The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/2040-8269.htm
MRR
42,3
332
Received 2 December 2017
Revised 11 March 2018
10 June 2018
25 August 2018
18 September 2018
Accepted 27 September 2018
Management Research Review
Vol. 42 No. 3, 2019
pp. 332-351
© Emerald Publishing Limited
2040-8269
DOI 10.1108/MRR-12-2017-0408
Environmental CSR and
pro-environmental behaviors to
reduce environmental dilapidation
The moderating role of empathy
Talat Islam
Institute of Business Administration, University of the Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan
Ghulam Ali
Department of Commerce, University of Gujrat, Gujrat, Pakistan, and
Humaira Asad
Institute of Business Administration, University of the Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan
Abstract
Purpose – It is evident that organizations are continuously contributing toward environmental dilapidation.
This may be reduced by focusing their employees’ involvement in pro-environmental behaviors. Pro-
environmental behaviors have ramifications for organizations, employees, leaders and natural environment.
Therefore, this study aims at investigating environmental related social responsibility and identification as
the predictors of pro-environmental behaviors through the moderating role of empathy in the hospitality
sector.
Design/methodology/approach – This study collected data from 201 pairs (i.e. supervisors and their
subordinates) working in the hospitality sector.
Findings – The study found that employees with high empathy exhibit more pro-environmental behavior
and organizational identification when perceiving their organization’s involvement in environment-related
social responsibilities.
Research limitations/implications – The data for this study were collected at one point of time and it
has implications for organizations and employees.
Originality/value – This study aims to fill the gap of the underlying mechanism that how perceived CSR
affect employee pro-environmental behavior.
Keywords Organizational identification, Empathy, Business ethics, Social responsibility,
Hotel industry, Pro-environmental behavior, Business ethics and sustainability
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Massive growth of the industrial sector is held responsible for environmental degradation
and fast depletion of natural resources (Robertson and Barling, 2015). Realizing the severity
of the problem, organizations have started taking measures that can help in protecting the
environment. In this regard, the role of the employees of an organization holds a pivotal
place. Besides other measures, corporations have started emphasizing on their employees’
involvement in voluntary pro-environmental behavior (henceforth PEB). Employee’s PEB is
defined as “the behavior that consciously seeks to minimize the negative impact of one’s
actions on the natural and built environment (Kollmuss and Agyeman, 2010, p. 240)”.
Because of environmental concerns, this matter has become an inspiring topic in the field of
organizational behavior since last decade (Krettenauer, 2017; Tian and Robertson, 2017; Environmental
Robertson and Barling, 2015; Norton et al., 2015; Andersson et al., 2013). Studies based on CSR
employee’s PEB have identified its implications for the employees (e.g. satisfaction with
their job and commitment to their organization) and for the employers (e.g. improved
financial performance). However, little has been examined regarding its benefits to protect
the natural environment (Norton et al., 2015; Tian and Robertson, 2017).
Most of the studies have focused on the consequences of employee’s PEB. However, it is
more important to discern the factors that help organizations to promote PEB among their 333
employees to protect the environment (Tian and Robertson, 2017). Therefore, the focus of
this study is to delineate such factors that help in explaining this important phenomenon.
Some studies have shown that organizational support toward environmental concerns,
leader’s preferences, strategic HRM practices, commitment of the employees, incentives
provided and environmental infrastructure promote employee’s PEB (Erdogan et al., 2015;
Paillé et al., 2014; Lamm et al., 2015; Cantor et al., 2012; Graves et al., 2013; Holland et al.,
2006), whereas, others have suggested conscientiousness, subjective norms, motivation and
positive affect as the predictors of such behavior (Kim et al., 2017; Graves et al., 2013;
Bissing-Olson et al., 2013). However, hardly a few studies have highlighted the role of
organizational environmental policy toward employees’ engagement in PEB. In this aspect,
direct and indirect links (through normative beliefs) have been examined (Raineri and Paillé,
2016). A detailed review of the growing literature on employee’s PEB shows that this area is
still in its formative years and the mechanism through which PEB can be promoted among
employees is not yet properly explained (Tian and Robertson, 2017; Robertson and Barling,
2015).
Given that, this study attempted to examine the mechanism between perceived corporate
social responsibility (CSR) and employees’ engagement in PEB through organizational
identification (OI) with the moderating role of empathy. CSR of an organization
encompasses all the social and environmental practices and policies that are followed to
increase the welfare of all stakeholders (Turker, 2009). First, we contend that the employees
identify themselves with their organization if the pro-environmental activities being
followed by them and their organization is in congruence with each other. When they
evaluate their organization as socially responsible, they feel themselves more identified with
them. Such employees see their organizational goals, values and practices at par with their
own. The employees who get involved in the pro-environmental and socially responsible
activities would behave accordingly by engaging in PEB. These arguments can be
explained from the perspective of social identity theory (Ashforth and Mael, 1989). Second,
we argue that empathy moderates the relationship between CSR and OI. Empathy is defined
as an individual’s understanding about the feelings of others for something. It comprises
cognitive and emotional components (Batson, 2009). According to Detert et al. (2008),
empathy engages employees morally. Drawing from the same notion, this study argues that
employees with a greater empathy are more likely to be identified and involved in PEB
particularly when they see a greater involvement of their organization (hospitality sector in
this study) in CSR.
Hospitality sector of Pakistan is known as environmentally polluted and socially
neglected (Dawn, 2017). The constituent organizations have started concerted efforts in
improving the situation. Two major factors have led the organizations to start
contemplating toward improving environmental concerns. First, there is a significant
improvement in combating terrorism in Pakistan. According to the Global Terrorism Index,
the country has witnessed third largest decline in terrorism worldwide (GTI, 2015). Second,
the government of Pakistan is trying hard to ensure safe and successful execution of China
MRR Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) Project. These factors indicate a significant increase in
42,3 the demand for the hospitality services in Pakistan. Consequently, it has become essential to
study PEB in the context of Pakistani hotel industry (Awan and Abbasi, 2013). Therefore,
we aim to fill above-highlighted gaps by analyzing data from the supervisors and their
subordinates working at hotels in Pakistan.

334 Theoretical background and hypotheses

Micro-foundations of CSR
Over the last two decades, CSR has been studied extensively. Researchers have identified
that it has micro and macro level effects on several important factors that explain
organizational behavior (Vlachos et al., 2014). Initially, researchers focused on the macro
level impacts of CSR activities on the organization. For instance, CSR influences
organizational reputation (Brammer and Pavelin, 2006), firm value (Servaes and Tamayo,
2013), corporate identity (Lamond et al., 2010), financial performance (Orlitzky et al., 2003)
and environmental performance (Stanwick and Stanwick, 1998). Nonetheless, in current
times, researchers have diverted their attention toward micro-level impacts of CSR
(Morgeson et al., 2013; Aguinis and Glavas, 2012). For example, Morgeson et al. (2013)
initiated to emerge the idea of micro-foundations of CSR activities. In preview of current
literature, perceived CSR influences employees’ in-role and extra-role behavior (Korschun
et al., 2014; Vlachos et al., 2014), such as commitment and identification toward organization
(Kim et al., 2010; De Roeck et al., 2016; Carmeli et al., 2007; Brammer et al., 2007), job
satisfaction (Valentine and Fleischman, 2008) and firm attractiveness (Jones et al., 2014;
Rupp et al., 2013).
Vlachos et al. (2014) have extended the notion that “employee positively respond to CSR”
to explain that “employees’ do get engaged in extra-role behaviors”. Specifically, employees’
judgment of their company's involvement in environment-related CSR activities positively
influence their engagement and they embrace their organization’s overall CSR related
programs (Vlachos et al., 2014). This study suggests that employees’ perception of their
organization’s involvement in CSR activities engage them to their organization’s CSR
programs. Similarly, employees PEB (a type of extra-role behaviors) may also relate to CSR
(Boiral, 2009). Hence, it is important to know that when and how perceived CSR affects
employees’ engagement in PEB. Thus, this study extends the Vlachos et al.’s (2014) model
by suggesting that CSR may also effect employees’ PEB, which is a specific behavior and
support CSR activities.

CSR perceptions foster organizational identification (OI)

The variable OI is derived from social identity theory (SIT) and self-categorization theory
(Ashforth and Mael, 1989; Haslam and Ellemers, 2005; Tajfel and Turner, 1986). OI is
defined as “the degree to which a member defines him or herself by the same attributes that
he/she believes define the organization”. According to SIT and self-categorization theory,
employees desire to enhance their self-esteem and self-concept needs (Farooq et al., 2017).
Therefore, when the employees’ internal (employee’s perception about the organization) and
external images (perception of outsiders about the organization in the eyes of an employee)
improve, they view their organizational image as more attractive and feel proud to identify
themselves with their organization (Dutton et al., 1994). The evaluation of employees about
their organization is highly influenced by CSR perception (Farooq et al., 2017). An
organizational internal and external outlook is influenced by employees’ CSR perception
because the outlook of the organization helps them to appear distinctive (Glavas and
Godwin, 2013). Pro-environmental, as well as socially responsible organizations, have great
value because of their attribute of being distinct (Jones et al., 2014; Glavas and Godwin, Environmental
2013). External stakeholders evaluate such organizations as different in comparison to non- CSR
social and environmentally irresponsible organizations (Brammer et al., 2014). Employees
feel a sense of self-distinctiveness when they are associated with an organization that is
perceived as unique in the eyes of employees (Dutton et al., 1994). The employees match
their values with their organization’s values to strengthen their pride to work for a
distinctive and reputable organization (Kim et al., 2010; Dutton et al., 1994). This
sequentially magnifies their self-respect (Brammer et al., 2014) and self-sufficiency, as 335
employees virtually feel the reflection of distinction of organizations in their selves (Jones
et al., 2014). To reach the stage of uniqueness, self-continuity and self-enrichment, the
employee will try to inculcate unique organizational attributes into their selves.
The above theoretical discussion supports that pro-environmental and socially
responsible organizations are a source of attraction for potential employees (Jones et al.,
2014; Rupp et al., 2013), as they presumably identify themselves with that type of
organizations (Brammer et al., 2014; Kim et al., 2010; De Roeck et al., 2016). Therefore, it is
hypothesized that:

H1. Perceived CSR has a positive association with identification.

Moderating role of empathy

The focus of many recent studies on organizational behavior is to examine the association
between perceived CSR and OI in respect of their boundary conditions. For instance, Farooq
et al. (2017) identified that the employees’ cultural and social orientation depends on the
extent to which they can identify themselves with their organization based on their CSR
perceptions. Likewise, the findings of De Roeck et al. (2016) disclosed that employees of
socially and pro-environmental organizations are more inclined toward their firms when
they perceive that their organizations are intrinsically fair in CSR activities. The concept of
empathy is described as a potential to comprehend other individual and caring by sharing
feelings with others (Batson and Shaw, 1991). Empathy is split into two parts: emotional and
cognitive (Mencl and May, 2009; Duan and Hill, 1996). Emotional empathy is defined as, “the
oriented emotional response elicited by and congruent with the perceived welfare of
someone in need (Batson, 2008, p. 8)”. On the other hand, cognitive empathy expresses an
individual’s potential to capture the prospect of those things that are in need (Batson and
Shaw, 1991). Thus, the emotional and cognitive segments of empathy lead to help those who
are in need (Batson, 2009).
Literature in management studies provides sufficient evidence to support that empathy
engages the employees morally (Detert et al., 2008). This helps them in ethical decision-
making (Mencl and May, 2009; Dietz and Kleinlogel, 2014) and promotes ethical behavior
(Verbeke and Bagozzi, 2002). Therefore, considering the emotional and cognitive
components of empathy, it is proposed that employees’ identity depends on their degree of
perception about organizational pro-environmental and social behaviors. Employees with
high empathetic behavior are more likely to exhibit their helpful feelings for others and
assume that they would also feel the same for others (Batson, 1990, 2008). The literature also
shows that the employees realize the feelings of empathy for others even when they are
outside their work-settings (Muller et al., 2014). The employees who are more sensitive
toward their organization’s CSR perceptions are more likely to be influenced by the feelings
of others in need outside the organization, as CSR concentrates on elevating the prosperity of
stakeholder outside the organization (Turker, 2009). However, this sensitivity is dependent
on the extent to which an employee identifies himself with his organization.
MRR The employees with low empathetic feelings react at a very low level about the welfare of
42,3 others. The feeling of such employees toward the welfare of external stakeholders is also
very low and weak. Hence, this study purports that the relationship between the perception
of CSR and organizational identification gets moderated by the level of empathy felt by an
employee. It is proposed that:

H2. The relationship between perceived CSR and identification is moderated by

336 empathy.

Organizational identification and voluntary pro-environmental behavior

The studies about employees’ organizational identification (Mael and Ashforth, 1992; Jones,
2010; Brammer et al., 2014) show that when the employees start defining themselves as a
part of their organization, they reduce the differences between them and their employers.
This fosters the association between them and their organizations and helps to accomplish
the organization’s missions and goals. Consequently, employees are induced to personalize
organizational beliefs, values and goals (Mael and Ashforth, 1992; Ashforth et al., 2008), and
practice all those behaviors that are in accordance with such beliefs, values and goals (Jones,
2010; Ashforth and Mael, 1989). Recently, Farooq et al. (2017) suggested that employees
identify themselves with those organizations where employees’ benefits are treated
favorably.
The employees who identify themselves with their organizations are more interested in
the success of their organization. They promote all such activities that support their
organizations (Ashforth and Mael, 1989). Furthermore, keeping consistency with these
arguments, empirical studies have investigated the relationship of OI with several aspects of
OCB. These aspects of OCB include actions for protection of an organization (Newman et al.,
2016), applying extra effort (Bartel, 2001; Farooq et al., 2017), encouraging their
organizations for welfare of outside stakeholders (Newman et al., 2016; Jones, 2010; Farooq
et al., 2017) and cooperation with co-workers (Bartel, 2001). The success of an organization
can be achieved when employees’ voluntary PEB is compatible with the organizational pro-
environmental and social responsibilities, beliefs, values and goals (Boiral, 2009; Norton
et al., 2015).
The influence of employees’ PEB on the environmental performance of the firm is
documented by previous empirical studies (Paillé et al., 2014; Kennedy et al., 2015). These
studies show that the financial performance of firms is significantly increased with the help
of pro-environmental behavior at a workplace (Tam and Tam, 2008). For this reason, the
current study suggests that greater OI felt by an employee leads to a greater voluntary PEB
by him/her. Hence, the following hypothesis is developed:

H3. Identification is positively associated with pro-environmental behavior.

The mediating role of organizational identification

Based on the above discussion, it can be stated that perceived CSR has an indirect effect on
workplace PEB through OI. The concept is derived from Mael and Ashforth’s (1992) model
of OI. The model states that employees are influenced in different ways by their
management to get the organizational support. They are encouraged to identify themselves
with their organization. The model establishes a link between perceived CSR and the
behavior of the employees by stating that the former plays an important role in influencing
the employees’ propensity to identify themselves with their organization. This, in turn,
promotes the employees’ tendency to engage in various activities to support organization Environmental
(Tian and Robertson, 2017). Carmeli et al. (2007) suggested that employees feel proud to CSR
identify themselves with such an organization that, they perceive, is pro-environmental and
socially responsible and subsequently they provide a higher level of job performance. In
addition, Jones (2010) concluded that employees, who are proud to identify themselves with
their organization, give higher value to the organizational volunteer programs and show a
willingness to continue working with such organizations. Brammer et al. (2014)
demonstrated that because of the organizational identification, employees put creative 337
efforts, which are consequently related to CSR activities.
Succinctly, it is OI through which perceived CSR develops employee’s job-related
behaviors (Jones, 2010; Farooq et al., 2017). This study contends that OI performs a
mediating role between CSR and PEB relationships. Specifically, the employees’ perception
about their organizations’ involvement in environment-related social activities and benefits
toward stakeholders enable them to identify with their organizations; in turn, they are more
likely to engage in the environment-friendly behavior. Ramus and Steger (2000) in this
aspect suggests that the organization’s policies may indirectly affect their employees’
behavior. In addition, corporate policies (direct or indirect) are an important predictor of
workplace PEB (Raineri and Paillé, 2016). Hence, we hypothesize that:

H4. Identification mediates the association between CSR and PEB.

Moderating effect of empathy

Despite being an important factor in influencing pro-environmental behavior, empathy
remained a neglected variable. Schultz (2000) argued that the environment generates
empathy which ultimately affects PEB. The research in environment psychology
(Berenguer, 2007, 2008) noted that empathy leads to helping behaviors (e.g. empathy-
altruism). More specifically, empathetic individuals take care of natural environments
damaged through anthropogenic factors. Such feelings not only develop one’s attitude, but
also improve their behavior toward the quality of the environment. Supporting this notion, a
few of the studies have investigated the positive association between empathy and
environment-friendly behavior (Berenguer, 2007).
Drawing from the above theoretical arguments, we develop a hypothesis to understand
that how empathy moderates the association between perceived CSR and employees’ PEB.
We argue that empathetic employees are more likely to exhibit environment-friendly
behavior. Empathetic employees can feel more about environment-related welfare (Tian and
Robertson, 2017). Therefore, employees with greater organizational identification, which is
influenced by perceived CSR, are more likely to engage in PEB, as they are concerned about
environmental related welfare. On the other side, employees with low empathy do not feel
for the welfare of their environment, even when environments harm them, thereby exhibit
careless behavior toward the environment. Based on these arguments, we hypothesized that:

H5. The association between CSR and PEB is moderated by empathy.

Methods
Sample and procedure
We collected the data from supervisors and subordinates working with four- and five-star
hotels located in the three big metropolitan cities of Pakistan, namely Islamabad, Lahore and
Karachi, considering the potential common method variance (CMV) concerns (Islam and
MRR Tariq, 2018; Podsakoff et al., 2012; Islam and Ahmed, 2018) (Figure 1). Employees were
42,3 evaluated by their supervisors and vice versa. This method of data collection is suitable in
the hotel industry as both have to work alongside each other, thereby allowing the
supervisors to observe PEB of the subordinates as well. The main reason to select only four-
and five-star hotels is their greater concern toward PEB.
We first met with the Human Resource (HR) managers of the hotels and briefed them
338 about the purpose of the study. They were requested to select supervisors and subordinates
randomly. We were sent to the selected participants. The participants were briefed about the
research study before asking them to fill up the questionnaires. A total of 500 questionnaires
(i.e. 250 subordinates and supervisors) were distributed among the participants of the
research study. In total, 201 complete pairs of questionnaires were returned (response rate
80.4 per cent). According to Hair et al. (2010), the sample size must follow the rule of 1:10. It
means that for one variable, there must be 10 observations. In this study, there are six
variables altogether. This includes the three control/demographic variables. According to
the above-mentioned rule, there must be at least 60 observations. In our study, the number of
observations are 402. It means that the sample we have is sufficiently large. From the
sample of subordinates, 146 (72.6 per cent) were male. Most of them had work-experience of
more than five years (n = 153, 76.1 per cent) and 62.6 per cent subordinates were in the age-
bracket of 26-30 years (i.e. n = 126, 62.6 per cent), whereas in the case of supervisors, 180
were male (i.e. 89.5 per cent), 79 per cent had an experience of more than 10 years and 65.7
per cent were in the age bracket of 36-40 years (i.e. n = 132, 65.7 per cent).

Measures
The scales used in this study were adapted from the previous studies. Although, the scales
were developed in English, however, we still conducted a pilot study to test its face validity.
Respondents were evaluated on a five-point Likert scale ranging from “1-strongly disagree
to 5-strongly agree”.

Corporate social responsibility

Perceived CSR was measured using a 12-item scale of Turker’s (2009). This scale measures
employees’ environmental related perceptions (i.e. “Our Company participates in activities,
which aim to protect and improve the quality of the natural environment”). We have
excluded the questions that focus on CSR measures related to employees and not
environment. The value of Cronbach’s alpha measuring the reliability of the scale for CSR
shows internal consistency with an alpha value of 0.79.

Organizational identification
Organizational identification was measured using the six-item scale of Mael and Ashforth
(1992). This scale is widely used in the literature of hotel industry. For example, Islam et al.
(2016) used the same scale on hotel employees in Malaysia and reported 0.86 as its internal
consistency. This study found the scale is reliable in Pakistani context as well and noted

Figure 1.
Proposed model
0.83 as its reliability. A sample item includes, “This organization’s successes are my Environmental
successes”. CSR
Empathy
Empathy was measured through the shortened 10-item version of Davis’ (1983). This
shortened scale was used by Dietz and Kleinlogel’s (2014) and found reliable. In a recent
study, Tian and Robertson (2017) also used this scale and reported 0.74 as its internal 339
consistency. However, this study noted 0.78 as its internal consistency. A sample item
includes, “I sometimes find it difficult to see things from the other guy’s perspective”.

Workplace pro-environmental behavior

Workplace PEB has been conceptualized as environmental citizenship behavior (OCBE) by a
number of recent researchers such as Lamm et al.’s (2013) and Boiral and Paillé (2012). Lamm et
al.’s (2013) developed a 12-item scale to measure the same. Using the same scale, this study noted
0.81 as its reliability as this scale has already been tested in the hotel industry. A sample item
includes, He/She is a person who properly disposes of electronic waste.

Results
The values of the descriptive statistics and correlation coefficients showing associations
among the variables of the study are presented in Table I. The mean values of the variables
range between 3.49 and 3.92 with standard deviation ranging between 0.54 and 0.71. It can
be seen that some of the personal characteristics of the employees such as subordinates’ age
and work-experience are positively and significantly related to PEB (r = 0.12, p < 0.05) and
OI (r = 0.15, p < 0.05), respectively. Furthermore, perceived CSR was found to be
significantly associated with PEB (r = 0.58, p < 0.01). The association between CSR and OI
is positive but weak (r = 0.18, p < 0.05). The association between CSR and empathy is
positive but moderate (r = 0.46, p < 0.01). Whereas, a non-significant association was
observed between OI and empathy (r = 0.07, p > 0.05). The values of Cronbach’s alpha are
presented in parenthesis in the diagonal in Table I. These values are greater than the

Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1. Subordinate – – 1
age
2. Subordinate – – 0.03 1
gender
3. Subordinate – – 0.34** 0.05 1
experience
4. Supervisor age – – 0.06 0.03 0.07 1
5. Supervisor – – 0.18* 0.02 0.14* 0.06 1
gender
6. Supervisor – – 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.51** 0.07 1
experience
7. CSR 3.92 0.54 0.08 0.05 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.07 (0.79)
8. PEB 3.61 0.68 0.12* 0.07 0.04 0.05 0.09 0.02 0.58** (0.81)
9. OI 3.84 0.63 0.01 0.05 0.15* 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.18* 0.26** (0.83)
10. Empathy 3.49 0.71 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.08 0.09 0.03 0.46** 0.07 0.39** (0.78)
Table I.
Notes: CSR = corporate social responsibility; PEB = Pro-environmental behavior; OI = organizational Descriptive statistics
identification; ** p < 0.01; *p < 0.05; () = internal consistency and correlation
MRR threshold value of 0.70. These values of Cronbach’s alpha indicate that the scales used to
42,3 measure CSR, PEB, OI and empathy have internal consistency.
We have estimated the mediating effect of OI between perceived CSR and PEB using
hierarchical regression method by Baron and Kenny (1986). Before estimating the proposed
model using Baron and Kenny method, the data were tested for normality. The coefficients of
skewness for all the variables are within the acceptable range. It implies that the Baron and
340 Kenny (1986) method is appropriate for the data collected for this study. Any other estimation
technique such as generalized least square (GLS) is not an appropriate estimator for this data,
because there is no evidence of heteroskedasticity or autocorrelation among the residuals. The
data are collected using a five-point Likert scale. The spread around mean values varies from 0.54
to 0.71, which indicates that there is not much variation in the data. However, we have conducted
Breusch-Pagan Test to test for the presence of heteroskedasticity for all variables. The Chi-square
values turned out to be insignificant. Hence, the findings of the tests indicate that the data are
homoscedastic. There is no time component in the data. Responses have been collected from a
cross-section of employees of the hospitality industry. Hence, there is no possibility for the
residuals being serially correlated. OLS being the most appropriate estimator has been applied to
get best, linear and unbiased (BLU) estimates.
First, direct associations between the variables were measured and then hierarchical
regression was performed. The demographical variables were treated as the control variables, as
these may affect PEB (Krettenauer, 2017). Perceived CSR was found to have a significant impact
on PEB (b = 0.47, p < 0.01) in the second step. In the third step, the impact of OI on PEB was
found to be positive and significant (b = 0.59, p < 0.01). When OI (the mediator) was introduced
in the model, the effect of perceived CSR became weak. It can be seen that in Step 2, the coefficient
of perceived CSR is 0.47 (p < 0.01) but after introducing OI as the mediator in the model, the
coefficient of perceived CSR has been reduced to 0.29 (p < 0.01). This shows that OI partially
mediates the association between CSR and PEB (Table II). F-values (given in Table II) for all three
estimated models indicate that the models are a good fit with p < 0.001.
Next, the moderating effect of empathy on the relationship between perceived CSR and OI is
estimated. The results are presented in Table III. To measure the effect of empathy as a
moderator, an interaction term of empathy and perceived CSR was introduced in the regression

Pro-environmental behavior
Variables M1 ( b ) M2 ( b ) M3 ( b )

Control variable
Gender 0.02 0.03 0.01
Age 0.06 0.04 0.00
Experience 0.03 0.01 0.006
Independent variable
Perceived CSR 0.47** 0.29**
Mediating variable
Organizational Identification 0.59**
Observations 402 402 402
R2 0.03 0.24 0.53
Table II. DR2 0.21 0.29
Hierarchical F-Value (p-value) 48.2029 (0.00) 57.93 (0.00) 74.02 (0.00)
regression for
mediation Notes: *Indicates p < 0.05; ** indicates p < 0.001
 (1) OI (2) PEB
Environmental
Variable b Se t b Se t CSR
Step 1: Control variables
Age 0.01 0.071 0.91 0.07 0.052 0.76
Gender 0.07 0.92 0.48 0.05 0.069 0.38
Experience 0.05 0.063 0.58 0.04 0.083 0.91
R2 0.05 0.06 341
F-Value 18.84 21.98
Step2: Independent and moderating variables
CSR 0.55** 0.073 5.86 0.05 0.084 4.97
Empathy 0.49** 0.041 4.57 -0.02 0.12 0.49
OI – – – 0.19** 0.043 11.14
R2 0.19 0.29
DR 2
0.14 0.25
F-Value 41.73 67.99
Step 3: Interaction term
CSR * Empathy 0.34** 0.063 7.57 – – –
OI * Empathy – – – 0.22** 0.046 10.41
R2 0.37 0.49
DR 2
0.18 0.2
Observations 402 402
Table III.
F-Value 69.18 58.15 Hierarchical
regression for
Notes: *Indicates p < 0.05; **Indicates p < 0.001 moderation

model developed to estimate the effect of perceived CSR on OI. The results show a positive
association of perceived CSR (b = 0.55, P < 0.01) and empathy ( b = 0.49, P < 0.01) with OI.
The coefficient of the interaction term (CSR*empathy) was found to be significant (b = 0.34,
p < 0.01). This shows that empathy moderates the effect of perceived CSR on OI.
Similarly, the moderating effect of empathy on the association between CSR and PEB
was examined. The estimation results are presented in Table III, column 2. The results show
that the effect of OI on PEB is positive and significant ( b = 0.19, P < 0.01), but the effect of
empathy on PEB was found to be insignificant ( b = 0.02, p > 0.05). The coefficient of the
interaction term of empathy*OI was estimated to be positive and significant ( b = 0.22, p <
0.01). This indicates that empathy does moderate the effect of OI on PEB.
Further, the conditional effects of empathy were examined using a two-factor slope
graph. The slopes of lines in Figures 2 and 3 indicate that employees with a high level of
empathy strongly exhibit their organizational identification when they perceive their
organizational involvement in environment-related social activities (supporting suggested
hypothesis H2). In addition, employees who are more empathetic exhibit more environment-
friendly behavior (i.e. PEB) when they identify themselves with their organization to a
greater extent (supporting suggested hypothesis H5).

Discussion
Considering the potential benefits of the voluntary PEB for the employees, organizations
and environment, the researchers aim to investigate it further. Although, many studies have
been done to identify the predictors of workplace PEB, but studies that explain the
mechanism through which these antecedents affect employees’ responsible behaviors are
MRR missing in the literature (Norton et al., 2015). Extending the existing literature, we aim at
42,3 examining how and when CSR affects employee involvement in PEB. The results of the
study confirmed all the hypotheses. Supporting the findings of previous studies, we
observed that the employees’ perceptions about their organization’s involvement in
environmentally responsible activities enhance their identification toward their organization
(i.e. OI). In addition, we found that empathetic employees strongly develop identification
342 with their organization because of perceived CSR. The present study also shows that
organizational identification mediates the effect of CSR on the employees’ environment-
friendly behavior (i.e. PEB). Finally, we found empathy as a moderator on the association
between OI and employees’ PEB. These results contribute to the growing literature on
employees PEB by suggesting perceived CSR as its antecedent and OI and empathy as the
mediator and moderator respectively on the relationship between perceived CSR and PEB.

Theoretical implications
Our study contributes to the growing literature on PEB in multiple ways. First, considering
the recent studies (Raineri and Paillé, 2016; Norton et al., 2014) PEB may be routed from
employer's social responsible behaviors. In other words, perceived CSR is a predictor of
PEB. Second, we extend the research by Norton et al. (2015) by explaining the mechanism
through which the variation in workplace PEB can be explained. Following the same, we
have also explained how the implementation of policies impact an employee’s behavior
(Tian and Robertson, 2017). Simply, we found that employees’ perception about their firm’s
involvement in environment-related social activities positively contributes toward their

Figure 2.
Moderating role of
empathy on CSR-OI
relationship

Figure 3.
Moderating role of
empathy on OI-PEB
relationship
organizational identification, in turn, employees exhibit friendlier environment-related Environmental
behaviors. Third, we also found that an employee’s environment-related behavior depends CSR
upon empathetic concern. More specifically, employees, who feel more about the welfare of
the natural environment, are more likely to exhibit PEB. In brief, our study puts forward the
individual-level and organizational-level factors as predictors and presents the mechanism
through which PEB can be explained.
Our study also contributes to the existing literature on micro-foundations of CSR and
extends the study [Vlachos et al. (2014) which suggests CSR alters the employee’s behavior] 343
by suggesting the indirect effect between perceived CSR and an employee’s individual
behavior. Specifically, we suggest that organizational identification, to some extent, is the
route toward employees’ engagement. In addition, our study contributes to the existing
studies on CSR and OI that seek to investigate the boundary conditions (Farooq et al., 2017;
De Roeck et al., 2016). Thus, identifying empathy as a boundary condition, this study
provides a better understanding of the association between CSR-OI. Specifically, we found
that empathy can alter the way CSR impacts OI. Finally, we followed the call of Dietz and
Kleinlogel (2014) to expand the literature on empathy in management research by
empirically investigating its moderating role between variables. Particular to this, our focus
was on how empathy can interact with perceived environment-related social activities to
predict employees’ organizational identification and environment-friendly behavior. Thus,
we found that empathy plays a vital role in developing/modifying the employees’ behavior.

Practical implications
Our study has implications for the managers, organizations and policymakers. It
demonstrates that employees’ perception about their organization’s involvement in
environment-related social responsibilities reciprocates the organizations through invoking
PEB among their employees. Therefore, organizations that aim at increasing their
employees’ environment-related performance should not only participate in environmental
related social activities but also try to let their employees know about these activities. The
organizations can arrange meetings, workshops or seminars to promote the awareness
toward their CSR activities. The findings of this study have economic and commercial
implications as well. Millions can be saved by using the resources efficiently and by
developing the concern toward environment protection. It has been observed the employee’s
PEB developed in the workplace is not exclusive for workplace. A good habit learnt is
applied wherever it is needed. The employees exhibit this behavior in all settings (e.g. home,
social gatherings, etc.). This may contribute toward improving the quality of life
significantly. In addition, considering the benefits of OI for the employees such as
performance and extra efforts and commitment (Farooq et al., 2017; Islam et al., 2016;
Korschun et al., 2014), we suggest organizations to foster their employees’ identification
toward their organization through CSR.
Finally, the results of the study regarding the indirect effect of CSR on PB through OI, and
the moderating role of empathy on CSR-OI and OI-PEB associations provide training
implications for the organizations. In particular, our study suggests that empathetic
employees tend to exhibit their organizational identification to be engaged in environment-
related behaviors when they perceive their organization’s involvement in environment-
related social responsible activities. These findings imply that the organizations interested in
promoting the environment-friendly behavior among their employees need to train them for
being more empathetic along with developing the pro-environmental activities. According to
Hatcher et al. (1994) employees who receive training for empathy take things in a greater
perspective (it is a cognitive component of empathy). In addition, they start considering the
MRR externalities associated with every decision of the company. Hence, we suggest that the
42,3 organizations must focus on training their employees to be more empathetic.

Limitations of the study

Despite providing several contributions, the study is not free from limitations. First, we
collected data from the hospitality sector (i.e. hotels only) in Pakistan, which limits the
344 generalizability of the study only to this sector. Thus, other industries and sectors need to be
considered. The hospitality industry is unique in its nature (e.g. usage of air-conditioner,
wastage of food, disposal of leftover food, etc.). Therefore, we cannot generalize the results to
other sectors. Further, some of the employees (on ethical grounds) may have a paradoxical
approach regarding environmentally responsible activities, thereby may affect the
conducted research. Theories on cross-cultural studies have suggested that employees
perceive and react differently on the basis of their cultural values (Rupp et al., 2013; Islam
et al., 2018). Particular to CSR, Thanetsunthorn and Wuthisatian (2016) noted that CSR and
corporate governance are related and this link varies as per national culture. Therefore, the
nature of the results might be different in other cultural contexts.
Second, the data of our study were collected at one point of time, which may restrict to
develop causality (Aguinis and Glavas, 2012; Ahmad, Islam and Saleem, 2018). Therefore,
for further research in this area, it is suggested to conduct longitudinal studies. Third,
although we collected data on employees’ PEB through supervisors to deal with the issue of
common method bias (further, procedural measures were also followed regarding
randomization and anonymity), the supervisor’s rating of the employees’ PEB (which is
similar to citizenship behavior) may be affected because of management's impression and
this may be developed on the basis of halo effect (Bolino et al., 2006). In addition, supervisors
may not be able to see entire environmentally responsible behaviors of their subordinates on
a regular basis (Tian and Robertson, 2017); therefore, it is suggested to use multiple sources
to collect data on employees’ workplace PEB.
Fourth, most of the respondents of this study were males. Despite the fact that Pakistani
culture is a male-dominant society and most of the women work as housewives, the results
of the study may be gender-biased (Islam et al., 2016). It is, therefore, suggested to take an
equal number of male and female respondents as employees’ PEB vary on the basis of
gender (Krettenauer, 2017).
Finally, we suggest to the future researchers to consider other mediating and moderating
variables in understanding the mechanism between perceived CSR and PEB. For example,
pro-environmental work climate may be used to explain the above-stated association. In
addition, environment-specific leaders may also impact on the environment-related issues
(Robertson and Barling, 2013) (Appendix).

References
Aguinis, H. and Glavas, A. (2012), “What we know and don’t know about corporate social responsibility
a review and research agenda”, Journal of Management, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 932-968.
Ahmad, R., Islam, T. and Saleem, S. (2018), “How commitment and satisfaction explain leave intention
in police force?”, Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management,
available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/PIJPSM-12-2017-0154
Andersson, L., Jackson, S.E. and Russell, S.V. (2013), “Greening organizational behavior: an
introduction to the special issue”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 151-155.
Ashforth, B.E. and Mael, F. (1989), “Social identity theory and the organization”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 20-39.
Ashforth, B.E., Harrison, S.H. and Corley, K.G. (2008), “Identification in organizations: an Environmental
examination of four fundamental questions”, Journal of Management, Vol. 34 No. 3,
pp. 325-374.
CSR
Awan, U. and Abbasi, S. (2013), “Environmental sustainability through determinism the level of
environmental awareness, knowledge and behavior among business graduates”, Research
Journal of Environmental and Earth Sciences, Vol. 5 No. 9, pp. 505-515.
Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), “The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations”, Journal of 345
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 1173-1182.
Bartel, C.A. (2001), “Social comparisons in boundary-spanning work: effects of community outreach on
members’ organizational identity and identification”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 46
No. 3, pp. 379-413.
Batson, C.D. (1990), “Self-report ratings of empathic emotion”, in Eisenberg N. and Strayer J. (Eds),
Empathy and its Development, Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 356-360.
Batson, C.D. (2008), “Empathy-induced altruism motivation”, Paper presented at the Inaugrual Herzliya
Symposium on “Prosocial Motives, Emotions and Behavior”, Herzliya.
Batson, C.D. (2009), “These things called empathy: eight related but distinct phenomena”, in Decety, J.
and Ickes, W. (Eds), The Social Neuroscience of Empathy, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 3-15.
Batson, C.D. and Shaw, L.L. (1991), “Encouraging words concerning the evidence for altruism”,
Psychological Inquiry, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 159-168.
Berenguer, J. (2007), “The effect of empathy in pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors”,
Environment and Behavior, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 269-283.
Berenguer, J. (2008), “The effect of empathy in environmental moral reasoning”, Environment and
Behavior, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 110-134.
Bissing-Olson, M., Iyer, A., Fielding, S. and Zacher, H. (2013), “Relationships between daily affect and
pro-environmental behavior at work: the moderating role of pro-environmental attitude”, Journal
of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 156-175.
Boiral, O. (2009), “Greening the corporation through organizational citizenship behaviors”, Journal of
Business Ethics, Vol. 87 No. 2, pp. 221-236.
Boiral, O. and Paillé, P. (2012), “Organizational citizenship behavior for the environment: measurement
and validation”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 109 No. 4, pp. 431-445.
Bolino, M.C., Varela, J.A., Bande, B. and Turnley, W.H. (2006), “The impact of impression management
tactics on supervisor ratings of organizational citizenship behavior”, Journal of Organizational
Behavior, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 281-297.
Brammer, S.J. and Pavelin, S. (2006), “Corporate reputation and social performance: the importance of
fit”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 435-455.
Brammer, S., He, H. and Mellahi, K. (2014), “Corporate social responsibility, employee organizational
identification, and creative effort: the moderating impact of corporate ability”, Group and
Organization Management, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 323-352.
Brammer, S., Millington, A. and Rayton, B. (2007), “The contribution of corporate social responsibility
to organizational commitment”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management,
Vol. 18 No. 10, pp. 1701-1719.
Cantor, D.E., Morrow, P.C. and Montabon, F. (2012), “Engagement in environmental behaviors among
supply chain management employees: an organizational support theoretical perspective”,
Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 33-51.
Carmeli, A., Gilat, G. and Waldman, D.A. (2007), “The role of perceived organizational performance in
organizational identification, adjustment and job performance”, Journal of Management Studies,
Vol. 44 No. 6, pp. 972-992.
MRR Davis, M.H. (1983), “Measuring individual differences in empathy: evidence for a multidimensional
approach”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 113-126.
42,3
De Roeck, K., El Akremi, A. and Swaen, V. (2016), “Consistency matters! How and when does corporate
social responsibility affect employees’ organizational identification?”, Journal of Management
Studies, Vol. 53 No. 7, pp. 1141-1168.
Detert, J.R., Trevin~o, L.K. and Sweitzer, V.L. (2008), “Moral disengagement in ethical decision
making: a study of antecedents and outcomes”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 93 No. 2,
346 p. 374.
Dietz, J. and Kleinlogel, E.P. (2014), “Wage cuts and managers’ empathy: how a positive emotion can
contribute to positive organizational ethics in difficult times”, Journal of Business Ethics,
Vol. 119 No. 4, pp. 461-472.
Duan, C. and Hill, C.E. (1996), “The current state of empathy research”, Journal of Counseling
Psychology, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 261-274.
Dutton, J.E., Dukerich, J.M. and Harquail, C.V. (1994), “Organizational images and member
identification”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 239-263.
Erdogan, B., Bauer, T.N. and Taylor, S. (2015), “Management commitment to the ecological
environment and employees: implications for employee attitudes and citizenship behaviors”,
Human Relations, Vol. 68 No. 11, pp. 1669-1691.
Farooq, O., Rupp, D. and Farooq, M. (2017), “The multiple pathways through which internal and
external corporate social responsibility influence organizational identification and multifoci
outcomes: the moderating role of cultural and social orientations”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 60 No. 3, pp. 954-985.
Glavas, A. and Godwin, L.N. (2013), “Is the perception of ‘goodness’ good enough? Exploring the
relationship between perceived corporate social responsibility and employee organizational
identification”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 114 No. 1, pp. 15-27.
Graves, L.M., Sarkis, J. and Zhu, Q. (2013), “How transformational leadership and employee motivation
combine to predict employee proenvironmental behaviors in China”, Journal of Environmental
Psychology, Vol. 35, pp. 81-91.
GTI (2015), “Global terrorism index”, available at: http://economicsandpeace.org/wp-content/uploads/
2015/11/Global-Terrorism-Index-2015.pdf (accessed 9 January 2018).
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. and Tatham, R.L. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis,
Pearson, London.
Haslam, S.A. and Ellemers, N. (2005), “Social identity in industrial and organizational psychology:
concepts, controversies and contributions”, International Review of Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 39-118.
Hatcher, S.L., Nadeau, M.S., Walsh, L.K., Reynolds, M., Galea, J. and Marz, K. (1994), “The teaching of
empathy for high school and college students: testing Rogerian methods with the interpersonal
reactivity index”, Adolescence, Vol. 29 No. 116, pp. 961-974.
Holland, R.W., Aarts, H. and Langendam, D. (2006), “Breaking and creating habits on the working floor:
a field-experiment on the power of implementation intentions”, Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, Vol. 42 No. 6, pp. 776-783.
Islam, T. and Ahmed, I. (2018), “Mechanism between perceived organizational support and transfer of
training: explanatory role of self-efficacy and job satisfaction”, Management Research Review,
Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 296-313.
Islam, T. and Tariq, J. (2018), “Learning organizational environment and extra-role behaviors: the
mediating role of employee engagement”, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 37 No. 3,
pp. 258-270.
Islam, T., Ahmed, I. and Ali, G. (2018), “Effects of ethical leadership on bullying and voice
behavior among nurses: mediating role of organizational identification, poor working
 condition and workload”, Leadership in Health Services, available at: https://doi.org/ Environmental
10.1108/LHS-02-2017-0006
CSR
Islam, T., Ahmed, I., Ali, G. and Sadiq, T. (2016), “Behavioral and psychological consequences of
corporate social responsibility: need of the time”, Social Responsibility Journal, Vol. 12 No. 2,
pp. 307-320.
Jones, D.A. (2010), “Does serving the community also serve the company? Using organizational
identification and social exchange theories to understand employee responses to a
volunteerism programme”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 83 347
No. 4, pp. 857-878.
Jones, D.A., Willness, C.R. and Madey, S. (2014), “Why are job seekers attracted by corporate social
performance? Experimental and field tests of three signal-based mechanisms”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 57 No. 2, pp. 383-404.
Kennedy, S., Whiteman, G. and Williams, A. (2015), “Sustainable innovation at interface: workplace
pro-environmental behavior as a collective driver for continuous improvement”, in Robertson,
J.L. and Barling, J. (Eds), The Psychology of Green Organizations, Oxford University Press,
New York, NY, pp. 351-377.
Kim, A., Kim, Y., Han, K., Jackson, S.E. and Ployhart, R.E. (2017), “Multilevel influences on voluntary
workplace green behavior: individual differences, leader behavior, and coworker advocacy”,
Journal of Management, Vol. 43 No. 5, pp. 1335-1358.
Kim, H.R., Lee, M., Lee, H.T. and Kim, N.M. (2010), “Corporate social responsibility and employee-
company identification”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 95 No. 4, pp. 557-569.
Kollmuss, A. and Agyeman, J. (2010), “Mind the gap: why do people act environmentally and what are
the barriers to pro-environmental behavior?”, Environmental Education Research, Vol. 8 No. 3,
pp. 239-260.
Korschun, D., Bhattacharya, C.B. and Swain, S.D. (2014), “Corporate social responsibility, customer
orientation, and the job performance of frontline employees”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 78 No. 3,
pp. 20-37.
Krettenauer, T. (2017), “Pro-Environmental behavior and adolescent moral development”, Journal of
Research on Adolescence, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 581-593.
Lamm, E., Tosti-Kharas, J. and Williams, E.G. (2013), “Read this article, but don’t print it: organizational
citizenship behavior toward the environment”, Group and Organization Management, Vol. 38
No. 2, pp. 163-197.
Lamm, E., Tosti-Kharas, J. and King, C.E. (2015), “Empowering employee sustainability: perceived
organizational support toward the environment”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 128 No. 1,
pp. 207-220.
Lamond, D., Dwyer, R., Arendt, S. and Brettel, M. (2010), “Understanding the influence of corporate
social responsibility on corporate identity, image, and firm performance”, Management Decision,
Vol. 48 No. 10, pp. 1469-1492.
Mael, F. and Ashforth, B.E. (1992), “Alumni and their alma mater: a partial test of the reformulated model of
organizational identification”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 103-123.
Mencl, J. and May, D.R. (2009), “The effects of proximity and empathy on ethical decision-making: an
exploratory investigation”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 85 No. 2, pp. 201-226.
Morgeson, F.P., Aguinis, H., Waldman, D.A. and Siegel, D.S. (2013), “Extending corporate social
responsibility research to the human resource management and organizational behavior
domains: a look to the future”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 66 No. 4, pp. 805-824.
Muller, A.R., Pfarrer, M.D. and Little, L.M. (2014), “A theory of collective empathy in corporate
philanthropy decisions”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 1-21.
Newman, A., Miao, Q., Hofman, P.S. and Zhu, C.J. (2016), “The impact of socially responsible human
resource management on employees’ organizational citizenship behavior: the mediating role of
MRR organizational identification”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management,
Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 440-455.
42,3
Norton, T.A., Zacher, H. and Ashkanasy, N.M. (2014), “Organizational sustainability policies and
employee green behavior: the mediating role of work climate perceptions”, Journal of
Environmental Psychology, Vol. 38, pp. 49-54.
Norton, T.A., Parker, S.L., Zacher, H. and Ashkanasy, N.M. (2015), “Employee green behavior: a
348 theoretical framework, multilevel review, and future research agenda”, Organization and
Environment, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 103-125.
Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F.L. and Rynes, S.L. (2003), “Corporate social and financial performance: a meta-
analysis”, Organization Studies, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 403-441.
Paillé, P., Chen, Y., Boiral, O. and Jin, J. (2014), “The impact of human resource management on
environmental performance: an employee-level study”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 121 No. 3,
pp. 451-466.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2012), “Sources of method bias in social science
research and recommendations on how to control it”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 63,
pp. 539-569.
Raineri, N. and Paillé, P. (2016), “Linking corporate policy and supervisory support with environmental
citizenship behaviors: the role of employee environmental beliefs and commitment”, Journal of
Business Ethics, Vol. 137 No. 1, pp. 129-148.
Ramus, C.A. and Steger, U. (2000), “The roles of supervisory support behaviors and environmental
policy in employee eco-initiatives at leading-edge European companies”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 605-626.
Robertson, J.L. and Barling, J. (2013), “Greening organizations through leaders’ influence on employees’
pro-environmental behaviors”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 176-194.
Robertson, J.L. and Barling, J. (2015), “Introduction”, in Robertson, J.L. and Barling, J. (Eds), The
Psychology of Green Organizations, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, pp. 3-11.
Rupp, D.E., Shao, R., Thornton, M.A. and Skarlicki, D.P. (2013), “Applicants’ and employees’ reactions
to corporate social responsibility: the moderating effects of first-party justice perceptions and
moral identity”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 66 No. 4, pp. 895-933.
Schultz, P.W. (2000), “Empathizing with nature: toward a social cognitive theory of environmental
concern”, Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 56 No. 3, pp. 391-406.
Servaes, H. and Tamayo, A. (2013), “The impact of corporate social responsibility on firm value: the role
of customer awareness”, Management Science, Vol. 59 No. 5, pp. 1045-1061.
Stanwick, P.A. and Stanwick, S.D. (1998), “The relationship between corporate social performance,
organizational size, financial performance, and environmental performance: an empirical
examination”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 195-204.
Tajfel, H. and Turner, J.C. (1986), “The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. S. Worchel”,
Psychology of Intergroup Relations, Vol. 8, pp. 7-24.
Tam, V.W.Y. and Tam, C.M. (2008), “Waste reduction through incentives: a case study”, Building
Research and Information, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 37-43.
Thanetsunthorn, N. and Wuthisatian, R. (2016), “Current state of corporate governance: global business
and cultural analysis”, Management Research Review, Vol. 39 No. 11, pp. 1431-1446.
Tian, Q. and Robertson, J.L. (2017), “How and when does perceived CSR affect employees’ engagement
in voluntary pro-environmental behavior?”, Journal of Business Ethics, pp. 1-14, in press.
Turker, D. (2009), “Measuring corporate social responsibility: a scale development study”, Journal of
Business Ethics, Vol. 85 No. 4, pp. 411-427.
Valentine, S. and Fleischman, G. (2008), “Ethics programs, perceived corporate social responsibility and
job satisfaction”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 77 No. 2, pp. 159-172.
Verbeke, W. and Bagozzi, R.P. (2002), “A situational analysis on how salespeople experience Environmental
and cope with shame and embarrassment”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 9,
pp. 713-741. CSR
Vlachos, P.A., Panagopoulos, N.G. and Rapp, A.A. (2014), “Employee judgments of and behaviors
toward corporate social responsibility: a multi-study investigation of direct, cascading, and
moderating effects”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 35 No. 7, pp. 990-1017.

Corresponding author 349

Talat Islam can be contacted at: talatislam@yahoo.com
 42,3

350
MRR

Table AI.
Questionnaire
Appendix

Loading Reliability AVE

Environmental-CSR by Turker (2009)

CSR1 My organization participates in activities, which aim to protect and improve the quality of the natural 0.81 0.79 0.63
environment
CSR2 My organization makes investment to create a better life for future generations 0.79
CSR3 My organization targets sustainable growth, which considers future generations 0.85
CSR4 My organization implements special programs to minimize its negative impact on the natural environment 0.82
CSR5 My organization supports nongovernmental organizations working in problematic areas 0.77
CSR6 My organization encourages its employees to participate in voluntary activities 0.91
CSR7 My organization respects consumer rights beyond the legal requirements 0.76
CSR8 My organization contributes to campaigns and projects that aim to promote the well-being of the society 0.88
CSR9 My organization complies with legal regulations completely and promptly 0.78
CSR10 My organization always pays its taxes on a regular and continuing basis 0.72
CSR11 Customer satisfaction is highly important for my organization 0.69
CSR12 My organization provides full and accurate information about its product to its customers 0.68
Empathy by Davis (1983)
E1 I sometimes find it difficult to see things from the “other guy’s” perspective 0.94 0.78 0.66
E2 I sometimes try to understand my friends better by imagining how things look from their perspective 0.87
E3 When I’m upset at someone, I usually try to “put myself in his shoes” for a while 0.83
E4 Before criticizing somebody, I try to imagine how I would feel if I were in their place 0.80
E5 I often have tender, concerned feelings for people less fortunate than me 0.79
E6 Sometimes I don’t feel very sorry for other people when they are having problems 0.76
E7 When I see someone being taken advantage of, I feel kind of protective toward them 0.86
E8 Other people’s misfortunes do not usually disturb me a great deal 0.81
E9 When I see someone being treated unfairly, I sometimes don’t feel very much pity for them 0.73
E10 I am often quite touched by things I see happen 0.72
(continued)
 Loading Reliability AVE

Pro-environmental behavior by Lamm et al. (2013)

PEB1 He/She is a person who recycles bottles, cans and other containers 0.88 0.81 0.70
PEB2 He/She is a person who uses scrap paper for notes instead of fresh paper 0.84
PEB3 He/She is a person who prints double-sided 0.87
PEB4 He/She is a person who turns off lights when leaving office for any reason 0.91
PEB5 He/She is a person who recycles used paper 0.83
PEB6 He/She is a person who powers off computer when away for more than 3 hours 0.87
PEB7 He/She is a person who turns off the lights in a vacant room 0.78
PEB8 He/She is a person who powers down all desk electronics at the end of the day 0.79
PEB9 He/She is a person who uses a reusable water bottle instead of a paper cup at the water cooler or faucet 0.85
PEB10 He/She is a person who uses a reusable coffee cup instead of a paper cup 0.84
PEB11 He/She is a person who properly disposes of electronic waste 0.73
PEB12 He/She is a person who makes sure all of the lights are turned off if I am the last to leave 0.82
Organizational identification by Mael and Ashforth (1992)
OI1 When someone criticizes my organization, I feel like a personal insult 0.77 0.83 0.67
OI2 I am very interested in what others think about my organization 0.81
OI3 When I talked about my organization, I say “we” rather “they” 0.89
OI4 This organization’s successes are my successes 0.83
OI5 When someone appraises my organization, it feels like personal appraisal 0.76
OI6 If a story in media criticized my organization, I would feel embarrassed 0.83

Table AI.
Environmental

351
CSR