Publié par : Published by: Publicación de la:

Faculté des sciences de l’administration 2325, rue de la Terrasse Pavillon Palasis-Prince, Université Laval Québec (Québec) Canada G1V 0A6 Tél. Ph. Tel. : (418) 656-3644 Télec. Fax : (418) 656-7047

Édition électronique : Electronic publishing: Edición electrónica:

Pauline Tremblay Vice-décanat - Recherche et affaires académiques Faculté des sciences de l’administration

Disponible sur Internet : Available on Internet Disponible por Internet :

http://www5.fsa.ulaval.ca/sgc/documentsdetravail rd@fsa.ulaval.ca

DOCUMENT DE TRAVAIL 2012-006 Organizational and environmental citizenship behavior : Assessing the construct validity and distinctiveness of domains Pascal PAILLÉ Olivier BOIRAL

Version originale : Original manuscript: Version original:

ISBN – 978-2-89524-371-7

Série électronique mise à jour : On-line publication updated : Seria electrónica, puesta al dia

07-2012

ORGANIZATIONAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR: ASSESSING THE CONSTRUCT VALIDITY AND DISTINCTIVENESS OF DOMAINS

Pascal Paillé, Dr. Professeur titulaire / Full professor

Olivier Boiral, PhD

Professeur titulaire / Full professor

Département de management / Department of management Pavillon Palasis-Prince

Université Laval / University Laval 2325 rue de la Terrasse

Québec, QC., CANADA G1V 0A6

Abstract Although the importance of organizational citizenship behavior for the environment (OCBE) has been highlighted in the literature, the nature, scope and distinctiveness of voluntary environmental behavior remains unclear. The objective of this paper is to assess the construct validity and distinctiveness of organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) and OCBE. Two independent studies were conducted. Study 1 provides evidence for the validity of the three-factor model of OCBE, namely eco-helping, eco-civic engagement, and eco-initiatives. Study 2 provides support for the distinctiveness of OCBE, consisting of eco-helping, eco-civic engagement and eco-initiatives, and OCB, consisting of helping, civic virtue and sportsmanship. Keywords: organizational citizenship behavior for the environment, organizational citizenship behavior, distinctiveness.

3

Introduction The importance of employee involvement for promoting corporate greening is well documented (Chinander, 2001; De Bruijn and Hofman, 2000; Govindarajulu and Daily, 2004). Employee involvement has been associated with pollution prevention, more efficient environmental management systems, improvements in environmental performance, green innovations, etc. (De Bruijn and Hofman, 2000; Walley and Stubbs 2000; Daily et al. 2009; Andersson and Bateman 2000; Ramus 2001; Ramus and Killmer 2007; Boiral, 2005). However, the specific nature of employee involvement remains unclear. What type of pro-environmental behaviors can employees adopt in organizations? Are these behaviors specific to environmental issues or are they dependent on other types of employee involvement? To what extent are pro-environmental behaviors voluntary or prescribed? Although these are important questions for understanding the role of employee involvement in corporate greening, they have been largely overlooked in the literature. The study of extra-role behaviors that promote corporate greening has recently emerged as a possible driver of environmental performance (Daily et al., 2009; Ramus and Killmer, 2007; Boiral, 2009). Extra efforts in this area are defined as organizational citizenship behavior for the environment (OCBE). Daily, Govindarajulu and Bishop (2009) argued that “organizations can use the workforce for green initiatives, perhaps in ways they had not considered, through the awareness and promotion of OCBEs” (p. 252). OCBEs appear to be one of the most appropriate employee behaviors for supporting environmental performance (Daily et al., 2009; Ramus and Killmer, 2007; Boiral, 2009). However, despite the apparent importance of voluntary behaviours for promoting the environment, little attention has been given to defining and measuring OCBEs. Since the scope and definition of OCBEs clearly derive from OCB, it seems important to explore the extent to which the two concepts are distinct constructs. First, it is now recognized that citizenship in the workplace can take different forms (more than 40 according to Organ, Podsakoff and MacKenzie, 2006) and can be directed toward different beneficiaries (e.g. the organisation, colleagues, peers, supervisors, customers, etc.). Previous studies have shown the distinctiveness of different domains (e.g. organization and service customer: Ma and Qu, 2011) and the added value of including the different foci of OCB within the same model for examining organizational performance. Second, the concept of OCB has become a major area of research and has been the object of many studies that have focused on its motivations, scope and impact (Podsakoff and MacKenzie, 1994; Organ et al., 2006; Bateman & Organ, 1983; Organ, 1988). However, to assume that these studies improve our understanding of OCBE is to assume that the concept of OCBE is not distinctive and can be seen as a mere extension of OCB. Third, previous studies have provided a better understanding of the extent to which an employee is willing to make extra efforts, i.e. to engage in voluntary behavior (e.g. Becker, 1992; Bishop, Scott, and Burroughs, 2000; Ma and Qu, 2011). These findings are consistent with the results of a study by Schaninger and Turnipseed (2005). Based on a multi-foci social exchange perspective, Schaninger and Turnipseed provided evidence of the additive rather than compensatory effect of the three main levels of analysis (organization, supervisor, peers) and concluded that “more is better” for promoting employee performance. A vast literature on the drivers and implications of OCBs has emerged in recent years.

4

By examining whether OCBEs can be considered an extension of OCBs or a distinctive construct, we will be able to clarify the extent to which the vast literature on OCBs can help to improve our understanding of voluntary initiatives for corporate greening. To assess whether OCBE and OCB are distinct constructs, it is important first to establish the validity of OCBE measurement scales. The objective of this study was to examine the validity of OCBE measurement scales and to assess their distinctiveness from traditional OCB measurement scales. Two studies were conducted. The paper begins with an overview of the concepts of OCB and OCBE before presenting the method and the results. Finally, the findings are discussed in relation to the relevant literature on OCB and OCBE.

From Organizational Citizenship Behavior to Organizational Greening Organizational citizenship behavior OCB refers to “discretionary individual conduct, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal system of compensation contributing to the general good functioning of the organization that does not arise from the prescribed role or tasks of the job, in other words, the specific terms of a contract between employees and organizations; this behaviour arises rather from personal choices, such that its omission is not generally understood as punishable” (Organ, 1988, p. 4). Since the earliest study by Organ and his colleagues, the definition of OCB has been further refined and developed. Early research focused on altruism and conscientiousness (Smith, Organ & Near, 1983). According to Smith et al. (1983) altruism is the act of “helping a specific person in face-to-face situations (e.g. assisting someone with a heavy workload)” (p. 657), while conscientiousness refers to “something akin to compliance with internalized norms defining what a ‘good employee ought to do’” (p. 657). Later studies (e.g. Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990) introduced civic virtue and sportsmanship as additional forms of OCB. Civic virtue refers to behavior that promotes the image of the organization, its reputation, its profile, etc. Civic virtue also relates to an employee’s willingness to participate to varying degrees and in different ways in the governance of the firm. Finally, sportsmanship is defined by Organ (1990) as the “willingness of the employee to tolerate less than ideal circumstances without complaining”. Podsakoff and MacKenzie (1994) recommended dropping conscientiousness. Their results show that managers see conscientiousness as something that is expected in the workplace and therefore not a form of discretionary behavior. Research on OCB requires a consideration of these adjustments. More recently, while some authors have continued to use the original forms of OCB (e.g. Cohen, 2006; Schappe, 1998), research based on Organ’s model generally examines citizenship behavior in the workplace based on three specific behaviors: helping others, sportsmanship and civic virtue. Employees may demonstrate their willingness to cooperate in the workplace by making extra efforts toward the organization in the form of civic virtue and sportsmanship, and toward its members in the form of helping. According to Organ (1990), extra efforts are vital for organizations. Because OCBs “lubricate the social machinery of the organization” (Smith, Organ and Near, 1983, p. 654) and foster the “social and psychological context that supports task performance” (Organ, 1997, p. 91), these behaviors enhance performance by “reducing friction, and/or increasing efficiency” (Podsakoff and MacKenzie, 1997, p. 135).

5

OCBs contribute to promoting good working conditions and quality relationships among employees (peers and supervisor) within the workplace. Podsakoff and MacKenzie (1997) provided many examples to illustrate how these forms of OCB contribute to enhancing organisational effectiveness. Following Podsakoff and MacKenzie, while helping others enhances effectiveness by promoting best practices, civic virtue contributes to ensuring effectiveness by attracting the best employees, and finally sportsmanship promotes effectiveness by fostering a sense of loyalty. The different forms of OCB (helping others, civic virtue and sportsmanship) contribute to promoting organizational effectiveness in different ways. Because these extra efforts enhance organizational performance even if OCBs are not rewarded by the employer, a great deal of effort has been made to understand why employees are willing to go the extra mile. In their literature review, Lavelle, Rupp and Brockner, (2007) reported that justice (i.e. distributive, interactional and procedural justice), organizational support and trust, identification and commitment reflect drivers of OCB for each level of analysis (i.e. organization, supervisor and peers). Surprisingly, although the mainstream literature has explored various types of extra efforts and their application in various areas, environmental issues have only recently been considered as an application of OCBs. Forms of voluntary pro-environmental behavior Employees may engage in voluntary pro-environmental behavior in various ways. For example, they may develop, suggest and share innovative ideas or practices or perform discrete actions in the workplace that contribute to improving environmental performance. Most environmental programs generally assume some kind of voluntary employee involvement. For example, programs for reducing and recycling residual materials cannot be implemented without the active participation of the employees who are in contact with these materials in their daily activities. A number of studies have shown that this type of prevention initiative generally improves both environmental performance and competitiveness (Porter and van der Linde, 1995; Christmann, 2000; Ambec and Lanoie, 2008; Boiral, 2005). Initiatives for the environment within the workplace cannot be reduced to repetitive behaviors. Employees can also play an important part in the development of environmental innovations within the workplace (Fernández et al., 2003; Branzei et al., 2004; Hart, 1995; Daily et al., 2009; Walley and Stubbs, 2000). For example, because of their proximity to production processes, employees are able to share critical information about the emission of toxic substances or materials and to offer practical solutions that are often less expensive than the implementation of end-of-pipe technologies (Hart, 1995; Boiral, 2002). This type of initiative within the workplace often has an impact that goes beyond environmental issues stricto sensu. Employees are generally key players in the development of lean and green practices that help improve both production operations and environmental performance (Florida, 1996; Roy et al., 2001; Rothenberg and Maxwell, 2001). Environmental actions such as waste reduction are thus closely related to lean production and quality management, which are also largely dependent on employee initiatives (Kitazawa and Sarkis, 2000; King and Lenox, 2001). The different forms of pro-environmental behaviour exhibited by employees may be based on OCBEs. However, whether employees take pro-environmental initiatives on a voluntary or mandatory basis remains largely unexplored. As a result, pro-environmental initiative has generally been viewed as one of the success factors underlying various practices or objectives such as ISO 14001 certification, pollution prevention, industrial ecology, waste reduction, the protection of biodiversity, etc. Pro-environmental behavior is rarely an object of research in itself.

6

As noted by Daily et al. (2009), very few studies have examined voluntary environmental initiatives at an individual level. In the literature, the concept of employee involvement is mostly embedded in formal structures and practices at an organizational level, such as the implementation of environmental management systems and the promotion of green initiatives. Bottom-up employee-driven environmental initiatives appear to a large extent to be subordinate to formal structures, policies and reward systems rather than being undertaken on a voluntary and discretionary basis. The development of environmental management systems such as ISO 14001 has clearly contributed to promoting intra-role behaviors related to environmental concerns. The principle of “we say what we do, we do what we say” at the heart of the ISO certification process is assumed to reinforce environmental procedures and to turn voluntary green initiatives into more prescribed and less discretionary behavior. An increasing number of organizations have begun to implement environmental policies, objectives and programs (Jiang and Bansal, 2003; Kitazawa and Sarkis, 2000; Christmann and Taylor, 2006; Boiral, 2007). As a result, eco-initiatives often appear to be an integral part of the most widely studied environmental programs and management systems (Yin and Schmeidler, 2009). However, organizational statements on environmental issues are not necessarily in line with workplace practices. For example, the ISO 14001 environmental management standard is not necessarily well integrated in organizations and employees are only able to pay lip-service to this environmental management system (Christmann and Taylor, 2006; Boiral, 2007). Conversely, a range of employee environmental initiatives may be taken without the implementation of formal programs, policies or statements in this area. Eco-initiatives as a form of prosocial organizational behavior? Innovative and spontaneous behaviors beyond the requirements of the job were identified by Katz (1964) as one of three essential types of behavior for a functioning organization (the two others being the willingness to enter and remain in a given organization and enjoyment of the job). With the rise of environmental concerns within the workplace, this idea has been used to explain how employees agree to engage in discretionary (voluntary) behavior that improves the organization by engaging in innovative and spontaneous pro-environmental behaviors. Voluntary extra efforts are now recognized as important behaviors (Ramus and Killmer, 2007). Employees can engage in voluntary pro-environmental behaviors in different ways. For example, they may develop, suggest and share innovative ideas or practices or engage in spontaneous discrete behavior that contributes to improving environmental performance. Discrete, innovative and spontaneous actions are linked to different frameworks, such as prosocial organizational behavior (POB) and OCB (Organ et al., 2006). Both POB and OCB have been used in the field of environmental management to analyze employee extra-role behavior aimed at promoting corporate greening (Boiral, 2009; Boiral and Paillé, 2012; Daily et al., 2009; Ramus, 2002; Ramus and Killmer, 2007; Ramus and Steger, 2000). OCBs are often a form of POB (Turnipseed and Bacon, 2009). Therefore, the POB framework is more encompassing than the OCB framework for describing extra efforts in the area of corporate greening. Before briefly presenting the concepts of POB and OCB, one final point needs to be made. Ramus (Ramus, 2002; Ramus 2001; Ramus and Steger, 2000) used the work of Amabile et al. (1996) to describe eco-innovative behavior as creative ideas. Based on Moon, Van Dyne and Wrobel (2005), innovative suggestions refer to quality and novelty, while OCB refers to frequency actions.

7

As such, innovation and citizenship are distinct but related behaviors. By applying the suggestions made by Moon et al. (2005) to the environmental domain, it seems reasonable to posit the same distinction between eco-innovative behaviors and OCBEs. Prosocial organizational behavior (POB) refers to “positive social acts carried out to produce and maintain the well-being and integrity of others” (Brief and Motowidlo, 1986, p. 710). Both POB and OCB have been used in the field of environmental management research to analyze extra-role behavior in the field of corporate greening (Boiral, 2009; Boiral and Paillé, 2012; Daily et al., 2009; Ramus, 2002; Ramus and Killmer, 2007; Ramus and Steger, 2000). The POB framework was mainly used by Ramus and Killmer (2007) to analyze employee willingness to engage in eco-innovative behavior. The POB framework reflects the broad range of actions taken by an employee to go beyond the job requirements (Brief and Motowidlo, 1986). Brief and Motowidlo (1986) identified 13 types of prosocial behavior. These behaviors are related to specific foci. While some are located within the workplace, such as colleagues, the job or the organization, others are located outside the workplace, such as customers. Prosocial behaviors can be directed toward different foci to prevent or resolve a given concern. Ramus and Killmer (2007) suggested “that corporate greening behaviours are best conceived of as a special type of prosocial organizational behaviour” (p. 555). According to Ramus and Killmer, corporate greening can be seen as a form of prosocial behavior since it contributes to improving the welfare of individuals and organizations. Like other forms of prosocial behavior, corporate greening initiatives also tend to create value by reducing pollution costs, reducing resource consumption, improving corporate image, etc. Corporate greening also extends beyond organizational boundaries and the roles prescribed or rewarded within the organization. From this perspective, prosocial behavior toward the environment can be seen as value-creating extra roles that should be encouraged by organizations. These kinds of extra efforts are sometimes labelled eco-initiatives (Ramus and Steger, 2000; Ramus and Killmer, 2007; Boiral, 2009). In an early paper, Ramus and Steger (2000, p. 606) suggested defining eco-initiatives as a proxy for eco-innovation, where eco-initiatives are defined as “any action taken by an employee that she or he thought would improve the environmental performance of the company”. Ramus and Steger provided a number of examples to illustrate this definition, such as recycling, pollution prevention, reducing the need for hazardous waste disposal, improving ecological efficiency, etc. According to Ramus (2002), eco-innovation can improve the environmental performance of the organization in three different ways: by decreasing its environmental impact, by solving environmental problems and by developing a more eco-efficient product or service. Ramus and her colleagues (Ramus and Killmer, 2007; Ramus and Steger, 2000; Ramus, 2002; Ramus 2001) identified a set of variables that encourage employees to engage in eco-innovative behavior. The role of the supervisor was highlighted as an important factor for encouraging employees to be eco-innovative. More recently, by adding social norm, personal predisposition, and self-efficacy alongside the recognized role of the supervisor, Ramus and Killmer (2007) described eco-initiatives as a function of the complex combination of these variables. Although analyzing eco-initiatives as a form of POB has helped to shed light on the voluntary and social dimensions of corporate greening, the POB conceptual framework is still relatively vague. First, the concept of POB remains relatively elastic and general. OCBs are often defined as one form of POB among others (Turnipseed and Bacon, 2009).

8

As noted by Borman and Motowidlo (1997, p. 100), “POB can be either role-prescribed or extra-role, whereas OCB by definition is extra-role”. In this sense, the POB framework is less specific than the OCB framework and does not necessarily focus on extra efforts aimed at promoting corporate greening. Second, the nature and specific characteristics of prosocial behavior toward the environment remain unclear. If it is assumed that POB encompasses both extra-role and role-prescribed behavior, almost all forms of employee involvement for the environment can be considered as a form of POB. In the absence of examples to illustrate the scope of POB for the environment and its various facets, the concept will remain relatively general and monolithic. Third, because of the absence of scales for measuring POB for the environment, the concept is difficult to operationalize. Organisational citizenship behavior for the environment Recent studies have used the OCB framework to explain employee willingness to engage in discretionary pro-environmental behaviors toward the environment (Daily et al., 2009; Boiral, 2009). Daily et al. (2009) developed a conceptual model to identify the determinants that enhance environmental performance through OCBE. Based on the definition of OCB provided by Organ and his colleagues (Organ, 1988) OCBEs are defined as “discretionary acts by employees within the organization not rewarded or required that are directed toward environmental improvement” (Daily et al., 2009, p. 246). Interestingly, the authors suggested linking OCBEs with various plausible determinants and effects. Using the social exchange framework, the authors developed a theoretical model in which a specific set of determinants (i.e. supervisor support, environmental concern, perceived corporate social performance, and organizational commitment) are considered to enhance environmental performance via OCBEs. However, in the conceptual work of Daily et al. (2009), the specific ways in which OCBEs improve environmental performance and the reasons why these behaviors should be encouraged by managers remain unclear. In addition, Daily et al. (2009) used the concept of OCBE as a whole. However, OCB is a generic concept that operates at various levels: making constructive suggestions, job commitment, civic virtue, etc. Given the diversity of environmental initiatives (Ramus, 2001; Anderson and Bateman, 2000; Boiral, 2009) and the eclectic nature of OCBs (Organ et al., 2006), it seems inaccurate to view OCBE as a monolithic concept. Boiral (2009) provided a conceptual bridge between OCB and corporate greening by describing the main dimensions of OCBs and their possible environmental application. OCBEs may be based on helping, sportsmanship, organizational loyalty, individual initiative and self-development. These potential applications of OCBs can be illustrated by examples showing the diversity of voluntary pro-environmental behavior and how people can contribute to corporate greening at their own level. Based on Boiral (2009), we may assume that OCBEs are necessary for promoting the implementation of formal management systems (e.g. ISO 14000), for facilitating employee willingness to share tacit knowledge, and for fostering support in the search for innovative actions or solutions related to ecological or environmental issues in the workplace. Despite the efforts to describe and define OCBE, little attention has been given to developing an appropriate measurement. Measures of OCBE were recently developed based on factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis in order to address this issue (Boiral and Paillé, 2012). Three easily interpretable dimensions were explored and validated: eco-helping, eco-civic engagement, and eco-initiatives.

9

Eco-helping reflects a voluntary willingness to help colleagues better integrate environmental concerns in the workplace. Eco-civic engagement relates to voluntary participation in the environmental programs and activities of the organization. Finally, eco-initiatives are a form of discretionary behavior and involve suggestions for improving environmental practices and performance. The results showed that actions reflecting eco-initiative can take different forms directed toward colleagues, the organization and the job. These measurements can be used to collect data to investigate how OCBEs are related to the plausible antecedents and outcomes discussed by Daily and her colleagues. In addition, as hypothesized by Boiral (2009), it is now clear that OCBEs can take a variety of forms. However, because OCBEs derive from OCBs, additional data are needed to determine whether these constructs overlap or are independent. Daily et al. (2009) called for future research to investigate how OCB and OCBE are related. Although assessing the distinctiveness of OCB and OCBE is an important issue, Daily et al. (2009) provided no clear guidance about how to do so. Although OCB and OCBE relate to different topics, both forms of behavior are grounded in the same framework. How different are OCBE and OCB? Are OCBE and OCB distinct or overlapping constructs? This study aims to provide answers to these questions in order to clarify the nature and scope of OCBEs. First, we predict that helping, civic virtue, and sportsmanship and second that eco-helping, eco-civic engagement, and eco-initiatives will emerge as the main factors of OCB and OCBE, respectively. We also predict that the six components will be distinguishable across foci and that these components will not overlap. Two independent studies were conducted. Since the measurements of OCBE are relatively new tools, it is important to confirm the psychometric properties identified by Boiral and Paillé (2012). Study 1 was designed to replicate the confirmatory factor analysis performed by Boiral and Paillé (2012), while the purpose of study 2 was to assess the distinctiveness of OCB and OCBE. Method Samples and participants Before contacting professional associations, a set of ethical guidelines was obtained from the University’s Human Research Ethics Committee. The set of ethical guidelines included three main documents. The first document was an invitation to participate explaining the overall objectives of the study. The second document was a consent form summarizing the ethical guidelines of the study. The third document was an information sheet designed to ensure that participation was voluntary, to indicate that the participants were free to withdraw at any time, and to emphasize that the responses were anonymous (Because of this last requirement, the authors were unable to use a longitudinal design to collect data). For study 1 and study 2, the data were collected with the help of a professional association. In both studies, participants were selected by the representative of each relevant association. The representative forwarded the set of ethical guidelines and the questionnaire to the selected members. Study 1 – Survey questionnaires were sent to a random sample of 500 members of an MBA association, who were all alumni of a large Canadian university. Of these, 139 responses were returned, for a response rate of 27.8%.

10

After reading the invitation to participate (which presented the overall objectives of the study) and the consent form (which summarized the ethical guidelines), 4 individuals withdrew from the study. The final sample included 135 participants.

Study 2 – Survey questionnaires were sent to 1,000 registered counsellors randomly selected from the membership of the association of Counsellors of Quebec. Of these, 277 responses were returned, for a response rate of 27.7%. After reading the invitation to participate (which presented the overall objectives of the study) and the consent form (which summarized the ethical guidelines), all of the individuals agreed to participate in the study. The characteristics of the two samples are shown in table 1.

Table 1 - Characteristics of the samples (study 1, N = 135; study 2, N = 277) Sample Study 1 Study 2 Gender

Women

22.7 %

82.1 %

Men

77.3 % 17.9 %

Age (years) < 30 4.1 % 14.2 % 30 to 40 23.3 % 44.9 % 40 to 50 35.5 % 22.7 % 50 to 60

41.1 % 18.2 %

Job tenure (years) < 5 2.6 % 21.8 % 5 to 10 5.3 % 21.4 % 10 to 15 10.5 % 24.9 % 15 to 20 14.5 % 13.1 % 20 to 25 19.7 % 10.0 % Over 25

47.4 % 8.7 %

Organization size (number of employees) < 10 14.3 % 7.4 % 10 to 50 14.3 % 26.2 % 50 to 250 14.3 % 21.0 % 250 to 500 5.2 % 6.1 % Over 500

51.9 %

39.3 %

Measurements While OCBE measurements were used in both study 1 and study 2, OCB measurements were only used in study 2. Because the study was conducted in a French-language context, the procedure recommended by Brislin (1980) was followed. The measurement scales were subjected to a process of double translation (English to French and French to English). OCBs were measured using the three scales developed by Podsakoff and MacKenzie (1994). The first scale measures helping behavior (6 items) and includes the following items: I am willing to give time to help other agents who have work-related problems; I am willing to take time out to help with recruiting or training new agents; I take steps to try to prevent problems with other

11

agents and/or other personnel in the agency; I ‘touch base’ with others before initiating actions that might affect them; I act as a peacemaker when others in the agency have disagreements; and I am a stabilizing influence in the agency when dissension occurs. The second scale measures civic virtue (3 items) and includes the following items: I attend functions that are not required but help the company image; I attend information sessions that agents are encouraged but not required to attend; and I attend and actively participate in agency meetings. Finally, the third scale measures sportsmanship (4 items: scores reversed) and includes the following items: I consume a lot of time complaining about trivial matters; I always find fault with what the company is doing; I tend to make ‘mountains out of molehills;’ and I always focus on what is wrong with my situation rather than the positive side of it. OCBEs were measured using the three scales developed by Boiral and Paillé (2012). The first scale measures eco-initiatives (3 items) and includes the following items: In my work, I weigh the consequences of my actions before doing something that could affect the environment; I voluntarily carry out environmental actions and initiatives in my daily work activities; I make suggestions to my colleagues about ways to protect the environment more effectively, even when it is not my direct responsibility. The second scale measures eco-civic engagement (4 items) and includes the following items: I actively participate in environmental events organized in and/or by my company; I stay informed of my company’s environmental initiatives; I undertake environmental actions that contribute positively to the image of my organization; I volunteer for projects, endeavours or events that address environmental issues in my organization. The third scale measures Eco-helping (3 items) and includes the following items: I spontaneously give my time to help my colleagues take the environment into account in everything they do at work; I encourage my colleagues to adopt more environmentally conscious behavior; and I encourage my colleagues to express their ideas and opinions on environmental issues. Finally, the list of items was presented to the respondents in random order to avoid the halo effect. The respondents indicated the extent to which they agreed with each item based on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (completely disagree) to 5 (completely agree). Analyses The objectives were first to confirm the three factor-solution for OCBE given by Boiral and Paillé (2012) (study 1) and second to determine whether OCB and OCBE are distinct constructs (study 2). Using the variance-covariance matrix as input, confirmatory factor analyses were conducted to assess the hypothesized model of OCBE consisting of eco-helping, eco-civic engagement, and eco-initiatives (study 1) and to determine whether a six-factor solution consisting of helping, civic virtue, and sportsmanship and eco-helping, eco-civic engagement, and eco-initiatives provides the best fit to the data (study 2). AMOS was used in the analyses. The Chi-square statistic was used to interpret the data. The lowest value reflects the best fit of the data. Several indices were also calculated. The Comparative-Fit-Index (CFI) and the Non-Normed-Fit-Index (NNFI), the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), and the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) were used. For the CFI and NNFI, values above .95 are considered good (Hu and Bentler, 1995).

12

For the RMSEA, although values between .05 and .08 are acceptable (Schermelleh-Engel, Moosbrugger, and Müller, 2003), some authors have recommended values below .05 (Brown and Cudeck, 1993). Finally, for the AIC, small values are expected (Hu and Bentler, 1995). To assess discriminant validity and internal consistency, we calculated for each construct the composite reliability or CR (which estimates the extent to which a set of latent construct indicators share in their measurement of a construct), the average variance extracted or AVE (which is the proportion of the total variance due to the latent variable), and Jöreskog’s ρ. Hair, Anderson, Tatham and Black (1998) recommended threshold values for CR and AVE above 0.70 and 0.50, respectively, while Fornell and Larker (1981) recommended that Jöreskog’s ρ should be above the 0.70 threshold. Although we recognize that the use of self-rating may inflate the scores and cause a response bias, for study 1 and study, 2 the data were collected using self-rating. The source of measurement is a controversial issue in the OCB literature. Organ and Ryan (1995) argued that supervisor-rating contributes to prevent bias due to common method variance. However, it has been said that supervisors have an imprecise knowledge of how their subordinates perform OCBs (e.g., Cropanzano, Howes, Grandey and Toth, 1997). More recently, based on a test aimed at examining the equivalence of rating sources in the assessment of OCB, Vandenberg, Lance and Taylor (2005) concluded that the use of supervisor-rating “should not be so hastily adopted (p. 134)” and that it is “inappropriate to claim self-raters are the best rating source (p. 135).” The choice of rating source appears to be more closely linked to the object examined by the investigator than to any potential bias that could be attributed to the rating source. Therefore, while the use of supervisor-rating is justified if the objective of a study is to examine supervisor-subordinate relationships, the use of self-rating is justified if the objective of a study is to investigate how an employee makes efforts in an activity related to their job. To avoid common method variance (CMV) bias, the single-common-method-factor approach recommended by Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee and Podsakoff (2003) was used. Following Podsakoff et al. (2003), this approach is appropriate when the investigation combines one source of rating, different contexts and an unidentified source of method bias. The widely used single-common-method-factor approach involves the inclusion of a common factor (latent variable) in the measurement model. Consistent with Marler, Fisher and Ke (2009), items were loaded on their theoretical constructs as well as on a created latent method factor, and the significance of the structural parameters was then examined both with and without this latent factor. Results Controlling for common method variance (study 1 and study 2) The first step for both studies was to control for CMV. In study 1, the measurement model with method factor fit the data well [χ²(31, N = 135) = 109.57; p < 0.000; CFI = 0.94; NNFI = 0.92; RMSEA = 0.14]. However, the measurement model (i.e. the three-factor model) provided a better fit than the measurement model with method factor. This was shown by the results of the Chi-square difference test [χ²diff (6) = 57.99, p = .001] and the value of the AIC reported in table 2.

13

In study 2, the measurement model with method factor fit the data well, χ²(165, N = 228) = 227.25; p < 0.000; CFI = 0.97; NNFI = 0.96; RMSEA = 0.04. However, despite this good fit, the Chi-square difference test [χ²diff (8) = 10.07, ns] and the AIC shown in table 3 indicate that the measurement model consisting of six factors provides a better fit than the measurement model with method factor. Therefore, we conclude that common method variance bias was not a serious threat in either study 1 or study 2. Confirmatory factor analysis (study 1) Table 2 shows the composite reliability (or CR, which estimates the extent to which a set of latent construct indicators share in their measurement of a construct), the average variance extracted (or AVE, which is the proportion of the total variance due to the latent variable) and Jöreskog’s ρ for each construct. Hair, Anderson, Tatham and Black (1998) recommend threshold values for CR and AVE above 0.70 and 0.50, respectively. Fornell and Larker (1981) recommend that Jöreskog’s ρ should be above the 0.70 threshold. Following Fornell and Larker (1981) and Hair et al. (1998), since Jöreskog’s ρ ranged from .81 to .95, CR ranged from .81 to .94, and AVE ranged from .61 to .86, the internal consistency of the constructs was satisfactory. Discriminant validity was assessed by comparing for each pair of constructs the average of their respective AVE and their shared variance. Table 1 shows the pairwise correlations between the constructs. One pairwise correlation (between eco-initiatives and eco-civic engagement) is near the recommended cut-off value of .80 (Farrar and Glauber, 1967). However, following Fornell and Larker (1981), if for two given constructs the average AVE is higher than the shared variance, the discriminant validity of the two constructs is evidenced. Based on the data reported in table 3, we may conclude that the discriminant validity of each pair of constructs was evidenced.

14

Table 2 - Descriptive statistics and pairwise correlations (N = 135, study 1) Variables

Factor

loadings

Mean

SD

CR

AVE

α

ρ

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Eco-initiatives 4.39 1.29 .94 .86 .92 .95 - Eco-civic engagement 4.10 1.27 .89 .67 .90 .89 .703 - Eco-helping 4.52 1.29 .81 .61 .92 .81 .637 .640 - Individual indicators

1 Eco-initiatives 1 .922 4.38 1.40 2 Eco-initiatives 2 .943 4.43 1.40 .877 3 Eco-initiatives 3 .819 4.36 1.37 .727 .774 4 Eco-civic engagement 1 .885 3.95 1.43 .788 .802 .678 5 Eco-civic engagement 2 .725 4.80 1.40 .763 .708 .685 .738 6 Eco-civic engagement 3 .827 3.80 1.41 .727 .702 .700 .738 .820 7 Eco-civic engagement 4 .836 3.87 1.51 .732 .787 .650 .668 .599 .649 8 Eco-helping 1 .500 4.58 1.37 .564 .673 .675 .629 .608 .681 .673 9 Eco-helping 2 .848 4.90 1.36 .718 .741 .717 .757 .669 .713 .729 .866 10 Eco-helping 3 .925 4.08 1.44 .753 .775 .733 .838 .785 .811 .680 .731 .784

-

Note. All correlations were significant at p < 0.01. SD, standard deviation. CR, composite reliability. AVE, average variance extracted. α, Cronbach’s alpha. ρ, Jöreskog’s rho

15

Table 3 Discriminant validity results (study 1) Pair of constructs

Correlation r

Shared variance

AVE average

Discriminant

validity

Eco-initiatives vs. Eco-civic engagement

.703**

.494

.765

evidenced

Eco-initiatives vs. Eco-helping .637** .405 .640 evidenced

Eco-helping vs. Eco-civic engagement .640** .410 .735 evidenced

Table 4 shows that the three-factor model provided a better fit to the data than a one-factor model grouping the eco-initiatives, eco-civic engagement and eco-helping items on a single factor (χ2

diff (5) = 30.67, p = 0.01). Likewise, the three-factor model provided a better fit than any of the two-factor models: (a) grouping eco-initiatives and eco-civic engagement on one factor and eco-helping on another (χ2

diff (4) = 26.05, p = 0.01); (b) grouping eco-civic engagement and eco-helping on one factor and eco-initiatives on another (χ2

diff (4) = 26.60, p = 0.01); and (c) grouping eco-initiatives and eco-helping on one factor and eco-civic engagement on another (χ2

diff (4) = 27.13, p = 0.01). The results are similar to those previously reported by Boiral and Paillé (2012) and indicate that the participants distinguished three types of OCBEs: eco-initiatives, eco-civic engagement and eco-helping. Table 4 Comparison of competing models (study 1)

Competing models χ2 df χ2/df RMSEA

CFI NNFI

AIC

Null factor 1434.00 45 31.86 - - - - One factor 82.25 31 2.65 .11 .96 .94 130.25 Two factors (a) 77.63 29 2.67 .11 .96 .94 129.63 Two factors (b) 78.18 29 2.69 .11 .96 .94 130.18 Two factors (c) 78.71 29 2.71 .11 .96 .94 130.71 Three factors (measurement model) 51.58 25 2.06 .08 .98 .96 111.58 Measurement model with method factor 109.57 31 3.53 .14 .94 .92 157.57

Assessing the distinctiveness of OCB and OCBE (study 2) The distinctiveness of the variables included in study 2 (helping behavior, civic virtue, sportsmanship, eco-helping, eco-civic engagement, and eco-initiatives) was tested using a sequence of nested models (Bentler & Bonett, 1980). Twelve models were compared. The results of the comparisons of the models (ranging from the null model to the measurement model with method factor) are shown in Table 5. The six-factor model reflected the hypothesized model. The six-factor model was compared to the null model (implying no correlations between the observed measures), the one-factor model (all items loaded on the same factor), the two-factor model (items of OCB and OCBE loaded on a first and a second factor, respectively). The six-factor model was then compared to the three three-factor, four four-factor, and five-factor models obtained through several combinations (for details, see table 5).

16

Table 5 Results of model comparisons (study 2) Models

χ2

df

χ2/df

CFI

NNFI

RMSEA

AIC

Null model 2463.95** 198 5.87 - - - - One-factor model: all items on one factor. 1109.49** 189 5.87 .59 .54 .14 1193.49 Two-factor model: items of OCB on a first factor and items of OCBE on a second factor.

732.11** 180 4.06 .75 .71 .11 834.11

Three-factor model (a): items of OCB on a first factor, items of Eco-initiatives and Eco-helping on a second factor, and items of Eco-civic engagement on a third factor.

706.08** 177 3.98 .76 .72 .11 814.08

Three-factor model (b): items of OCB on a first factor, items of Eco-civic engagement and Eco-helping on a second factor, and items of Eco-initiatives on a third factor.

639.76** 177 3.61 .79 .75 .10 747.76

Three-factor model (c): items of OCB on a first factor, items of Eco-civic engagement and Eco-initiatives on a second factor, and items of Eco-helping on a third factor.

611.47** 177 3.45 .80 .77 .10 719.47

Four-factor model (a): items of sportsmanship and civic virtue on a first factor, items of helping on a second factor, items of Eco-civic engagement and Eco-initiatives on a third factor, and items of Eco-helping on a fourth factor

468.62** 176 2.76 .86 .83 .08 596.62

Four-factor model (b): items of sportsmanship and civic virtue on a first factor, items of helping on a second factor, items of Eco-civic engagement and Eco-helping on a third factor, and items of Eco-initiatives on a fourth factor.

511.25** 176 2.90 .85 .82 .09 621.25

Four-factor model (c): items of sportsmanship and civic virtue on a first factor, items of helping on a second factor, items of Eco-initiative and Eco-helping on a third factor, and items of Eco-civic engagement on a fourth factor.

584.15** 176 3.31 .81 .78 .10 694.15

Four-factor model (d): items of OCBE on a first factor, items of civic virtue on a second factor, items of sportsmanship on a third factor, and items of helping on a fourth factor.

400.53** 176 2.27 .90 .88 .07 510.52

Five-factor model (a): items of helping on a first factor, items of sportsmanship and civic virtue on a second factor, items of Eco-initiative on a third factor, items of Eco-helping on a fourth factor, and items of Eco-civic engagement on a fifth factor.

427.41** 174 2.45 .88 .86 .08 541.41

Six-factor model (hypothesized model) 237.32* 173 1.37 .97 .96 .04 353.32 Measurement model with method factor 227.25* 165 1.37 .97 .96 .04 359.25 Notes: * p < .001, ** p < .000

17

Table 5 shows the fit indices for each model. Except for the measurement model with method factor, only the hypothesized model produced the expected RMSEA, CFI and NNFI values. While the RMSEA was below.05, the CFI and NNFI were above .05. In addition, the hypothesized model provided the smallest value for the AIC. These results indicate that the participants in study 2 distinguished helping behavior, civic virtue, sportsmanship, eco-helping, eco-civic engagement, and eco-initiatives. Discussion The two objectives of this study were to assess the validity of OCBE measurements and to investigate the distinctiveness of OCBE and OCB. Two independent studies were conducted. In the first study, the three main dimensions of OCBE identified by Boiral and Paillé (2012) were replicated by providing good psychometric properties. In the second study, the distinctiveness of OCBE and OCB was clearly demonstrated. Therefore, the study achieved its two objectives. Contributions of the paper First, the study confirmed the three main forms of OCBE identified by Boiral and Paillé (2012). These findings are significant since they provide a more meaningful measurement of OCBE. The three main forms of OCBE are eco-helping, eco-civic engagement, and eco-initiatives. As noted above, these types of behavior are specific pro-environmental behaviors. The data suggest that in order to contribute to organizational greening, employees can engage in OCBEs in three different ways. First, employees can contribute to corporate greening through mutual support among employees (eco-helping) – for example, by explaining environmental procedures to new employees, by helping colleagues to improve environmental knowledge or skills, etc. Second, employees can support the green commitment of the organization (eco-civic engagement) – for example, by participating in green committees, by taking actions that contribute to improving the image of the organization, etc. Third, employees can undertake personal green initiatives in the workplace – for example, by making suggestions for improving energy efficiency, by putting recyclable materials in the appropriate container, etc. These examples illustrate the kinds of pro-environmental behaviors that can be captured based on the proposed measurements. Second, the study also assessed the link between OCBE and OCB. Daily et al. (2009) called for an “examination of possible relationships between OCBE (and OCB)” (p. 252). In the same vein, Boiral (2009) argued that “the relationship between general OCBs and environmental OCBs would also be interesting to study. In particular, such research would help determine whether voluntary environmental initiatives are closely linked to general OCBs and could be considered a special application of general OCBs or whether it is a question of different constructs” (p. 233). This study confirms that forms of OCB that involve helping others, civic virtue and sportsmanship and forms of OCBE consisting of eco-helping, eco-civic engagement, and eco-initiative can be reliably distinguished. This assessment was important since, as noted above, the concept of OCBE clearly derives from the OCB framework. The distinctiveness of OCBEs can be explained by the specificities of environmental behaviors. OCBs such as helping behavior, civic virtue and sportsmanship remain relatively general and unspecific. Therefore, OCBs can apply to a wide range of situations: helping new employees, attending meetings, attending information sessions, etc.

18

Conversely, OCBEs are rooted in specific behaviors that may be less common, such as involvement in a green committee, helping to clean up an accidental spill, suggestions for improving energy efficiency, etc. It seems reasonable to assume that the determinants of these more specific behaviors differ from the determinants of traditional OCBs: the existence of an environmental policy, green leadership, the sector of activity, stakeholder pressures, the emphasis on pollution issues, etc. From this perspective, OCBEs represent a specific area that cannot necessarily be explained based on the extensive literature on OCB. Therefore, we may assume that OCBEs cannot be promoted exclusively through the measures reported in the OCB literature: task feedback, job satisfaction, intellectual stimulation, acceptance of group goals, etc. Similarly, the impact of OCBEs on performance may differ from the effects generally associated with OCB. Finally, the findings contribute to measuring and validating various models based on employee commitment. For example, Daily et al. (2009) developed a conceptual model linking supervisor support, environmental concern, perceived corporate social performance, organizational commitment, OCBEs and environmental performance. The authors suggest that their model requires empirical verification. The positive relationship between OCBE and environmental performance is rooted in the OCB literature. OCBs are recognized as enhancing effectiveness in the workplace. Many empirical studies have provided evidence that support this relationship (Organ et al., 2006). With the exception of OCBEs, all of the variables in the Daily et al. model can be operationalized with an appropriate measurement. In the absence of a reliable measurement of OCBEs, the relationship with environmental performance has remained speculative. Generally speaking, the results of the study suggest avenues for future research: the effects of OCBEs on various aspects of environmental performance (greenhouse gas reduction, pollution prevention, waste control, costs of environmental management, etc.), the determinants of OCBEs (job satisfaction, support from managers, environmental leadership, ISO 14001 certification, etc.), the implications for environmental management (measures to encourage OCBEs, relationships with environmental management systems, role of training programs, etc.). Managerial implications Katz (1964) stated that “the resources of people in innovation, in spontaneous cooperation, in protective and creative behavior are thus vital to organizational survival and effectiveness” (p. 133). ‘Innovation’, ‘spontaneous cooperation’ and ‘creative behaviors’ reflect extra efforts that go beyond the basic job requirements. These extra efforts are based on voluntary and discretionary behaviors that can be directed toward the organization (OCB) and/or the environment (OCBE). Managers cannot require employees to engage in these behaviors. However, by using appropriate practices, they can encourage employees to engage in OCB and/or OCBE. One possible measure for encouraging OCBEs is to implement environmental policies and, more generally, to show the commitment of managers in this area. Although OCBEs are, by definition, based on voluntary and unrewarded actions, environmental leadership and formal policies can send a positive signal to employees and help promote green initiatives. Whatever the task definition and procedures in place, environmental management systems cannot cover all possible initiatives in this area. As a result, the formal implementation of environmental practices can have a positive ripple effect on more informal initiatives such as OCBEs.

19

Environmental training should also have a positive impact on OCBEs by promoting the values and knowledge necessary to promote appropriate initiatives in this area. Although this study showed the distinctiveness of OCBE constructs, it seems reasonable to assume that certain motivations behind OCBs can also have a positive impact on corporate greening. The previous literature on citizenship behavior highlighted the usefulness of the exchange process for fostering employee initiatives. Schaninger and Turnipseed (2005) noted that social exchange implies that employees must give something back to donors (e.g. managers or supervisors) who provide something that the employee finds valuable. Employees value supportive decisions, fair treatment, and so on, while employers value loyalty, organisational citizenship, and job performance. There is strong empirical evidence that employers help build social exchange. When employers provide support (Kahumuza and Schlechter, 2008), treat their employees fairly (Lavelle et al., 2007) or fulfill their psychological contract (Dulac et al., 2008), the willingness of employees to provide what the employer wants tends to increase (Masterson et al., 2000). From a social exchange perspective, managers should take account of the work environment in order to enhance performance through OCB and OCBE. Limitations and future research The first limitation of this study is related to the use of self-reports. Following Vandenberg, Lance and Taylor (2005), the decision to use self-reports depends on the purpose of the study. Although no threat was found after controlling for common method variance using the appropriate procedure, the significant pairwise correlations reported in table 2 may be due to the use of self-reports. Another limitation may be linked to the research design. A cross-sectional design was used in both studies. One final limitation is the specific cultural context in which the study was conducted (Canada). There is significant evidence to suggest that culture influences the relationships between variables. Evidence of this has been found for OCB (Paillé, 2009). Therefore, any generalization of the results of this study to non-Western countries should be viewed with caution. Future research should take into account the limitations of previous research. Two possible directions for future research would be to explore the impact of the multiple foci of organizational citizenship behavior toward the organization and the environment on overall performance, and second, to identify their determinants. First, consistent with Schaninger and Turnipseed (2005), who suggested that “more is better”, future research should take into account OCBE and OCB together in order to gain a better understanding of organizational performance. Second, future research could explore determinants related to OCB and OCBE when these two domains are taken into account together. For example, while the existing literature provides evidence of a positive relationship between employee commitment and OCB (Tepper et al., 2004), assumptions have been made about a positive relationship with OCBE (Dailey et al., 2009).

20

References Ambec, S. & Lanoie, P. (2000). Does It Pay to Be Green? A Systematic Overview. Academy of Management Perspectives, 22, 4, 45–62. Andersson, L. & Bateman, T. (2000). Individual Environmental Initiative: Championing Natural Environmental Issues in U.S. Business Organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 4, 548-570. Boiral, O. & Paillé, P. (2012). Organizational Citizenship Behaviour for the Environment: Measurement and Validation. Journal of Business Ethics, available online at: http://www.springerlink.com/content/8144372443571185/ Boiral, O. (2002). Tacit Knowledge and Environmental Management. Long Range Planning, 35, 3, 291-317. Boiral, O. (2005). The Impact of Operator Involvement in Pollution Reduction: Case Studies in Canadian Chemical Companies. Business Strategy and the Environment, 14, 6, 339-360. Boiral, O. (2007). Corporate Greening through ISO 14001: A Rational Myth? Organization Science, 18, 1, 127–146. Boiral, O. (2009). Greening the Corporation through Organizational Citizenship Behaviors. Journal of Business Ethics, 87, 2, 221-236. Borman, W.C. & Motowildo, S.J. (1997). Task Performance and Contextual Performance: The Meaning for Personnel Selection Research. Human Performance, 10, 2, 99-109. Branzei, O., Ursacki-Bryant, T.J. Vertinzky I. & Zhang, W. (2004). The Formation of Green Strategies in Chinese Firms: Matching Corporate Environmental Responses and Individual Principles. Strategic management Journal, 25, 1075-1095. Christmann, P. (2000). Effects of “Best Practices” of Environmental Management on Cost Advantage: The Role of Complementary Assets. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 4, 663-680 Christmann, P. & Taylor, G. (2006). Firm Self-Regulation through International Certifiable Standards: Determinants of Symbolic Versus Substantive Implementation. Journal of International Business Studies, 37, 863–878. Cropanzano, R., Howes, J. C., Grandey, A. A., & Toth, P. (1997). The relationship of organizational politics and support to work behaviors, attitudes, and stress. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 159-180.

21

Daily, B.F., Bishop J.W. & Govindarajulu, N. (2009). A Conceptual Model for Organizational Citizenship Behavior Directed Toward the Environment. Business & Society, 48, 2, 243-256. Dunlap, R., Van Liere, K. Mertig, A. & Jones, R. (2000). Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 3, 425–442. Fernández, E., Junquera B., & Ordiz, M. (2003). Organizational Culture and Human Resources in the Environmental Issue: a Review of the Literature. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14, 4, 634-656. Florida, R. (1996). Lean and Green: The Move to Environmentally Conscious Manufacturing. California Management Review, 39, 1, 80-105. Govindarajulu, N. & Daily, B. F. (2004). Motivating employees for environmental improvement. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 104, 4, 364-372 Hart, S. (1995). A Natural-Resource-Based View of the Firm. Academy of Management Review, 20, 4, 986-1014. Jiang, R.J. & Bansal, P. (2003). Seeing the Need for ISO 14001. Journal of Management Studies, 40, 4, 1047–1067. King, A. & Lenox, M. (2001). Does It Really Pay to Be Green? An Empirical Study of Firm Environmental and Financial Performance. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 5, 1, 105-116. Kitazawa, S. & Sarkis, J. (2000). The Relationship Between ISO 14001 and Continuous Source Reduction Programs. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 20, 2, 225-248. Organ, D., & Ryan, K. (1995). A Meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behaviour. Personnel Psychology, 48, 775-802. Porter, M., & van der Linde, C. (1995). Green and Competitive: Ending the Stalemate. Harvard Business Review, 73, 5, 120–134. Ramus, C. A. (2001). Organizing Support for Employees: Encouraging Creative Ideas for Environmental Sustainability. California Management Review, 43, 3, 85-103. Ramus, C. A. & Killmer, A. B. (2007). Corporate Greening through Prosocial Extrarole Behaviours – A Conceptual Framework for Employee Motivation. Business Strategy and the Environment, 16, 8, 554-570. Rothenberg, S. & Maxwell, J. (2001). Lean, Green, and the Quest for Superior Environmental Performance. Production and Operations Management, 10, 3, 228-243.

22

Roy, M.J., Boiral, O. & Lagacé, D. (2001). Environmental Commitment and Manufactu-ring Excellence: A Comparative Study Within Canadian Industry. Business Strategy and the Environment, 10, 5, 257-268. Stinglhambler, F., de Cremer, D. & Mercken, L. (2006). Perceived support as a mediator of the relationship between justice and trust. Group and Organization Management, 31, 4, 442–468. Vandenberg, R., Lance, C., & Taylor, S. (2005). A latent variable approach to rating source of equivalence: Who should provide ratings on organizational citizenship behavior dimensions? In D. L. Turnipseed (Ed.), Handbook of organizational citizenship behavior: A review of ‘good solder’ activity in organizations (pp. 109–141). New York: Nova Science Publishers. Walley, L. & Stubbs, M. (2000). Termites and Champions: Case Comparisons by Metaphor, Greener Management International, 29, 41-54. Yin, H. & Schmeidler, P.J. (2009). Why Do Standardized ISO 14001 Environmental Management Systems Lead to Heterogeneous Environmental Outcomes? Business Strategy and the Environment, 18, 7, 469-486.