vision is not being received and acted-upon by

employees at lower levels of the organization. We thank an

anonymous reviewer for this comment.

Volume 48, Number 3


4

7/29/2019 jscm3257


port and involvement among employees to become

engaged in environmental activities. In addition to

demonstrating statistical significance, as described in

the introduction, our model has theoretical and real-

world implications. As pointed out in the MIT Sloan

Management Review and Boston Consulting Group

study (Berns et al. 2009), organizations are struggling on how to motivate their employees to become

engaged in environmental activities.

More broadly, our research is also in line with and

supportive of the growing practice of using behavioral

theories to address supply chain issues. Tangpong,

Hung and Ro (2010) relied on transaction cost eco-

nomics, personality trait theory, and contingency the-

ory to explain buyer – seller relationships. Goal setting

theory was instrumental in explaining the relative suc-

cess of operations managers in product development

projects (Rauniar, Doll, Rawski and Hong 2008).

While more examples can be cited, it is clear that future behavioral research has the potential to provide

greater explanation for supply chain problems.

Our research represents the initial effort to apply

OST to a domain apart from employee – organizational

relationships. Specifically, we move beyond the tradi-

tional application of OST and use this theoretical lens

to explain employee behavior in the environmental

domain. Our results support the extrapolation of OST

to illustrate how organizations can convey favorable

treatment toward the environment and consequently

increase environmental behaviors.

A specific theoretical contribution to the supply

chain literature is the extension of OST to garner a

better understanding of factors that promote environ-

mental behaviors within organizations. Stated differ-

ently, the behavioral science literature provided a

suitable explanatory framework that with modification

helped address an important supply chain issue. We

believe OST offers a sound explanation for how orga-

nizations might modify their internal infrastructures

to champion environmental behaviors among their

employees through its effects on POS and affective

commitment. From this theoretical perspective, we

explicated concepts and measures appropriate to the

environmental realm to provide a model specifically aimed at predicting employment engagement in

environmental behaviors.4

As mentioned in the Introduction, our study has sev-

eral important practical implications. While organiza-

tions are beginning to make major financial investments

to encourage their employees to engage in environmen-

tal behaviors, we discovered through interviews with

several organizations including the NAEM that many

firms are struggling with how to promote employee

involvement in environmental management activities

(Hoekenga 2010; Neuvelt 2010). This may be a responseto pressures from key stakeholders who value pro-

environmental organizations.

Organizations may see the value that pro-environ-

mental policies and practices can bring about as far as

recruitment, retention, and engagement of employees.

Thus, there are multiple reasons behind the growing

interest in how organizations can encourage employee

participation in environmental behaviors. Therefore,

our findings help to elucidate the types of intra-orga-

nizational practices needed to promote environmental

behaviors. The insights from our model provide initial

support for the importance of increasing perception of managerial support, training, and reward structure

necessary to encourage desired environmental atti-

tudes and behaviors.

CONCLUSIONS AND DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

The contribution of our article is the creation and

testing of a causal model derived from OST to explain

employee engagement in environmental behaviors.

Using three different constructs for employee engage-

ment in environmental behaviors, we provide a

deeper understanding of actual employee-level envi-ronmental behavior than has been previously

reported. Our results are based on a data set of

logistics and operations employees.

While our research has made an important contribu-

tion to the literature, there are several opportunities

for future research beyond those discussed above. Spe-

cifically, this work bears implications for increased

study of individual supply chain employees (i.e.,

research where individual employees are the unit of

analysis) within a single organization. The empirical

findings provided by supply chain employees working

in a single firm indicated that there was considerable variability in employee participation in environmental

behaviors and that this behavior reflected individual

differences in perceptions and attitudes. The variability

in employee environmental participation might be the

result of insufficient rewards practices by this organi-

zation. Employees might only engage in desired

behaviors if they are properly compensated to do so.

Future research should continue to examine the align-

ment between a firm’s rewards practices and employee

environmental behaviors. Future research should also

examine our nomological model in organizations

where sustainability is currently not a priority. In so

4 We acknowledge that not all components of OST transfer to

the environmental context and that additional indicators of its

core construct, favorable treatment, may be appropriate for its

use in other research domains. For example, other ways to signal

that the organization values the environment might be to for-

malize how environmental matters are handled, to invest more

in environmental practices, and to create a pro-environmental

culture akin to safety culture or quality climate.

July 2012


7/29/2019 jscm3257


doing, future research might also examine employee

engagement in more tailored measures of environ-

mental behavior designed for employees working in

specific functional areas (e.g., logistics, purchasing).

Also, future research could explicitly focus on whether

an employee’s environmental behavior plays a part of

the annual performance review process.Our findings suggest that greater research attention

to individual employees could demonstrate utility in

many supply chain areas. For example, the adoption

of JIT practices is frequently promoted and might be

better understood if examined at the individual level

and, to extend our research, through the use of OST.

An interesting future research question is: Does a sup-

ply chain employee’s perceived organizational support

of the implementation of JIT practices influence the

supply chain employee’s affective commitment to

implementing JIT tools and techniques with the firm’s

supply base? Thus, there are numerous opportunitiesto investigate employee-level perceptions of the orga-

nization in the broader domains of supply chain

management and sustainability. For example, future

research should examine how POS might promote

supply chain employee involvement in areas such as

supplier development (Lao, Hong and Rao 2010),

outsourcing relationships (Bustinza, Molina and

Gutierrez-Gutierrez 2010) global sustainability prac-

tices (Reuter et al. 2010). In so doing, such research

may uncover an untapped mechanism for increasing

employee commitment and involvement in supply

chain activities.

REFERENCES Ahmad, S. and R.G. Schroeder. “The Impact of

Human Resource Management Practices on Oper-ational Performance: Recognizing Country andIndustry Differences,” Journal of Operations Man-agement , (21), 2003, 19-43.

Anderson, J.C. and D.W. Gerbing. “Structural Equa-tion Modeling in Practice: A Review and Recom-mended Two-Step Approach,” PsychologicalBulletin, (103:3), 1998, pp. 411-423.

Andersson, L.M. and T.S. Bateman. “Individual Envi-

ronmental Initiative: Championing Natural Envi-ronmental Issues in U.S. Business Organizations,” Academy of Management Journal, (43:4), 2000, pp.548-570.

Armstrong-Stassen, M. and N.D. Ursel.“PerceivedOrganizational Support, Career Satisfaction, andthe Retention of Older Workers,” Journal of Occu-pational and Organizational Psychology , (82:1),2009, pp. 201-220.

Aselage, J. and R. Eisenberger. “Perceived Organiza-tional Support and Psychological Contracts: A Theoretical Integration,” Journal of OrganizationalBehavior , (24:5), 2003, pp. 491-509.

Barbaro, M. “At Wal-Mart, Lessons in Self-Help,” NewYork Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/05/business/05improve.html?pagewanted=all (last accessed online, February 23, 2011), 2007.

Beer, M., R.A. Eisenstat and B. Spector. “Why ChangePrograms Don’t Produce Change,” Harvard Busi-

ness Review, (68:6), 1990, pp. 158-166.Behson, S.J. “Which Dominates? The Relative Impor-tance of Work-Family Organizational Support andGeneral Organizational Context on EmployeeOutcomes,” Journal of Vocational Behavior , (61:1),2002, pp. 53-72.

Bendoly, E., R. Croson, P. Goncalves and K.L. Schultz.“Bodies of Knowledge for Research in BehavioralOperations,” Production and Operations Manage-ment , (19:4), 2010, pp. 434-452.

Bentein, K., F. Stinglhamber and C. Vandenberghe.“Organization-, Supervisor-, and Workgroup-Directed Commitments and Citizenship Behav-iors: A Comparison of Models,” European Journal

of Work and Organizational Psychology , (11), 2002,pp. 341-362.

Berns, M., A. Townend, Z. Khayat, B. Balagopal, M.Reeves, M. Hopkins and N. Kruschwitz. “TheBusiness of Sustainability: Findings and InsightsFrom the First Annual Business of Sustainability Survey and the Global Thought Leaders’ ResearchProject,” MIT Sloan Management Review, (51:1),2009, pp. 1-84.

Bishop, J.W., K.D. Scott, M.G. Goldsby and R. Cropanz-ano. “A Construct Validity Study of Commitment and Perceived Support Variables,” Group and Orga-nization Management , (30:2), 2005, pp. 153-180.

Bollen, K.A. Structural Equations With Latent Variables. Wiley, New York, 1989.Boudreau, J., W. Hopp, J. McClain and L.J. Thomas.

“On the Interface Between Operations andHuman Resources Management,” Manufacturing and Service Operations Management , (5:3), 2003,pp. 179-202.

Boyt, T.E., R.F. Lusch and G. Naylor. “The Role of Professionalism in Determining Job Satisfactionin Professional Services,” Journal of ServiceResearch, (3:4), 2001, pp. 321-330.

Brio, J.A., E. Fernandez and B. Junquera. “Manage-ment and Employee Involvement in Achieving anEnvironmental Action-Based Competitive Advan-

tage: An Empirical Study,” International Journal of Human Resource Management , (18:4), 2007,pp. 491-522.

Bustinza, O.F., L.M. Molina and L.J. Gutierrez-Gut-ierrez. “Outsourcing as Seen From the Perspectiveof Knowledge Management,” Journal of Supply Chain Management , (46:3), 2010, pp. 23-41.

Carter, C.R. “Purchasing and Social Responsibility: A Replication and Extension,” Journal of Supply Chain Management , (40:4), 2004, pp. 4-18.

Carter, C.R. and M.E. Dresner. “Purchasing’s Role inEnvironmental Management: Cross-FunctionalDevelopment of Grounded Theory,” Journal of

Volume 48, Number 3


6

7/29/2019 jscm3257


Supply Chain Management , (37:3), 2001, pp. 12-27.

Carter, C.R. and M.M. Jennings. “The Role of Purchas-ing in Corporate Social Responsibility: A Struc-tural Equation Analysis,” Journal of BusinessLogistics, (25:1), 2004, pp. 145-186.

Carter, C.R., R. Kale and C.M. Grimm. “Environmen-tal Purchasing and Firm Performance: An Empiri-cal Investigation. Transportation Research. Part E,” Logistics & Transportation Review, (36E:3),2000, pp. 219-228.

Carter, C.R., L.M. Ellram and W.L. Tate. “The Use of Social Network Analysis in Logistics Research,” Jour-nal of Business Logistics, (28:1), 2007a, pp. 57-81.

Carter, C.R., L. Kaufmann and A. Michel. “BehavioralSupply Management: A Taxonomy of Judgment and Decision-Making Biases,” International Journalof Physical Distribution & Logistics Management ,(37:8), 2007b, pp. 631-669.

Cooper-Hakim, A. and C. Viswesvaran. “The Construct

of Work Commitment: Testing an IntegrativeFramework,” Psychological Bulletin, (131:2), 2005,pp. 241-259.

Corbett, C.J. and R.D. Klassen. “Extending the Hori-zons: Environmental Excellence as Key to Improv-ing Operations,” Manufacturing and ServiceOperations Management , (8:1), 2006, pp. 5-22.

Covin, T.J. and R.H. Kilmann. “Participant Perceptionsof Positive and Negative Influences on Large ScaleChange,” Group and Organization Studies, (15:2),1990, pp. 233-248.

Crane, A. “Corporate Greening as Amoralization,”Organization Studies, (21:4), 2000, pp. 673-696.

Cummings, L. “Organizational Climates for Creativ-ity,” Academy of Management Journal, (8:3), 1965,pp. 220-227.

Daily, B.F. and S. Huang. “Achieving Sustainability Through Attention to Human Resource Factors inEnvironmental Management,” International of Jour-nal of Operations and Production Management ,(21:12), 2001, pp. 1539-1552.

Davis-Sramek, B., J.T. Mentzer and T.P. Stank. “Creat-ing Consumer Durable Retailer Customer Loyalty Through Order Fulfillment Service Operations,” Journal of Operations Management , (26:6), 2008,pp. 781-797.

Dillman, D.A. Mail and Internet Surveys — The Tailored

Design Method. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 2000.

Dobos, I. “The Effects of Emission Trading on Produc-tion and Inventories in the Arrow-Karlin Model,”International Journal of Production Economics, (93 – 94), 2005, pp. 301-308.

Drumwright, M.E. “Socially Responsible Organiza-tional Buying: Environmental Concern as a Non-economic Buying Criterion,” Journal of Marketing ,(58:3), 1994, pp. 1-19.

Dutton, J.E., S.J. Ashford, R.M. O’Neill, E. Hayes andE.E. Wierba. “Reading the Wind: How MiddleManagers Assess the Context for Selling Issues to

Top Managers,” Strategic Management Journal,(18:5), 1997, pp. 407-423.

Eisenberger, R., R. Huntington, S. Hutchison and D.Sowa, “Perceived Organizational Support,” Journalof Applied Psychology , (71), 1986, pp. 500-507.

Eisenberger, R., S. Armeli, B. Rexwinkel, P.D. Lynch

and L. Rhoades. “Reciprocation of PerceivedOrganizational Support,” Journal of Applied Psy-chology , (86:1), 2001, pp. 42-51.

Ergi, C.P. and S. Herman. “Leadership in the North American Environmental Sector: Values, Leader-ship Styles, and Contexts of Environmental Lead-ers and Their Organizations,” Academy of Management Journal, (43:4), 2000, pp. 571-604.

Fernandez, E., B. Junquera and M. Ordiz. “Organiza-tional Culture and Human Resources in the Envi-ronmental Issue: A Review of the Literature,”International Journal of Human Resource Manage-ment , (14:4), 2003, pp. 634-656.

Fineman, S. “Constructing the Green Manager,” British

Journal of Management , (8), 1997, pp. 31-38.Fornell, C. and D.F. Larcker. “Evaluating Structural

Equation Models With Unobservable Variablesand Measurement Error,” Journal of Marketing Research, (18:1), 1981, pp. 39-50.

Fu, F.Q., W. Bolander and E. Jones. “Managing theDrivers of Organizational Commitment and Sales-person Effort: An Application of Meyer and Allen’s Three-Component Model,” Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, (17:4), 2009, pp. 335-350.

Fugate, B.S., T.P. Stank and J.T. Mentzer. “Linking Improved Knowledge Management to Operationaland Organizational Performance,” Journal of Oper-

ations Management , (27:3), 2009, pp. 247-264.Gattiker, T.F. and C.R. Carter. “Understanding Project Champions’ Ability to Gain Intra-OrganizationalCommitment for Environmental Projects,” Journalof Operations Management , (28:1), 2010, pp. 72-85.

Grant, A.M., J.E. Dutton and B.D. Rosso. “Giving Commitment: Employee Support Programs andthe Prosocial Sensemaking Process,” Academy of Management Journal, (51:5), 2008, pp. 898-918.

Handfield, R.B., S.V. Walton, S.A. Melnyk and L.K.Seegars. “‘Green’ Value Chain Practices in the Fur-niture Industry,” Journal of Operations Management ,(15:4), 1997, pp. 293-315.

Hoekenga, V. Personal Interview. National Associationof Environmental Managers, December 4, 2010.

Hu, L. and P.M. Bentler. “Cutoff Criteria for fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conven-tional Criteria Versus New Alternatives,” StructuralEquation Modeling , (6:1), 1999, pp. 1-55.

Jabbour, C.J.C. and F.C.A. Santos. “The Central Roleof Human Resource Management in the Searchfor Sustainable Organizations,” International Jour-nal of Human Resource Management , (19:12),2008, pp. 2133-2154.

Jensen, M.C. and W.H. Meckling. “Specific and Gen-eral Knowledge, and Organisational Structure,”

July 2012


7/29/2019 jscm3257


Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, (8:2), 1995,pp. 4-18.

Jung, D. and J. Sosik. “Group Potency and Collec-tive Efficacy: Examining Their Predictive Validity,Level of Analysis, and Effects of PerformanceFeedback on Future Group Performance,” Group

and Organization Management , (28:3), 2003, pp.366-391.Kimberly, J.R. and M.J. Evanisko. “Organizational

Innovation: The Influence of Individual, Organi-zational and Contextual Factors on Hospital Adoption of Technological and AdministrativeInnovation,” Academy of Management Journal,(24:4), 1981, pp. 689-713.

Klein, H.J., J.C. Molloy and J.T. Cooper. “ConceptualFoundations: Construct Definitions and Theoreti-cal Representations of Workplace Commitments,“in H.J. Klein, T.E. Becker and J.P. Meyer (Eds.),Commitment in Organizations, Accumulated Wisdomand New Directions, Vol. 3. Routledge, New York,

2009, pp. 3-36.Lao, Y., P. Hong and S.S. Rao. “Supply Management,

Supply Flexibility and Performance Outcomes: AnEmpirical Investigation of Manufacturing Firms,” Journal of Supply Chain Management , (46:3), 2010,pp. 6-24.

Larkin, T.J. and S. Larkin. “Reaching and Changing Front-Line Employees,” Harvard Business Review,(May – June), 1996, pp. 95-104.

Malhotra, M.K. and V. Grover. “An Assessment of Sur- vey Research in POM: From Constructs to The-ory,” Journal of Operations Management , (16:4),1998, pp. 407-425.

McKay, P.F., D.R. Avery, H. Liao and M.A. Morris.“Does Diversity Climate Lead to Customer Satis-faction? It Depends on the Service Climate andBusiness Unit Demography,” Organization Science,(22:3), 2011, pp. 788-804.

Meyer, J.P. and N.J. Allen. Commitment in the Work-place. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 1997.

Meyer, J.P., D.J. Stanley, L. Herscovitch and L. Topol-nytsky. “Affective, Continuance, and NormativeCommitment to the Organization: A Meta-Analy-sis of Antecedents, Correlates, and Conse-quences,” Journal of Vocational Behavior , (61:1),2002, pp. 20-52.

Meyer, J.P., T.E. Becker and C. Vandenberghe.

“Employee Commitment and Motivation: A Con-ceptual Analysis and Integrative Model,” Journal of Applied Psychology , (89), 2004, pp. 991-1007.

Montabon, F., R. Sroufe and R. Narasimhan. “AnExamination of Corporate Reporting, Environ-mental Management Practices and Firm Perfor-mance,” Journal of Operations Management , (25:5),2007, pp. 998-1014.

Mowday, R.T., R.M. Steers and L.W. Porter. “TheMeasurement of Organizational Commitment,” Journal of Applied Psychology , (14:2), 1979, pp.224-247.

NAEM. 2009. “Advancing Sustainability: Putting Your

Employees to Work,” http://greentie.naem.org/

2009/05/12/advancing-sustainability-putting-your-employees-to-work/ last accessed February 23,2011.

Neubert, M.J. and S.H. Cady. “Program Commitment: A Multi-Study Longitudinal Field Investigation of Its Impact and Antecedents,” Personnel Psychology ,

(54:2), 2001, pp. 421-448.Neuvelt, C. Personal Interview. National Association of Environmental Managers, 4 December 2010.

Pagell, M. and D. Gobeli. “How Plant Managers’ Expe-riences and Attitudes Toward Sustainability Relateto Operational Performance,” Production and Oper-ations Management , (18:3), 2009, pp. 278-299.

Paulraj, A. “Understanding the Relationships BetweenInternal Resources and Capabilities, SustainableSupply Management and Organizational Sustain-ability,” Journal of Supply Chain Management ,(47:1), 2011, pp. 19-39.

Podsakoff, P.M., S.B. MacKenzie, J.Y. Lee and N.P.Podsakoff. “Common Method Biases in Behav-

ioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literatureand Recommended Remedies,” Journal of AppliedPsychology , (88:5), 2003, pp. 879-903.

Potoski, M. and A. Prakash. “Institutional Design for EMS-Based Government Procurement Policies,”Global Environmental Politics, (6:4), 2006, pp. 13-22.

Ramus, C.A. “Organizational Support for Employees:Encouraging Creative Ideas for EnvironmentalSustainability,” California Management Review,(43:5), 2001, pp. 85-105.

Ramus, C.A. and U. Steger. “The Roles of Supervisory Support Behaviors and Environmental Policy in

Employee “Ecoinitiatives” at Leading-Edge Euro-pean Companies,” Academy of Management Jour-nal, (43:4), 2000, pp. 605-626.

Rauniar, R., W. Doll, G. Rawski and P. Hong. “TheRole of Heavyweight Product Manager in New Product Development,” International Journal of Operations & Production Management , (28:2), 2008,pp. 130-154.

Reuter, C., K. Foerstl, E. Hartmann and C. Blome.“Sustainable Global Supplier Management: TheRole of Dynamic Capabilities in Achieving Com-petitive Advantage,” Journal of Supply Chain Man-agement , (46:2), 2010, pp. 45-65.

Rhoades, L. and R. Eisenberger. “Perceived

Organizational Support: A Review of the Litera-ture,” Journal of Applied Psychology , (87:4), 2002,pp. 698-714.

Rhoades, L., R. Eisenberger and S. Armeli. “AffectiveCommitment to the Organization: The Contribu-tion of Perceived Organizational Support,” Journalof Applied Psychology , (86:5), 2001, pp. 825-836.

Riggle, R.J., D.R. Edmondson and J.D. Hansen. “A Meta-Analysis of the Relationship Between Per-ceived Organizational Support and Job Outcomes:20 Years of Research,” Journal of Business Research,(62), 2009, pp. 1027-1030.

Rothenberg, S. “Knowledge Content and Worker Par-

ticipation in Environmental Management at

Volume 48, Number 3


8

7/29/2019 jscm3257


NUMMI,” Journal of Management Studies, (40:7),2003, pp. 1783-1802.

Sammalisto, K. and T. Brorson. “Training and Com-munication in the Implementation of Environ-mental Management Systems (ISO 14001): A Case Study at the University of Gavle, Sweden,”

Journal of Cleaner Production, (16:3), 2008,pp. 299-309.Sarkis, J.P., P. Gonzalez-Torre and B. Adenso-Diaz.

“Stakeholder Pressure and the Adoption of Envi-ronmental Practices: The Mediating Effect of Training,” Journal of Operations Management ,(28:2), 2010, pp. 163-176.

Scott, W.R. and J.W. Meyer. “The Rise of Training Programs in Firms and Agencies: An InstitutionalPerspective,“ in: L.L. Cummings and B.M. Staw (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior , Vol.13, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, 1991, pp. 297-326.

Shore, L.M. and T.H. Shore. “Perceived OrganizationalSupport and Organizational Justice,“ in R.S. Cro-

panzano and K.M. Kacmar (Eds.), OrganizationalPolitics, Justice and Support: Managing the Social Cli-mate of the Workplace. Quorum Books, Westport,CT, 1995.

Song, J. and F. Zahedi. “A Theoretical Approach to Web Design in e-Commerce: A Belief Reinforce-ment Model,” Management Science, (51:8), 2005,pp. 1219-1235.

Susskind, A.M., K.M. Kacmar and C.P. Borchgrevink.“Customer Service Providers’ Attitudes Relating toCustomer Service and Customer Satisfaction inthe Customer-Server Exchange,” Journal of AppliedPsychology , (88:1), 2003, pp. 179-187.

Tangpong, C., K.-T. Hung and Y.K. Ro. “The Interac-tion Effect of Relational Norms and Agent Coop-erativeness on Opportunism in Buyer-Seller Relationships,” Journal of Operations Management ,(28), 2010, pp. 398-414.

Tokar, T. “Behavioural Research in Logistics and Sup-ply Chain Management,” International Journal of Logistics Management , (21:1), 2010, pp. 89-103.

Tourangeau, R., J.L. Rips and K. Rasinski. The Psychol-ogy of Survey Response. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, UK, 2000.

Triana, M.D.C., M.F. Garcia and A. Colella. “Managing Diversity: How Organizational Efforts to Support Diversity Moderate the Effects of Perceived Racial

Discirmination on Affective Commitment,” Per- sonnel Psychology , (63:4), 2010, pp. 817-843.

Tsai, W. “Social Structure of “Competition” Within aMultiunit Organization: Coordination, Competi-tion, and Intra-Organizational KnowledgeSharing,” Organization Science, (13), 2002,pp. 179-190.

Turban, D.B. and D.W. Greening. “Corporate SocialPerformance and Organizational Attractiveness toProspective Employees,” Academy of Management Journal, (40:3), 1997, pp. 658-672.

Van Iddekinge, C.H., G.R. Ferris, P.L. Perrewe, A.A.Perryman, F.R. Blass and T.D. Heetderks. “Effects

of Selection and Training on Unit-Level Perfor-

mance Over Time: A Latent Growth Modeling Approach,” Journal of Applied Psychology , (94:4),2009, pp. 829-843.

Yuan, F. and R.W. Woodman. “Innovative Behavior inthe Workplace: The Role of Performance andImage Outcome Expectations,” Academy of Man-

agement Journal, (53:2), 2010, pp. 323-342.Zhu, K. and K. Kraemer. “E-Commerce Metrics for Net-Enhanced Organizations: Assessing the Valueof e-Commerce to Firm Performance in the Man-ufacturing Sector,” Information Systems Research,(13:3), 2002, pp. 275-295.

David E. Cantor (Ph.D., University of Maryland) is

assistant professor of supply chain management in the

College of Business at Iowa State University in Ames,Iowa. His primary research interest is in supply chain

management and information systems, with a particu-

lar focus on the U.S. motor carrier industry. Dr. Can-

tor also is interested in human decision making in the

supply chain. His research on these topics has been

published in many academic and managerial outlets

including the Journal of Business Logistics, the Journal of

Operations Management , the Transportation Journal,

Transportation Research (Logistics and Transportation

Review), the International Journal of Physical Distribution

and Logistics Management and the International Journal

of Logistics Management .

Paula C. Morrow (Ph.D., Iowa State University) is a

University Professor and the Max S. Wortman, Jr. Pro-

fessor of Management at Iowa State University. In

addition to employee-level involvement in environ-

mental matters, her research focuses on understanding

employee attitudes and behaviors — especially

employee loyalty, turnover and safety. Dr. Morrow is

the author of “The Theory and Measurement of Work

Commitment,” and has published over 70 refereed

articles in outlets that include the Academy of Manage-

ment Review and the Journal of Applied Psychology . Dr.

Morrow has served on several editorial review boardsand has provided policy advice to both public and

private organizations, particularly in the transporta-

tion sector.

Frank Montabon (Ph.D., Michigan State University)

is an associate professor at Iowa State University. In

addition to his academic degrees, he has obtained a

number of professional certifications including the

CPSM, CPIM, CIRM and CSCP credentials. Dr. Monta-

bon’s research focuses on issues of environmental

management. He has done large-scale surveys on ISO

14000 and has published research on the efficacy of

July 2012


7/29/2019 jscm3257


environmental approaches. Dr. Montabon’s current

research projects involve the effect of proactive envi-

ronmental efforts on innovation, factors correlating to

successful environmental management system imple-

mentation, and food systems. He serves as an Associ-

ate Editor for the Journal of Supply Chain Management .

APPENDIX A

Measurement Model Results

Latent Factor (Item)Nonstandardized

LoadingsStandardized

LoadingsStandard

Errors

Supervisory support (Susskind et al. 2003)My supervisor directly encourages me to

work on eco-initiatives1.625 0.886 0.083

When engaging in eco-initiative activities,my supervisor is very supportive

1.474 0.850 0.080

My supervisor provides me withuseful advice related to eco-initiatives

1.687 0.871 0.089

I find my supervisor very helpful inperforming eco-initiative activities

1.514 0.773 0.096

Environmental trainingI have received training related to

environmental issues (e.g., globalwarming)

1.480 0.850 0.079

I have received training related toenvironmental management practices

1.503 0.968 0.065

I have received training relatedto environmental tools/techniques

1.509 0.945 0.068

Rewards (Boyt et al. 2001)

I am recognized for keeping up withthe latest environmental developmentsin my field

1.480 0.811 0.089

I am rewarded for performing work thathas a positive environmental impact onboth the firm and society

1.518 0.876 0.082

I am recognized for exhibiting positiveattitudes toward my company’senvironmental objectives

1.382 0.823 0.081

Perceived organizational support (Eisenberger et al. 1986)My company is willing to

assist employees in solving

environmental problems

0.697 0.810 0.044

Help is available in my company whenenvironmental problems arise

0.538 0.732 0.039

My company is willing to extend itself tosolve an environmental problem

0.692 0.714 0.052

Commitment to environmental behaviors (Mowday, Steers and Porter 1979)Having company practices and activities

that support the environment inspires meto do the best I can in my job

0.682 0.663 0.055

(Continued)

Volume 48, Number 3


0

7/29/2019 jscm3257


APPENDIX A (Continued)

Latent Factor (Item)Nonstandardized

LoadingsStandardized

LoadingsStandard

Errors

I am really committed to ourenvironmental activities

0.810 0.788 0.052

I am proud to tell others about aspectsof my work that support the environment

0.704 0.660 0.057

I am willing to put in a great deal of effort beyond what is normally expectedin order to make eco-initiatives successful

0.861 0.701 0.065

Frequency of involvement (Montabon et al. 2007)I look for opportunities to reduce

pollution from work-related activities1.815 0.809 0.113

I champion the use of energyconservation efforts in my department

1.550 0.678 0.122

I actively research solutions to mycompany’s environmental problems

1.396 0.717 0.102

I am highly motivated to replacematerials with those that are moreenvironmentally friendly

1.387 0.730 0.099

Innovative environmental behaviors How many eco-initiative ideas crossed your

mind?2.603 0.911 0.204

How many formal eco-initiative ideasdid you share with others?

3.665 0.856 0.298

How many eco-initiative proposals did you make? 0.858 0.522 0.111

All loadings are statistically significant at the 0.01 level.

APPENDIX B

Reliability of Measure Results

Latent Factor Average Variance Extracted Construct Reliability Cronbach’s a

Supervisory support 0.716 0.970 0.916Environmental training 0.851 0.973 0.940Rewards 0.701 0.962 0.873Perceived organizational

support0.567 0.974 0.787

Commitment to

environmental behaviors

0.497 0.972 0.757

Frequency of involvement 0.540 0.952 0.819Innovative environmental

behaviors0.612 0.895 0.782


jscm3257

Documents

Transcript of jscm3257